House aims to shoot down federal gun controls (MT)

[davepc]

Montana lawmakers fired another shot in battles for states' rights as they supported letting some Montana gun owners and dealers skip reporting their transactions to the federal government.

Under House Bill 246, firearms made in Montana and used in Montana would be exempt from federal regulation. The same would be true for firearm accessories and ammunition made and sold in the state.

"What we need here is for Montana to be able to handle Montana's business and affairs,'' Republican Rep. Joel Boniek told fellow lawmakers Saturday. The wilderness guide from Livingston defeated Republican incumbent Bruce Malcolm in last spring's election.

Boniek's measure aims to circumvent federal authority over interstate commerce, which is the legal basis for most gun regulation in the United States. The bill potentially could release Montanans from both federal gun registration requirements and dealership licensing rules. Since the state has no background-check laws on its own books, the legislation also could free gun purchasers from that requirement.

...

House Republicans were joined by 14 Democrats in passing the measure.

http://www.greatfallstribune.com/article/20090214/NEWS01/90214004

[rpannier]

1. Food grown/slaughetered in Montana and sold in Montana will no longer undergo

Federal Inspections as well?

[The Brethren]

2. How lovely.

If all states don't have to follow federal gun laws, then bother having the laws.



The Stimulus Plan ("American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009"): Orig. House version -- http://appropriations.house.gov/pdf/RecoveryBill01-15-09.pdf , House spreadsheet -- http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pV-c6t5fOVmNorqMpHvnCMw ; Senate version -- http://appropriations.senate.gov/News/2009_02_02_The_American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009.pdf ; and Senate compromise -- http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-1 , Text and $$$ details of Senate compromise -- http://appropriations.senate.gov/News/2009_02_08_UPDATED_Appropriations_Provisions_of_American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act.pdf?CFID=4043629&CFTOKEN=40573040 in addition to -- http://readthestimulus.org/amdth1.pdf ; along with -- http://www.readthestimulus.org/ .

[57_TomCat]

3. Sounds like a winner to me.

I wish more states would kick the feds in the knees.

[davepc]

4. It wont get past Gonzales vs. Raich when it hits the courts.

And they'll do linguistic gymnastics to make something intrastate interstate once again.

Unlike the power to regulate activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, the power to enact laws enabling effective regulation of interstate commerce can only be exercised in conjunction with congressional regulation of an interstate market, and it extends only to those measures necessary to make the interstate regulation effective. As Lopez itself states, and the Court affirms today, Congress may regulate noneconomic intrastate activities only where the failure to do so “could … undercut” its regulation of interstate commerce. ... This is not a power that threatens to obliterate the line between “what is truly national and what is truly local.”

Guess which DU favorite SCOTUS judge wrote that opinion!

I'll give you a hint, his name rhymes with 'galia'.

Strict constructionist unless he's propping up the drug war. Then that goes out the window.

[Hoopla Phil]

6. The biggest problem with the interstate commerce clause was when it was "interpreted"

to mean "the power to regulate activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce" The interstate commerce clause does NOTHING of the sort.

Article 1 section 8: To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

This was done because under the Articles of Confederation (the first U.S. Constitution) The Federal Government could not so much as standardize / regulate the distance between the rails of the railroad. You actually had trains come to a stop at state borders because the tracks were different. The interstate commerce clause gives the Fed the authority to regulate commerce "among the several states" not WITHIN the several states as has been interpreted by the Supreme Court. Under the incorrect interpretation of "the power to regulate activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce" you can imprison a farmer that farms and gives away all the things he raises for having "a substantial effect on interstate commerce." This interpretation needs to be corrected!

You may also note that that is why there was a Constitutional amendment to ban alcohol. Because at the time the Fed knew that they did not have the authority otherwise. Today of course there would be no need for an amendment - they would just do it.

[Hoopla Phil]

5. If the Interstate commerce clause was correctly applied, yes.

It would then be up to the state to regulate safety.

