Montana Takes a Stand

[SCWilson]

I'm sure that most of you are aware that Montana just signed HR 246 into law recently. I am wondering what longterm ramifications this might have considering the current political environment.

HOUSE BILL NO. 246
INTRODUCED BY J. BONIEK, BENNETT, BUTCHER, CURTISS, RANDALL, WARBURTON
AN ACT EXEMPTING FROM FEDERAL REGULATION UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES A FIREARM, A FIREARM ACCESSORY, OR AMMUNITION MANUFACTURED AND RETAINED IN MONTANA ; AND PROVIDING AN APPLICABILITY DATE.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MONTANA :
Section 1. Short title. [Sections 1 through 6] may be cited as the "Montana Firearms Freedom Act".
Section 2. Legislative declarations of authority. The legislature declares that the authority for [sections 1 through 6] is the following:
(1) The 10th amendment to the United States constitution guarantees to the states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in the constitution and reserves to the state and people of Montana certain powers as they were understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889. The guaranty of those powers is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.
(2) The ninth amendment to the United States constitution guarantees to the people rights not granted in the constitution and reserves to the people of Montana certain rights, as they were understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889. The guaranty of those rights is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.
(3) The regulation of intrastate commerce is vested in the states under the 9th and 10th amendments to the United States constitution, particularly if not expressly preempted by federal law. Congress has not expressly preempted state regulation of intrastate commerce pertaining to the manufacture on an intrastate basis of firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition.
(4) The second amendment to the United States constitution reserves to the people the right to keep and bear arms as that right was understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889, and the guaranty of the right is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.
(5) Article II, section 12, of the Montana constitution clearly secures to Montana citizens, and prohibits government interference with, the right of individual Montana citizens to keep and bear arms. This constitutional protection is unchanged from the 1889 Montana constitution, which was approved by congress and the people of Montana , and the right exists, as it was understood at the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.
Section 3. Definitions. As used in [sections 1 through 6], the following definitions apply:
(1) "Borders of Montana " means the boundaries of Montana described in Article I, section 1, of the 1889 Montana constitution.
(2) "Firearms accessories" means items that are used in conjunction with or mounted upon a firearm but are not essential to the basic function of a firearm, including but not limited to telescopic or laser sights, magazines, flash or sound suppressors, folding or aftermarket stocks and grips, speedloaders, ammunition carriers, and lights for target illumination.
(3) "Generic and insignificant parts" includes but is not limited to springs, screws, nuts, and pins.
(4) "Manufactured" means that a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition has been created from basic materials for functional usefulness, including but not limited to forging, casting, machining, or other processes for working materials.
Section 4. Prohibitions. 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. It is declared by the legislature that those items have not traveled in interstate commerce. This section applies to a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured in Montana from basic materials and that can be manufactured without the inclusion of any significant parts imported from another state. Generic and insignificant parts that have other manufacturing or consumer product applications are not firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition, and their importation into Montana and incorporation into a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured in Montana does not subject the firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition to federal regulation. It is declared by the legislature that basic materials, such as unmachined steel and unshaped wood, are not firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition and are not subject to congressional authority to regulate firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition under interstate commerce as if they were actually firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition. The authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce in basic materials does not include authority to regulate firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition made in Montana from those materials. Firearms accessories that are imported into Montana from another state and that are subject to federal regulation as being in interstate commerce do not subject a firearm to federal regulation under interstate commerce because they are attached to or used in conjunction with a firearm in Montana ...
Section 5. Exceptions. [Section 4] does not apply to:
(1) A firearm that cannot be carried and used by one person;
(2) A firearm that has a bore diameter greater than 1 1/2 inches and that uses smokeless powder, not black powder, as a propellant;
(3) ammunition with a projectile that explodes using an explosion of chemical energy after the projectile leaves the firearm; or
(4) a firearm that discharges two or more projectiles with one activation of the trigger or other firing device.
Section 6. Marketing of firearms. A firearm manufactured or sold in Montana under [sections 1 through 6] must have the words "Made in Montana " clearly stamped on a central metallic part, such as the receiver or frame.
Section 7. Codification instruction. [Sections 1 through 6] are intended to be codified as an integral part of Title 30, and the provisions of Title 30 apply to [sections 1 through 6].
Section 8. Applicability. [This act] applies to firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition that are manufactured, as defined in [section 3], and retained in Montana after October 1, 2009.

[The Reaper]

So firearms and suppressors are permitted, as I would assume are short barreled rifles and shotguns, but destructive devices over 40mm and fully-automatic weapons are not. Interesting.

This should be interesting. Not sure I would want to be the first one to try this.

TR

[greenberetTFS]

HR 246, Has anyone asked why Montana has passed this bill?........ To take what stand?

