Montana's HB 246 & SBR's

**Tac71** · 05-17-09, 19:03

After hearing and reading about Montana's bill HB 246 that was passed on the grounds of the 10th Amendment. Would love to hear from some of our Legal Scholars here at M4...

If the SBR is manaufactured in the state does that qualify?

Just wondering don't know if they looked that far into it. I know it is set to go into place in Oct.

**Voodoochild** · 05-17-09, 21:52

Pretty sticky situation to be honest. It will be tied up in court battles for some time to come. I like the idea of states handling their own business. But this will be tied up in court for some time.

**Stormy556** · 05-17-09, 22:11

It won't be held up in a court battle until someone is arrested by the feds for breaking a federal law. The way federal courts have been in regards to "standing", it's the only way it would be tested. I think the smart way to test it would be with a title 1 firearm rather than taking a chance with a MG or SBR.

**TY44934** · 05-19-09, 16:50

This situation appears similar to California's so-called "medical" pot law. Here is an article which, though incorrectly titled, points out that the S. Ct. denied cert to 2 California counties who refused to issue California "medical" pot smokin licenses:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,4902661.story

So, does that mean that the S. Ct. just "legalized" pot in CA? NO. It is still against Federal law to take pot - for ANY reason - or to possess it. Those people in CA ARE breaking the law - just not State law.

Appears to me that anyone making a SBR in Montana without a prior tax stamp will still be breaking Federal law & should not be surprised when they are arrested & prosecuted (though chances are they will face "only" federal charges and serve their sentence in a federal prison).

Still, it does appear to be progress. The CA pot laws (which I disagree with 100%) have now prompted Washington to make prosecution of "patients" a "low priority" and prompted Arni to propose talking about legalization of dope. As aweful as that is, it could prompt Montana and other states to explore ways to "legalize" Title II guns made in state.

**eodinert** · 05-25-09, 16:43

It needs to be done like in Thompson/Center vs. USA.. File a form 1 to make, then sue the .gov for a tax refund.

**bkb0000** · 05-25-09, 16:56

Oregon has medical marijuana as well. two conflicting laws- which one prevails? well, the state of Oregon issues licenses to grow pot to sell to licensed marijuana smokers. the DEA still conducts raids and confiscates the marijuana, but doesn't arrest or prosecute. you can't prosecute a man for something that was "legal" in his state- no jury would ever convict, no appeals court would uphold. My state told me it was legal- how much better of a ****i defense can you ask for?

It's gotta be the same for guns. I'm no lawyer, though.

**implexant** · 05-26-09, 19:25

Originally Posted by bkb0000

It's gotta be the same for guns. I'm no lawyer, though.

I agree with you, but until anything happens, nothing is for sure. That's the way law is nowadays: you can't just read a law and apply it directly, you have to see what the courts think first.

Bit confusing and potentially frightening if you asked me.

**Saginaw79** · 05-26-09, 20:17

As I understand it yes, it includes cans, and SBRs as well as regular rifles or other firearms, everything except MGs and weapons above a certain caliber IIRC

That being said I dont want to be the first to try that since the Feds will undoubtedly still hang you, however in Texas' version of the bill the State will defend you!