Article one section 8 reads: "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;"

[Hoopla Phil]

7. OOPS! This was suposed to be a responce to reply #1.

[Endangered Specie]

8. So.... they could make MG recievers there???

[Hoopla Phil]

10. No, IIRC there is a provision that says no machine guns.

[Endangered Specie]

12. mmm, then SBR/SBS then

[spin]

9. Note to our Democrats in congress and to our new President...

Any attempt to push truly draconian gun laws such as outlawing all semi-automatic firearms would result in a SEVERE backlash in many parts of this country.
Not only would many citizens and voters be upset, some states might just decide to exercise "states rights" and merely ignore Federal gun law.

Even if the states failed, the controversy stirred up by their actions would cause many problems for Democrats at the election booth in the midterm and future elections.

But it's not just the western states:

New Hampshire's Concurrent Resolution 6 lays out the movement's intentions pretty bluntly..."any Act by the Congress of the United States, Executiveorder of the President ... which assumes a power not delegated to the government of United States of America by the Constitution ...shall constitute a nullification of the Constitution for the United States of America by the government."

New Hampshire's resolution goes on to state several cases - including further infringement on the right to bear arms - which would cause the state to invoke the measures mentioned above. underlining mine
http://www.sovereignsociety.com/2009Archives1stHalf/021309StatesRightsRideAgain/tabid/5310/Default.aspx

And Vermont:

The present movement for secession has been gathering steam for a decade and a half. In preparation for Vermont's bicentennial in 1991, public debates -- moderated by then-Lt. Gov. Howard Dean -- were held in seven towns before crowds that averaged 230 citizens. At the end of each, Dean asked all those in favor of Vermont's seceding from the Union to stand and be counted. In town after town, solid majorities stood. The final count: 999 (62 percent) for secession and 608 opposed

*********snip********

Against this backdrop, secessionists from all over the state will gather in June to plan a grass-roots campaign to get at least 200 towns to vote by 2012 on independence. We believe that one outcome of this meeting will be dialogues among different communities of Vermonters committed to achieving local economic vitality, be they farmers, entrepreneurs, bankers, merchants, lawyers, independent media providers, construction workers, manufacturers, artists, entertainers or anyone else with a stake in Vermont's future -- anyone for whom freedom is not just a slogan.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/30/AR2007033002076_2.html

The movement appears to be gaining some steam and Second Amendment rights plays a role in many of these states.

Already, 9 states: Washington, New Hampshire, Arizona, Montana, Michigan,
Missouri, Oklahoma, California, and Georgia have all introduced bills and resolutions declaring sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment. 12 others: Colorado, Hawaii, Pennsylvania, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Alaska, Kansas, Alabama, Nevada, Maine, and Illinois are considering such measures. Of course, the citizens of each state would have to ratify the bill, just as they would have to vote to join the Union.
http://starmaker.today.com/2009/02/05/states-rights-10th-amendment-secessionist-movement/

I don't anticipate that any of these states will actually secede from the Union, but the movement is troubling.

[Hoopla Phil]

11. If I read those laws correctly secession would not be necessary as

they nullify the Union if enough other states decide to. Perhaps it's an argument of semantics but it is interesting the way it is worded.

[Stinger2]

13. Bush Paves Martial Law: 2007 National Defense Authorization Act overturns Posse Comitatus Act

"Paradoxically, preserving liberty may require the rule
of a single leader--a dictator--willing to use those dreaded
'extraordinary measures,' which few know how, or are willing,
to employ." -- Michael Ledeen, White House advisor and
fellow of the American Enterprise Institute, "Machiavelli
on Modern Leadership: Why Machiavelli's Iron Rules Are As
Timely and Important Today As Five Centuries Ago" 

http://www.inteldaily.com/?c=117&a=1431

The idea of taking peoples guns away, is a Vote Looser for
Democrats and could be about the dumbest thing they could do.
Illinois just voted its legal to carry concealed weapons, that
about a all democratic state.