Montana up's the ante' on States Rights

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Deeko

Clearly that it will matter more. I'm not anti gun, I'm just saying that this statement by worthless Montana is a non-story.

Its cute that you so incorrectly stereotyped me though.

Actually this is a HUGE story, and it has nothing to do with the specific issue of guns.


On the heels of Texas, we are starting to see a push for states-rights. It may be bigger than any other story going right now, especially a bunch of skinnies taking over a boat.

 

[Deeko]

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: Deeko

Clearly that it will matter more. I'm not anti gun, I'm just saying that this statement by worthless Montana is a non-story.

Its cute that you so incorrectly stereotyped me though.

Actually this is a HUGE story, and it has nothing to do with the specific issues of guns.


On the heels of Texas, we are starting to see a push for states-rights. It may be bigger than any other story going right now, especially a bunch of skinnies taking over a boat.

Seriously, I hope for your sake you don't think that little texas sovereignty thing is new? These little pointless proclamations have been going on for years....CA did it 15 years ago! Saying "lolz heyyyy there's a 10th amendment!" is even more worthless than this story. I guess you also forgot when Montana threatened to secede based on the result of DC vs Heller?

You certainly have a short memory when you think it fits your cause.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Deeko

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: Deeko

I said no one cares about Montana. They can make these cute little worthless political stands to try to make them matter, but they still don't.

And for the record, I would say headquartering a large number of very big, important businesses does give you political relevance. I see you didn't respond to that. Nice job!

Those headquarters would exist without WA

Face it, you are in a solid blue state that is not on the forefront of anything (Maybe euthanasia, but maybe that was Oregon?) politically.

At least Montana is attempting to stand up for something they believe in.

Ok, you are correct - technically they are headquartered elsewhere. Semantics, fact is those companies are based here (except Boeing, but they did start here and do still have a very large base of operations here).

Washington is indeed a solid blue state, and is among the most liberal places in the country. The state also has a unique blend of conservative policies, such as no income tax, despite a very liberal population/government. And per my post above, certainly carries more political weight than Montana in politics on a national stage.

Washington does not have a "very liberal population". King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties have a very liberal population and rule the remainder of the state because of Seattle and Tacoma. If it weren't for the idiots in the single big urban area, WA would be pretty centrist.

ZV

 

[Deeko]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Washington does not have a "very liberal population". King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties have a very liberal population and rule the remainder of the state because of Seattle and Tacoma. If it weren't for the idiots in the single big urban area, WA would be pretty centrist.

ZV

As I said above, I'm from PA. PA is very similar to Washington in terms of political demographics, in that there are a couple of very liberal urban centers battling for power with a very conservative rural center - although in PA, the conservatives generally hold a lot more power than they do in WA. Also, the liberals are more liberal here in WA, and I'd say the conservatives are less conservative.

If Christine Gregoire can get RE-ELECTED here, I'd say its a pretty damn liberal state. Although so far in this term she has fought off congress' more liberal demands to an extent, which did surprise me. I digress though.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2009/billhtml/HB0246.htm

A personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in Montana and that remains within the borders of Montana is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce.

Essentially, any thing that would fall under the NFA restrictions enforced by the ATF would be perfectly legal if it was made and sold in Montana since the Fed gov can't claim interstate commerce clauses on items that are not imported to or exported from the state.

Fixed formatting glitch
-Schadenfroh (AT Mod)

Some one finally read the federal laws. GOOD!!

 

[her209]

Congress should ban the sale of the raw materials from other states to make ammunition to Montana.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: her209
Congress should ban the sale of the raw materials from other states to make ammunition to Montana.

I'm sure they are on top of that. :roll:

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Ups the ante? As long as they make sure it's not sold or bought across state lines, sure, they can do whatever they want. It's Montana, noone really cares what happens there.
Note that even they exempt fully automatic rifles: (4) a firearm that discharges two or more projectiles with one activation of the trigger or other firing device.

You'd think so, but not really. The feds claim that marijuana grown in someone's back yard for personal use is a federal matter because it falls under interstate commerce. The person growing the pot for personal consumption is not buying pot grown elsewhere, meaning it affects interstate trade. Talk about a stretch.

Essentially the feds claim that everything belongs to them.

 

[BoberFett]

Ignore Deeko, he used to think boy bands were important to music. He clearly doesn't have a firm grasp on the meaning of the word.

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: Deeko
Oh good, so all 7 people living there can have all the guns they want! Hooray!

do you get off on saying stupid ignorant retarded moronic idiotic crap like that?

:roll:

are you trying to say that more then 7 people live in Montana?

 

[Deeko]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Ignore Deeko, he used to think boy bands were important to music. He clearly doesn't have a firm grasp on the meaning of the word.

