States rights and montana

Dejavu

Dejavu

Quis custodiet ipsos cust
Adventurer
Joined
Nov 8, 2004
Messages
2,555
Age
42
Location
somewhere...
Main Job
Bard-Male
Secondary Job
Monk-Male
Third Job
Thief-Male
Server
Quetzalcoatl
FFXI
Dejavu
FFXIV
Won't play this game
An interesting bill passed in Montana recently and it has the possibility of changing a lot of things and the way that they are done here in the United States. What the bill basically does is affirm the State of Montana’s right to control any commerce that stays exclusively within their state. The Constitution States that the congress has the right to govern interstate commerce but this clause has been expanded to the point of the congress has the right to govern everything commerce related.

http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2009/billhtml/HB0246.htm

The point of this legislation is really to reverse the ruling of Wickard v. Filburn which was a supreme court case in 1942 which really gave the progressive movement the rubber stamp they needed to continue to try to regulate everything. In the case they ruled that Filburn had to be regulated by the Agricultural Adjustment Act even though he had grown his crops for personal consumption and they would never see market. According to the AAA he exceeded the output he was allowed.

What this did is basically mark the end of any controls over what the congress was allowed to regulate because the ruling provided jurisprudence that the congress could regulate anything it wanted to because technically everything can affect interstate commerce.

What this bill does.

This bill will allow for Montanans to make guns in Montana for people who live in Montana that will not be regulated by the federal government. To make sure that they are from Montana all of the guns made under this bill must have “made in Montana” stamped on them. After this the ATF will undoubtedly get involved because they must enforce the laws that have been written by congress. Once that happens it will quickly be racked up to the Supreme Court where the validity of the previous ruling in Wickard v. Filburn can be tested once more.

The reasoning for this bill really has nothing to do with the actual guns themselves but it has to do with the reaffirmation of states rights and the recension of the previous legislation that allows for the progressive movement to occur. Also before you guys start thinking that this kind of thing is only happening in Montana. Yes they are the first to pass a bill but several other states are already voting on bills that are very similar and in some cases stronger.
 
Last edited:
My prediction: doomed to fail. States aren't getting away from federal regulation anytime soon, especially when it comes to something like guns. Slapping a "Made in Montana" sticker on it isn't going to mean anything when they start showing up in other states. There's no way Montana could enforce something like that. Once they sell it, it can go anywhere the buyer wants to take it.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I wonder why they are focusing on firearms. Something else maybe would have been more effective.
 
Halifirien said:
My prediction: doomed to fail. States aren't getting away from federal regulation anytime soon, especially when it comes to something like guns. Slapping a "Made in Montana" sticker on it isn't going to mean anything when they start showing up in other states. There's no way Montana could enforce something like that. Once they sell it, it can go anywhere the buyer wants to take it.
Click to expand...


Those were my thoughts this morning when I first read this. My concern was how a state would go about regulating it. Like you said though, once a purchase has been made the buyer has every right to bring it where ever he/she chooses, within reason ofcourse.
 
Halifirien said:
My prediction: doomed to fail. States aren't getting away from federal regulation anytime soon, especially when it comes to something like guns. Slapping a "Made in Montana" sticker on it isn't going to mean anything when they start showing up in other states. There's no way Montana could enforce something like that. Once they sell it, it can go anywhere the buyer wants to take it.
Click to expand...

Fair enough that is actually part of the argument. If it does leave the state then it will need to be registered just like any other gun produced in the united states but as long as it was made in Montana and stays within Montana the state is saying back the fuck off its our place to do with it what we will and you cant govern intrastate commerce.

The idea is actually for the guns that are made in Montana to be completely unregistered with the federal government which will get the ATF involved and get the case to appear before the supreme court... As i said originally it is not actually about the guns. It is about a state making a law that challenges an unconstitutional federal policy to reform the entire system. Truthfully... if i went to court i think it would actually have a chance of working with the current justices due to the feelings that the preceding case of Wickard v. Filburn should already be overturned.
 
Last edited:
Dejavu said:
Fair enough that is actually part of the argument. If it does leave the state then it will need to be registered just like any other gun produced in the united states but as long as it was made in Montana and stays within Montana the state is saying back the fuck off its our place to do with it what we will and you cant govern intrastate commerce.

The idea is actually for the guns that are made in Montana to be completely unregistered with the federal government which will get the DEA involved and get the case to appear before the supreme court... As i said originally it is not actually about the guns. It is about a state making a law that challenges an unconstitutional federal policy to reform the entire system. Truthfully... if i went to court i think it would actually have a chance of working with the current justices due to the feelings that the preceding case of Wickard v. Filburn should already be overturned.
Click to expand...

Question is how and who would stop the firearms from being removed from the state to then have them registered. See it would be far to difficult for even a state to make those conditions stick, nevermind the federal government if they haven't the right to regulate it in the first place.
 
No kidding. Montana is basically ringing a gigantic dinner bell for people to come into their state to buy guns and take them out without registering them. I don't see how Montana can argue they're so special they can get around federal regulation of firearms just because they feel like it. The ATF is a little touchy about stuff like that, because we're not living in the day and age when it took you a week or two of traveling to reach the next state anymore. You buy a gun in Montana, UPS can have it in West Virginia tomorrow.

If they want to challenge the constitutionality of interstate commerce regulation, I think they've chosen a piss-poor way to go about it. They're likely to lose.
 
Interesting article, and of course it spells out the partisan nature of these sovereignty circle jerks. You never seem to hear the screams about how the federal government is going too far when Republicans are in office.

I'm waiting for the militias to fire up again now that Obama is in office and they don't have to worry about Janet Reno showing up and ruining their daydreams about the collapse of civilization and being able to defend their castles from marauding gangs of "darkies," like in The Turner Diaries.
 
Last edited:
Well i admit that could be the reasoning behind the right doing what they are doing but the liberty minded people have been pushing for this kinda legislation for a while... In fact i think when i made this post it was well in still well into the bush presidency.

http://www.qcdn.org/ffxi/showthread.php?t=52105

I am equal opportunity.. i think repubs and dems are the problem and the federal government needs to be pulled back on both sides of the coin.
 
Assuming this did start before any legal action was taken to stop it (at least to get it take into the courts), anyone who purchased it and took it out of Montana would be responsible for it's use or sale outside of Montana and therefore still Federally Regulated. Their failure to follow the law would be the original purchaser's failure not the Montana based manufacturer. Of course the manufacturer would be wise to maintain detailed records to show they were given the purchaser's legal intent to stay in the state with that gun.

I'm curious to see how it will play out overall.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top