Montana up's the ante' on States Rights

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
Um, Montana matters because they do house a LOT of nuclear weapons.

Actually, they house a LOT of nuclear weapons because they don't matter. In the event of a first strike, Montana is going to become a parking lot. "Meh, it was only Montana, lets see if diplomacy can resolve this."

Unless the enemy has came up with a way to make their missles invisible, Montana's missles will be in the air so no sense nuking them. It will be the air/army/navy bases that get it first, followed by the population/communication centers. But keep believing whatever makes you sleep at night.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
:music:Moving to Montana soon, gonna be a dental floss tycoon:music:

:music:With my tweezers gleamin' in the moon-lighty night:music: Now...THAT was music!

 

[shira]

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)

Slight problem: How do we know that a made-in-Montana firearm, stamped with ""Made in Montana," has never left Montana and then been brought back within Montana?

Bigger problem: No state-defined law controls what the U.S. Congress does. If the U.S. Congress deems that firearms (or any other item) manufactured in Montana can reasonably be considered a part of interstate commerce (which they CAN be, since many Montana-manufactured firearms are sold out-of-state), then Montana has no pot to piss in.

Nice try, though, Montana.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: shira

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)

Slight problem: How do we know that a made-in-Montana firearm, stamped with ""Made in Montana," has never left Montana and then been brought back within Montana?

Bigger problem: No state-defined law controls what the U.S. Congress does. If the U.S. Congress deems that firearms (or any other item) manufactured in Montana can reasonably be considered a part of interstate commerce (which they CAN be, since many Montana-manufactured firearms are sold out-of-state), then Montana has no pot to piss in.

Nice try, though, Montana.

LOL@U

 

[AAjax]

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

Oh, your from Orange county. That explains allot

Civil rights be damned, blockade!!!

Brilliant.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: shira

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)

Slight problem: How do we know that a made-in-Montana firearm, stamped with ""Made in Montana," has never left Montana and then been brought back within Montana?

Bigger problem: No state-defined law controls what the U.S. Congress does. If the U.S. Congress deems that firearms (or any other item) manufactured in Montana can reasonably be considered a part of interstate commerce (which they CAN be, since many Montana-manufactured firearms are sold out-of-state), then Montana has no pot to piss in.

Nice try, though, Montana.

Are you our newest Congessional Scholar?

 

[Adam8281]

Don't want to be a law dork, but the first thing that will pop into anyone's mind who has taken first-year Constitutional Law will be the case of Wickard v. Filburn. In that case, the Supreme Court held that a farmer's growing wheat for personal consumption affects "interstate commerce" because if the farmer didn't grow his own, he would have had to buy it on the open market. And since the farmer's action affects interstate commerce, Congress can regulate it (i.e. can forbid him from growing wheat for personal consumption). This case is typically viewed as the outer limits of what Congress can reach through the Commerce Clause.

 

[Deeko]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

You really are a pathetic lamer. It's good you live in a big city so you can pretend that somehow makes you better then you really are.

I don't think you've actually refuted anything anyone has said in this thread, every one of your responses has been a brainless insult or meaningless repetition.

Then again, I'm pretty sure we determined in the last thread that you were about 7 years old, so I don't really expect any better.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: shira

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)

Slight problem: How do we know that a made-in-Montana firearm, stamped with ""Made in Montana," has never left Montana and then been brought back within Montana?

Bigger problem: No state-defined law controls what the U.S. Congress does. If the U.S. Congress deems that firearms (or any other item) manufactured in Montana can reasonably be considered a part of interstate commerce (which they CAN be, since many Montana-manufactured firearms are sold out-of-state), then Montana has no pot to piss in.

Nice try, though, Montana.

Are you our newest Congessional Scholar?

If you're asking whether I know for a fact that state laws don't trump federal law, you're darn tootin' I know that (unless, of course, the USSC steps in and tell Congress to step aside).

For example, the states can write all of the medical marijuana laws they want, but there are federal laws on the books that don't give a sh!t what the states have to say about pot being legal in this or that situation. The federal government considers ALL illicit drugs to be a part of interstate commerce, and no state is going to convince the feds otherwise.

Now, Eric Holder announced a moratorium of sorts on medical marijuana buts, but at the end of March, the DEA raided yet another medical marijuana dispensary in San Francisco, even though there was no evidence the dispensary was violating state law (Holder originally said the DEA would raid ONLY if both state and federal laws were violated).

The point is, "federalism" mean what one side or the other wants it to. If you're a righty, you want the federal government to do something about those damn gay marriages (hence, the DOMA, which carved out an exception to the Full Faith and Credit clause of the US Constitution) - can't have those dern states forcing those faggoty laws down our throats.

And if you're a lefty, the fed had better curb those state wild-west gun laws.

So am I an expert? Of course not. But Congress continually finds new expansive exceptions to the interstate commerce clause, and nothing in this Montana law is going to change Congress's collective mind about guns.

 

[Nebor]

While Montana is a sparsley populated state and this bill won't have a lot of impact there, it did set a precedent. A similar bill hit the floor in Austin, Texas earlier this week. Apparently thumbing your nose at the feds is en vogue this year.

Of course, if new automatic weapons were to become available again, I would be utterly hosed, holding some $50,000 in transferable Title 2 machine guns that are essentially worth ~$3000.