Playing Backstreet Boys for high school kids in 2001 paid me more money per hour than I get now Plus it riled up a bunch of nerds on the internet that can't let go of it, 8+ years later. Sounds like solid work for a 15 year old.

I'm neither anti gun no anti states rights. I can just recognize the worthlessness of this move by Montana, that's all.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2009/billhtml/HB0246.htm

A personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in Montana and that remains within the borders of Montana is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce.

Essentially, any thing that would fall under the NFA restrictions enforced by the ATF would be perfectly legal if it was made and sold in Montana since the Fed gov can't claim interstate commerce clauses on items that are not imported to or exported from the state.

Fixed formatting glitch
-Schadenfroh (AT Mod)

This has been common knowledge for quite a long time. Nobody cares. If Montana Gun Co. wants to set up shop to produce guns for Montanans, have at it.

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2009/billhtml/HB0246.htm

A personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in Montana and that remains within the borders of Montana is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce.

Essentially, any thing that would fall under the NFA restrictions enforced by the ATF would be perfectly legal if it was made and sold in Montana since the Fed gov can't claim interstate commerce clauses on items that are not imported to or exported from the state.

Fixed formatting glitch
-Schadenfroh (AT Mod)

This has been common knowledge for quite a long time. Nobody cares. If Montana Gun Co. wants to set up shop to produce guns for Montanans, have at it.

Not really common knowledge, no.

In fact it would be against current federal law.

It would allow Montana Gun Co. to manufacture armor piercing ammunition and machineguns for sale to civilians within the state of Montana. Both of those currently being illegal.

Will be interesting to see how it turns out. I won't wanna be the first one prosecuted...

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2009/billhtml/HB0246.htm

A personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in Montana and that remains within the borders of Montana is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce.

Essentially, any thing that would fall under the NFA restrictions enforced by the ATF would be perfectly legal if it was made and sold in Montana since the Fed gov can't claim interstate commerce clauses on items that are not imported to or exported from the state.

Fixed formatting glitch
-Schadenfroh (AT Mod)

This has been common knowledge for quite a long time. Nobody cares. If Montana Gun Co. wants to set up shop to produce guns for Montanans, have at it.

Not really common knowledge, no.

In fact it would be against current federal law.

It would allow Montana Gun Co. to manufacture armor piercing ammunition and machineguns for sale to civilians within the state of Montana. Both of those currently being illegal.

Will be interesting to see how it turns out. I won't wanna be the first one prosecuted...

The USSC precedent on Congress' inability to regulate commerce that takes place entirely within one state is well known.

 

[whylaff]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2009/billhtml/HB0246.htm

A personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in Montana and that remains within the borders of Montana is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce.

Essentially, any thing that would fall under the NFA restrictions enforced by the ATF would be perfectly legal if it was made and sold in Montana since the Fed gov can't claim interstate commerce clauses on items that are not imported to or exported from the state.

Fixed formatting glitch
-Schadenfroh (AT Mod)

This has been common knowledge for quite a long time. Nobody cares. If Montana Gun Co. wants to set up shop to produce guns for Montanans, have at it.

Not really common knowledge, no.

In fact it would be against current federal law.

It would allow Montana Gun Co. to manufacture armor piercing ammunition and machineguns for sale to civilians within the state of Montana. Both of those currently being illegal.

Will be interesting to see how it turns out. I won't wanna be the first one prosecuted...

The USSC precedent on Congress' inability to regulate commerce that takes place entirely within one state is well known.

Even without taking that into consideration, I would be very surprised if the Supreme Court would tolerate such a broad determination by a State legislator regarding the constitutionality of a Federal statute under the Commerce Clause, regardless of accuracy. They like to interpret the Constitution themselves?that whole superiority complex thing.

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2009/billhtml/HB0246.htm

A personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in Montana and that remains within the borders of Montana is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce.

Essentially, any thing that would fall under the NFA restrictions enforced by the ATF would be perfectly legal if it was made and sold in Montana since the Fed gov can't claim interstate commerce clauses on items that are not imported to or exported from the state.

Fixed formatting glitch
-Schadenfroh (AT Mod)

This has been common knowledge for quite a long time. Nobody cares. If Montana Gun Co. wants to set up shop to produce guns for Montanans, have at it.

I'm pretty sure that no one in Montana cares either. I live there and I don't see a lot of interest in things like this. What company wants to make and produce guns for a state that has less then a million people in it?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: whylaff

Even without taking that into consideration, I would be very surprised if the Supreme Court would tolerate such a broad determination by a State legislator regarding the constitutionality of a Federal statute under the Commerce Clause, regardless of accuracy. They like to interpret the Constitution themselves?that whole superiority complex thing.

They really already have decided this in Gibbons v. Ogden.

