3rd State Declares Sovereignty From BATFE


Bohemian

New member
Alaska, Texas and now Montana...
New gun law aimed at asserting sovereignty

By KAHRIN DEINES - Associated Press - 04/16/09

Gov. Brian Schweitzer has signed into law a bill that aims to exempt Montana-made guns from federal regulation, adding firepower to a battery of legislative efforts to assert states’ rights across the nation.

“It’s a gun bill, but it’s another way of demonstrating the sovereignty of the state of Montana,” Democrat Schweitzer said.

Since the law applies only to those guns that are made and kept in Montana, its impact is limited. The state is home to just a handful of specialty gun makers, known for recreating rifles used to settle the West, and most of their customers are out-of-state.

But supporters of the new law hope it triggers a court case testing the legal basis for federal rules governing gun sales.

“What we need here is for Montana to be able to handle Montana’s business and affairs,” bill sponsor Rep. Joel Boniek, a Republican and wilderness guide from Livingston, told fellow lawmakers during the bill’s House debate.

The measure is one of many introduced by state lawmakers across the nation seeking to confront what some see as a federal overreach into state matters that will be extended with the national stimulus plan.
Along with the gun bill, Montana legislators are considering a resolution that affirms the 10th Amendment principle that the federal government only has those powers that are specifically given to it by the U.S. Constitution.

“The whole goal is to awaken the people so that we can return to a properly grounded republic,” Rep. Michael More, R-Gallatin Gateway and the Montana resolution’s sponsor, said at a House committee hearing Wednesday.

As many as fifteen other Legislatures have also been mulling resolutions that buck federal control in states such as New Hampshire, South Carolina, Missouri and Oklahoma.

“The balance has swung far to the extreme to the empowerment of the federal government, and to the harm of the individual states,” More said.

Opponents of the state sovereignty bids, however, warn they could give legitimacy to the kind of anti-government ideas that fueled the militia movement in Montana and elsewhere.

“When you really actually get in and look at it there is a lot of what we feel is very dangerous, very anti-government language that reads very similar to posters for the militia movement in the 1990s,” said Travis McAdam, the interim director of the Montana Human Rights Network, a group formed to oppose racism and extremism.

One of the few state Senators who voted against the gun bill — Sen. Christine Kaufmann, D-Helena — is that group’s director when the Legislature is not in session. She ties the bills’ proliferation to fears about the Democratic administration of President Barack Obama and stimulus spending.

“I do think that there is a kind of renewed vehemence to this kind of right-wing rhetoric being spewed by conservative talk show hosts to rile the troops and they are using the fact that we have a Democratic, black president as one of their rallying calls,” Kaufmann said.

The Montana bills are being sponsored by freshman legislators who ran as part of a broader effort to oust more moderate Republicans in last spring’s elections.

House Resolution 3, the one sponsored by More, follows another states’ rights declaration that deadlocked in the same committee earlier this session, although the committee’s chairman said it may have a shot on its second try.

House Bill 246, the Montana-made gun bill, cleared the Legislature easily before reaching the governor’s desk.

Its supporters next plan to find a “squeaky clean” Montanan who wants to send a note to the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives threatening to build and sell about 20 rifles without federal dealership licensing. If the ATF says it’s illegal, the gun bill’s backers plan to file a lawsuit in federal court with the goal of launching a legal showdown that lands in the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Montana Shooting Sports Association, which drafted the bill, has said it will raise the money to pay for any legal costs.

“It doesn’t cost us any money and I like guns,” Schweitzer said after signing the bill.

“I like big guns, I like little guns, I like pistols, I like rifles, and I would like to buy a gun that’s made in Montana,” Schweitzer said...

Link Removed

Push your representatives in Washington...

Its long over due to restore the Second Amendment to the UNABRIDGED SECOND AMENDMENT and to tell the Government to treat us like creatures of benign neglect and leave us the heck alone!

You can not read anything else into "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

give us our freedom back not another stinking bailout tax bill...
 

benjammin

New member
LOVE IT! What are the odds (question asked tongue-in-cheek) that PA would do something like this?

Probably about the same as the chances of MI doing it.

How cold does it get in MT? If it's not worse than here I might have to move soon.
 

Sheldon

New member
Probably about the same as the chances of MI doing it.
How cold does it get in MT? If it's not worse than here I might have to move soon.


