Montana's HB 246 & SBR's

[bkb0000]

Recently there appears to be more and more appealing reasons to move to Texas.

you guys got the shitty end of the stick up there in WA... no NFA at all, right?

[implexant]

you guys got the shitty end of the stick up there in WA... no NFA at all, right?

Pretty much, can't even own machine gun parts. And yes, that includes a F/A BCG for an AR15. It's a felony to even possess one. No one will ship them to us either.

There are a few guys who have had NFA weapons prior to 1994 that can still possess them. But they can't be transferred in state, so they're pretty much only good as long as the owner is alive. I know on ARFCOM there's a guy who has quite the collection. He brings them to shoots in the state. Always draws a crowd.

We can own suppressors, but can't use them. LEOs ignore the law and carry/use cans anyway. The AG refuses to prosecute them but still prosecutes civilians. A lot of guys that live in SW WA go over to Oregon to shoot their cans. Not a good story if you live in Western/Central/Northern Washington. Some Sheriffs have announced they will arrest anyone possessing a can until they can determine if it has been used. Other Sheriffs are more reasonable and will sign off on forms and refuse to harass citizens, most are not reasonable.

We can also have AOWs I believe, but no SBRs.

I'll probably never be able to justify an investment in a low-end F/A like a MAC-10, but a SBR and a can would be nice.

[bkb0000]

Pretty much, can't even own machine gun parts. And yes, that includes a F/A BCG for an AR15. It's a felony to even possess one. No one will ship them to us either.

There are a few guys who have had NFA weapons prior to 1994 that can still possess them. But they can't be transferred in state, so they're pretty much only good as long as the owner is alive. I know on ARFCOM there's a guy who has quite the collection. He brings them to shoots in the state. Always draws a crowd.

We can own suppressors, but can't use them. LEOs ignore the law and carry/use cans anyway. The AG refuses to prosecute them but still prosecutes civilians. A lot of guys that live in SW WA go over to Oregon to shoot their cans. Not a good story if you live in Western/Central/Northern Washington. Some Sheriffs have announced they will arrest anyone possessing a can until they can determine if it has been used. Other Sheriffs are more reasonable and will sign off on forms and refuse to harass citizens, most are not reasonable.

We can also have AOWs I believe, but no SBRs.

I'll probably never be able to justify an investment in a low-end F/A like a MAC-10, but a SBR and a can would be nice.

ack! no m16 BCGs? i have little interest in any FA- especially not the dime-a-dozen macs everyone and their gramma has... but SBRs are highly cool-guy. you gotta move down here, man... state taxes are higher, but no sales tax.

[implexant]

ack! no m16 BCGs? i have little interest in any FA- especially not the dime-a-dozen macs everyone and their gramma has... but SBRs are highly cool-guy. you gotta move down here, man... state taxes are higher, but no sales tax.

Well, actually, I have the best of both worlds. I live in SW WA (15min from PDX), which means I shop in Oregon (no sales tax) and live in WA (no income tax). I have both a OR & WA CWP, so I can carry in both states. It's really a good place to be

-Chris

[openbolt]

I have both a OR & WA CWP, so I can carry in both states. It's really a good place to be

-Chris

Also you can legally carry here in Idaho too since you possess a valid carry permit...

openbolt

[Iraqgunz]

Please correct me if I am wrong. I used to live in WA state and I am fairly certain that the part about M16 BCG's was challenged as that part alone can do nothing to make the weapon fire automatic. It is also not exclusively for an automatic weapon either. As a matter of fact I bought my Daniel Defense M4 from Rainier Arms and it had an M16 BCG in it.

I used to have an AOW Remington when I lived there, but SBR's and SBS's are a no go.

Pretty much, can't even own machine gun parts. And yes, that includes a F/A BCG for an AR15. It's a felony to even possess one. No one will ship them to us either.

There are a few guys who have had NFA weapons prior to 1994 that can still possess them. But they can't be transferred in state, so they're pretty much only good as long as the owner is alive. I know on ARFCOM there's a guy who has quite the collection. He brings them to shoots in the state. Always draws a crowd.

We can own suppressors, but can't use them. LEOs ignore the law and carry/use cans anyway. The AG refuses to prosecute them but still prosecutes civilians. A lot of guys that live in SW WA go over to Oregon to shoot their cans. Not a good story if you live in Western/Central/Northern Washington. Some Sheriffs have announced they will arrest anyone possessing a can until they can determine if it has been used. Other Sheriffs are more reasonable and will sign off on forms and refuse to harass citizens, most are not reasonable.

We can also have AOWs I believe, but no SBRs.

I'll probably never be able to justify an investment in a low-end F/A like a MAC-10, but a SBR and a can would be nice.

[Jack-O]

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.

Under the state law, if you manufacture it from raw materials here in the state and it stays in the state, the State has re-claimed the right to regulate that item under state law exclusively under the federal constitution.

by claiming that right to regulate from the federal government the arguement goes that they have full jurisdiction over that item.

Federal law still stands and makes a counter claim that it must be registered and taxed under federal interstate commerce rules.

There will be a test case, and suprisingly the 9th circuit has been freindly to limiting the reach of the interstate commerce clause.

Should you or shouldn't you? thats a question only you can answer. on the one hand there wont be any state law enforcers that care if you have such a weapon, so as long as you stay off the radar and dont taunt of the feds you should be fine. On the other hand, you would still be violating the current court interpretation of federal law and could be prosecuted by the feds.

It's worthy of note that in cases where state law goes against federal law like the Pot cases in California, that the fed chooses cases to prosecute in large part to make examples of them. The people they choose are those who OPENLY advocate and Flaunt thier violation of federal law. Knowing when to be discrete and when to shut up would go a very long way towards keeping any run-in with the feds avoided.

[bikerdog]

I know this is a super old thread but it is something that is very relevant to me right now. Have there been any court cases dealing with this yet. Is there any relevant information available. Idaho has something similar and I am considering building an sbr using this but really don't care to be the first to test the waters.

[Koshinn]

I know this is a super old thread but it is something that is very relevant to me right now. Have there been any court cases dealing with this yet. Is there any relevant information available. Idaho has something similar and I am considering building an sbr using this but really don't care to be the first to test the waters.

As of August last year, the 9th Circuit held that the MSSA plaintiffs had standing, but that simply marking firearms "for sale and use only within Montana" was not enough to guarantee they would not move in interstate commerce.

It's going to be appealed to the Supreme Court, which it would have no matter who won at the appeals court level. Expect a 2+ year wait.

[MountainRaven]

As of August last year, the 9th Circuit held that the MSSA plaintiffs had standing, but that simply marking firearms "for sale and use only within Montana" was not enough to guarantee they would not move in interstate commerce.

It's going to be appealed to the Supreme Court, which it would have no matter who won at the appeals court level. Expect a 2+ year wait.

Links?

I seem to recall hearing that 9th Circuit overturned Montana's law and SCotUS has refused to hear the state's appeal while 20-some state AGs were petitioning the court on behalf of the state.

I would be happy to be wrong, though.