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: whylaff

Even without taking that into consideration, I would be very surprised if the Supreme Court would tolerate such a broad determination by a State legislator regarding the constitutionality of a Federal statute under the Commerce Clause, regardless of accuracy. They like to interpret the Constitution themselves?that whole superiority complex thing.

They really already have decided this in Gibbons v. Ogden.

Well, the USSC has expanded the reach of the Commerce Clause significantly since that 1824 case. Even in that case, Marshall stated that the Congress could regulate any commerce that affected other states. This was expanded to the high point in Wickard v. Filburn to even regulating the wheat produced for an individual farmer's personal use that was never used for interstate commerce whatsoever. I'd imagine that Congress could indeed regulate the ammunition manufacturing in Montana but with the current state of the USSC, I'd imagine the conservatives on the court would try to carve out an exception.

 

[bamacre]

Some might find this interesting...

"My Face-Off With a Federal Judge"
http://www.lewrockwell.com/eddlem/eddlem28.html

Here is the intro only...

The following is the official court transcript of my one-on-one face-off as a juror with a federal judge over the limits ? or lack thereof, in his view ? of the commerce clause of the United States Constitution. I have added some commentary in brackets and italics to explain more fully what was going on in the courtroom, but the transcript is otherwise unchanged.

Here?s a quick background on the case: I was drafted into federal jury service a year ago and plunked into a mafia drug trial where the defendant was accused of "possession" of cocaine. The government made no attempt to prove anything had crossed a state line, and all the evidence indicated that he had no plans to distribute the drugs across a state line. Once we got into the jury room all hell broke loose, and the jurors prevailed upon me to ask the judge a question about constitutional issues. So I did, and wrote down the following question: "If 2/3 of the Congress decided in 1918 that they needed to amend the constitution in order to ban mere possession of a substance (in that case, prohibition of alcohol), where is the constitutional authorization today for the federal prohibition of mere possession of cocaine today?" The judge said I didn?t know what I was talking about, and we ended up having a 15-minute, one-on-one chat in his robing chambers the next day after I persisted in pressing the Constitutional issue. The judge dismissed me from the jury and later wrote a lengthy court memorandum attacking me as a "rogue" and accusing me of being "evasive." He also failed to mention in that memorandum that he tried to get me to swear a second oath of jury service to ignore the Constitution. Below is the verbatim transcript of that voir dire.

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: senseamp
Ups the ante? As long as they make sure it's not sold or bought across state lines, sure, they can do whatever they want. It's Montana, noone really cares what happens there.
Note that even they exempt fully automatic rifles: (4) a firearm that discharges two or more projectiles with one activation of the trigger or other firing device.

You'd think so, but not really. The feds claim that marijuana grown in someone's back yard for personal use is a federal matter because it falls under interstate commerce. The person growing the pot for personal consumption is not buying pot grown elsewhere, meaning it affects interstate trade. Talk about a stretch.

Essentially the feds claim that everything belongs to them.

That is the actual logic they use? Also, quoting from someone else's post above:

"If 2/3 of the Congress decided in 1918 that they needed to amend the constitution in order to ban mere possession of a substance (in that case, prohibition of alcohol), where is the constitutional authorization today for the federal prohibition of mere possession of cocaine today?"

Pretty good question, that.

 

[BoberFett]

Yes Kadarin, that's the logic. There is nothing outside of their control. If a person wipes their nose on their sleeve, they're affecting interstate commerce by not purchasing Kleenex, so the way in which you're allowed to wipe your nose falls under federal jurisdiction.

The system is fucked beyond repair.

 

[miketheidiot]

when i first read the thread, i thought it was about hannah montana

 

[piasabird]

If the company making the guns sells them in more than one state that is interstate commerce and as such can be governed by the Federal Government and ATF. Also if a company is owned by stock holders from more than one state or outside of the USA that also falls under interstate commerce. Presently to sell guns and ammunition it requires a federal gun dealers license, so violation of federal laws makes it a federal case. The right to carry and bear arms is a federal guarantee in the US Constitution, so it is also a federal issue.

I took a course on the legal environment of business and we thoroghly went over the commerce clause.

 

[jackschmittusa]

I wish them the best of luck with this against the feds. It sounds far more reasonable the some of the crap coming out of Texas.

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

Originally posted by: piasabird
If the company making the guns sells them in more than one state that is interstate commerce and as such can be governed by the Federal Government and ATF. Also if a company is owned by stock holders from more than one state or outside of the USA that also falls under interstate commerce. Presently to sell guns and ammunition it requires a federal gun dealers license, so violation of federal laws makes it a federal case. The right to carry and bear arms is a federal guarantee in the US Constitution, so it is also a federal issue.

I took a course on the legal environment of business and we thoroghly went over the commerce clause.

Licensing is only required at the federal level for those engaging in the sale of guns and ammunition as business. No such licensing is required for individuals. Yet individuals are still barred, by federal law, from manufacturing, even for personal use.