So break down and contact your Representative about it.... I am... all it took was our calls to get our shall issue, to loosen the CEZ, to remove the green card AKA safety inspection's so start calling....
 

benjammin

New member
So break down and contact your Representative about it.... I am... all it took was our calls to get our shall issue, to loosen the CEZ, to remove the green card AKA safety inspection's so start calling....

Dude, I've repeatedly been all over Schauer, Levin and Stabenow over all this gun-related crap they keep trying, the best I ever get is a form letter saying "how concerned" they are about my views. Hopefully your rep is a little more attentive to his/her constituents, but mine just sits there and wastes my money. All the local demorats voted Schauer in after his predecessor (Wahlberg) actually voted AGAINST the first bailout! I congratulated him for that and voted for him, but we (sane people) are outnumbered in this area.
 

CathyInBlue

Tool Maker
Not entirely sure, but... I think Indiana is already like that... Let's see what you think:

IC 35-47-5
Chapter 5. Prohibited Instruments of Violence

[...]

IC 35-47-5-8
Machine gun
Sec. 8. A person who owns or possesses a machine gun commits a Class C felony.
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.32. Amended by P.L.104-2000, SEC.3; P.L.123-2002, SEC.43.

IC 35-47-5-9
Operating loaded machine gun
Sec. 9. A person who operates a loaded machine gun commits a Class B felony.
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.32. Amended by P.L.104-2000, SEC.4; P.L.123-2002, SEC.44.

IC 35-47-5-10

Applicability of statutes relating to machine guns
Sec. 10. The provisions of section 8 or 9 of this chapter shall not be construed to apply to any of the following:
(1) Members of the military or naval forces of the United States, National Guard of Indiana, or Indiana State Guard, when on duty or practicing.
(2) Machine guns kept for display as relics and which are rendered harmless and not usable.
(3) Any of the law enforcement officers of this state or the United States while acting in the furtherance of their duties.
(4) Persons lawfully engaged in the display, testing, or use of fireworks.
(5) Agencies of state government.
(6) Persons permitted by law to engage in the business of manufacturing, assembling, conducting research on, or testing machine guns, airplanes, tanks, armored vehicles, or ordnance equipment or supplies while acting within the scope of such business.
(7) Persons possessing, or having applied to possess, machine guns under applicable United States statutes. Such machine guns must be transferred as provided in this article.
(8) Persons lawfully engaged in the manufacture, transportation, distribution, use or possession of any material, substance, or device for the sole purpose of industrial, agricultural, mining, construction, educational, or any other lawful use.
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.32. Amended by P.L.104-2000, SEC.5; P.L.123-2002, SEC.4
Note how IC 35-47-5-10(7) and IC 35-47-5-10(8) are completely separate subparagraphs. The one has nothing to do with the other. Holding a Class III licensed from the US federal government has nothing to with manufacturing, etc., etc. of machine guns for lawful purposes. Recreation on private lands and self defense are manifestly lawful purposes.

My only problem is with the (double) use of the term lawful(ly). If there are, somewhere else in the Indiana Code, references in law to how you are required to conduct your manufacturing, transporting, distributing, using, and possessing, under IC 35-47-5-10(8) of machine guns which came into existence entirely within the borders of the state of Indiana, then IC 35-47-5-10(8) could still be completely neutered.

Granted, this is in reference to machine guns, and not guns in general. The Montanta story posted by the OP mentioned largely custom guns, which I took to mean guns like the gold inlaid musket presented to Charleton Heston at his famous, "... my cold, dead hands" speach.
 

FN1910

New member
In the previous legislatives session in South Carolina a similar bill was introduced. It never got off the ground primarily because no one could find anyone in SC that it would apply to. There are no gun manufacturers in SC that would be involved and so it would only apply to someone who started up a business or a individual making one.

Or this was at least how I heard it. It would not apply to gun modifications unless the gun was made in the state so the deal fell through. If someone is willing to start up a gun company in SC I'll bet we could get it passed.
 

CathyInBlue

Tool Maker
... and so it would only apply to someone who started up a business or a individual making one.
I don't get it. Where was the problem? Right now, there's an activity that's wholly prohibitted, therefore, no one is doing it legally. They didn't want to make something legal because no one was doing it legally at the time? :man_in_love:
 

utimmer43

New member
I don't get it. Where was the problem? Right now, there's an activity that's wholly prohibitted, therefore, no one is doing it legally. They didn't want to make something legal because no one was doing it legally at the time? :man_in_love:
Such is the nature of politics.:wacko:
 

Sheldon

New member
Dude, I've repeatedly been all over Schauer, Levin and Stabenow over all this gun-related crap they keep trying, the best I ever get is a form letter saying "how concerned" they are about my views. Hopefully your rep is a little more attentive to his/her constituents, but mine just sits there and wastes my money. All the local demorats voted Schauer in after his predecessor (Wahlberg) actually voted AGAINST the first bailout! I congratulated him for that and voted for him, but we (sane people) are outnumbered in this area.