GB TFS

[Knight]

Montana mentality is very different from many other states, (especially anywhere East of the Miss.). I believe that due to the severe ammo shortages over the past six months, they feel all the bans coming back down the pike. It has been a "give a little, take a little more" process from up top, and everyone is bracing for the biggest, "take a little more" this time. Montana has wanted an excuse for a long time to secure their own rights in the field of guns & ammo, hence, HR 246. Caution: should this be done on assumprion alone? We all know where this could lead, and its deeper than just what's on the surface of the bill.
Rumor has it, that if MT feels severe opposition to this, they will claim independence, (the 10th amendment), and will definately secede. Many others are saying that it will start a trickle down affect, and all but two, (Cali, and Wash), in the western U.S. will follow suit almost instantly.
Will be interesting to see what happens. Can't trust the rumors, so let's watch.
I have a sneaky suspicion that they just don't talk about their big guns out there..?

[Paslode]

It has something to do with interstate and intrastate commerce. Montana is in essence claiming that as a State they have the right to control what goes on in their state. And they believe that anything produced and sold within Montana should be out of the Federal Governments jurisdiction.

I heard on Beck last week that many of the States believe the Federal Government have overstepped their bounds through the mis-use of a commerce law. This abuse took hold under FDR in a case that involved a farmer.

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/art...cle/198/25060/

So the rumor is Montana is going to produce a single shot 22lr rifle in Montana and test the waters.

[Knight]

I believe that it's fairly well known that the government has overstepped their boundries on much legislation, and have been abusing the power that "we the people" gave it. Please believe that MT has much more in the works than a 22LR, manufactured on thier own soil; or don't believe it-might be better for Montana.
That state has been more independent than the others for a very long time, and good for MT.
I'm not trying to sound radical at all, but it's about time someone has the balls to make a statement about the liberties of the citizens of the U.S.

Originally Posted by greenberetTFS

HR 246, Has anyone asked why Montana has passed this bill?........ To take what stand?

GB TFS

This is why:
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h45/text

[uplink5]

Firearms Freedom Act Introduced in South Carolina

Link:

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

Another good link: See where your State stands....

Here in NC it has been introduced and passage is expected. This is not about guns but is more linked to existing anti-gun laws, and those which are ultimately expected under this administration.

What would be nice is if all 50 states would stand up and utilize the nullification clause of the Constitution to make null and void the federal laws that are contrary to the Constitution. Until that happens....FFA BABY....jd

[mark46th]

I would say it is an "Up your's Obama, Eric Holder and cohorts" act of defiance, similar to Arizona's immigration law. They have had enough of the liberal agenda's pussification of America... Good for them.

[Surgicalcric]

Good on South Carolina.

Hopefully it passes and more states follow suit thus giving those in our government who wish the populace to be subject to the Govt the finger...

Originally Posted by Paslode

It has something to do with interstate and intrastate commerce. Montana is in essence claiming that as a State they have the right to control what goes on in their state. And they believe that anything produced and sold within Montana should be out of the Federal Governments jurisdiction.

So the rumor is Montana is going to produce a single shot 22lr rifle in Montana and test the waters.

I'll bet a dollar, that there are 3-5 manufacturers, or soon to to be incorporated manufactuers who will be the primary benefactors of this new bill. I'll bet another dollar that the political types are vested in such corporations. CT, MA, RI, and other northeastern states are still making weapons due in part to 'civil war ear' contracts. Making weapons in the NE has become more and more difficult given the political climate.

WWII opened the door for many new weapons manufacturers sadly are now closed businesses. Perhaps as simple as supply and demand.

These companies are opportunists and entrepreneurial in nature, good on them.

Despite the liberalism of Montana in certain demographics, the state is a quiet conservative, much like Wyoming, Idaho, Utah and yes Colorado. Arizona and New Mexico are combat zones, though few leaders will admit it.

California, Oregon and Washington will fall west of the cascades and sierra mountain ranges. Eastern CA will join with Nevada, Arizona. Northern CA will merge where they can in timber industrial regions.

I've often speculated how a secession of states would work in mass. Would the govenors offices side with the states majority? Would they simply retire into the darkness and leave? Who would take the reins of responsibility? Would certain NG Air Commanders, NG Armies? Would LE be able to keep order?

I suspect complete chaos.

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by wet dog

I've often speculated how a secession of states would work in mass. Would the govenors offices side with the states majority? Would they simply retire into the darkness and leave? Who would take the reins of responsibility? Would certain NG Air Commanders, NG Armies? Would LE be able to keep order?

I suspect complete chaos.

Sheriffs have ready-made fiefdoms.
They know the area best, have a private army already assembled, and have already won a local popularity contest.