Mark voted pro gun when pressured, as to the rest along with Mark they are at the federal level, this is state stuff, contact your local rep, go to his office and have a sit down like I did.....
 

FN1910

New member
I don't get it. Where was the problem? Right now, there's an activity that's wholly prohibitted, therefore, no one is doing it legally. They didn't want to make something legal because no one was doing it legally at the time? :man_in_love:

There was no one to push it so it got put on the back burner. Any time a bill in introduced unless there is some group to push it to the top it will not get acted on. Hundreds of bills are introduce every term and only a few ever even get a committee hearing. Most are either the pet project of some representative or to appease one person or group. Out of 10 gun related bills so far this term only 2 have even made it to a committee hearing and they only have 2 more weeks to work on them. One of the two only involves one county and the other was a watered down verion of a different bill.

If you want a bill to even get looked at you better have a good lobbyist such as the NRA working on it and be friends with the committe chairman and head of the House and Senate. Otherwise you are wasting your time which is exactly what happened in this case.
 

Bohemian

New member
...Chapter 5. Prohibited Instruments of Violence...

Should read the State of Indiana's Infringements of their residents UNALIENABLE SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS...

You can not read any more into "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"...

Any Class/Type of Firearm, Cannon, Bazooka, Machine Gun, Tank etc, is protected by the Second Amendment...

Come%20And%20Take%20It%20flag%20with%20Cannon.gif


What we as citizens need to do is tirelessly reiterate this ad nauseum to our Federal, State, County, City and other Municipality Representatives, and provide them with Chapter and Verse of our history and quotes of our founding fathers, that believed that without the Unabridged Second Amendment, the rest have no value and are unenforceable...

“When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny.” - Thomas Jefferson

"Its time we started giving the Second Amendment the same attention we give the First Amendment" - Governor Mike Huckabee
 

Bohemian

New member
Pennsylvania and Oklahoma joins 19 other states and counting passing 10th Amendment Sovereignty...
YouTube - Rohrer: 10th Amendment Clearly Defines State Powers

YouTube - GlenBeck: NH Sovereignty - over 20 states aboard now! Civil War?!

Link Removed

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bil...y=2009&txtsessionyear=2009&txtbillnumber=HCR6

...That any Act by the Congress of the United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States of America or Judicial Order by the Judicatories of the United States of America which assumes a power not delegated to the government of United States of America by the Constitution for the United States of America and which serves to diminish the liberty of the any of the several States or their citizens shall constitute a nullification of the Constitution for the United States of America by the government of the United States of America. Acts which would cause such a nullification include, but are not limited to:...
VI. Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition; and
That should any such act of Congress become law or Executive Order or Judicial Order be put into force, all powers previously delegated to the United States of America by the Constitution for the United States shall revert to the several States individually. Any future government of the United States of America shall require ratification of three quarters of the States seeking to form a government of the United States of America and shall not be binding upon any State not seeking to form such a government; and
That copies of this resolution be transmitted by the house clerk to the President of the United States, each member of the United States Congress, and the presiding officers of each State’s legislature.
Full Text of N.H. Bill...
Link Removed
 

Bohemian

New member
I was excited about Montana's bill, till I actually read it...

The Montana bill is a bust, it totally defeats the purpose...
Link Removed

E.G.:
Section 5. Exceptions. [Section 4] does not apply to:
...
(4) a firearm that discharges two or more projectiles with one activation of the trigger or other firing device
.
..

The problem with the Montana exclusion is it, defeats the entire purpose of the bill... "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" means "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED", period, end of story... The Second amendment does not say "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" except if your zip code is x, your standing at y or the type/class of firearm you have or desire to have is z.

The people in Montana need to write their governor and representatives, and tell them to amend this b.s. that they sold them out on... either the 2nd and 10th amendments matter or they don't; no federal gun laws and no infringements on the second amendment by the states or the federal government period..

AND the rest of us need to make sure NO MORE MONTANA versions get passed...
 

utimmer43

New member
I'm not sure it totally defeats the purpose, just the purpose we all got our hopes up for. While firearms are the specific item named in the bill, I think the broader purpose is to start a fight with the federal government over states rights. There will be some case that makes it to the SCOTUS, and when this new law is upheld, It will open up the floodgates for all sorts of states-rights affirmation (a.k.a. federal deregulation). Firearms were just a good thing to start with.

I will say this, the Montana legislature has shown itself to have far less balls than I thought and hoped it did.
 

Bohemian

New member
I'm not sure it totally defeats the purpose, just the purpose we all got our hopes up for. While firearms are the specific item named in the bill, I think the broader purpose is to start a fight with the federal government over states rights. There will be some case that makes it to the SCOTUS, and when this new law is upheld, It will open up the floodgates for all sorts of states-rights affirmation (a.k.a. federal deregulation). Firearms were just a good thing to start with.

I will say this, the Montana legislature has shown itself to have far less balls than I thought and hoped it did.

Again, the problem is IF the Montana bill is the one that goes before SCOTUS, we have already lost, because they already conceded, that the Federal Government and or State Government can Infringe States & Citizens Rights and upon the Second Amendment, 10th or any others for that matter...
Give them an inch they will take a mile, if we say that they can regulate one, then they can use that to justify regulating (OR BAN) them all...

Look at what they have been doing with that stinking Interstate Commerce Clause, the most misconstrued and abused statement in the Constitution by Congress and SCOTUS...

I contend either the Constitution maters or it does not, IF it does not then its time for a NEW DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE...
 

utimmer43

New member
I agree, and I actually, have been thinking for the last couple days now... Is this even the right fight? I'm all for states rights, but firearms are addressed in the U.S. constitution. I don't even consider them a state right. They are a human right.

Let's suppose for a moment that the MT bill was what we thought it would be, all inclusive, and was later upheld by SCOTUS. That is to say that the state has the right to regulate firearms anyway it saw fit. Out in the mountain west that wouldn't be all that bad. But then a place like NY comes in and says "Well if it's a state right, we have the right to ban all firearms."

Kinda the same "give an inch, take a mile" result, just a different route.
 

Bohemian

New member
I agree, and I actually, have been thinking for the last couple days now... Is this even the right fight? I'm all for states rights, but firearms are addressed in the U.S. constitution. I don't even consider them a state right. They are a human right.

Let's suppose for a moment that the MT bill was what we thought it would be, all inclusive, and was later upheld by SCOTUS. That is to say that the state has the right to regulate firearms anyway it saw fit. Out in the mountain west that wouldn't be all that bad. But then a place like NY comes in and says "Well if it's a state right, we have the right to ban all firearms."

Kinda the same "give an inch, take a mile" result, just a different route.

You are exactly right, its not whether or not the States have a right to decide Second Amendment rights; its two-fold:
1. Federal Government can not pass firearm laws...
2. Nor can the States...

Because the Constitution does not grant the Unalienable Right To Keep and Bear Arms, it Reaffirms Its Pre-Existence and Protects it from Infringement...

Thus The Second Amendment Protects & Reaffirms, The Preexisting, Unalienable Right to protect your life, that of your friends, family, neighbors, etc., from all threats foreign or domestic, using equal or greater force then may be brought against you, including but not limited to the Tyranny of our own Government...
Any where, Any Place, Any Time...

We need to restore this country back to the Jefferson/Madison Constitution...

Its ludicrous to think that our founding fathers went to war with the British because they tried to take their assault weapons (Cannons) and powder & ball (ammunition), but would allow our own Federal or State Government to disarm or otherwise limit our ability to resist the very tyranny they fought against; and stated very clearly that the Second Amendment was the only deterrent from the Tyranny of our own Government; and without the Second Amendment all others, were unenforceable and had no meaning...

You simply can not read any more into "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

Link Removed
 

FN1910

New member
Since the law applies only to those guns that are made and kept in Montana, its impact is limited. The state is home to just a handful of specialty gun makers, known for recreating rifles used to settle the West, and most of their customers are out-of-state.

I am still trying to figure out what this act does other than posturing and trying to make the legislatures look like they are doing something. Who is going to take this to the SCOTUS and on what basis? Until someone like Remington or Winchester actually sets up a plant in Montana this whole deal is nothing but hot air. Same way with the bill in SC and the other states, right now it is simply a solution in search of a problem.
 

Members online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
49,342
Messages
622,592
Members
74,169
Latest member
gamike
Top