PDA

View Full Version : Montana Gun Law Going to Court



montanadave
08-25-09, 07:13
I realize these stories regarding new legislation intended to test state's rights against federal jurisdiction predicated on the interstate commerce clause got a lot of coverage several months ago. For those still interested, here's a status report on Montana's gun law which was enacted this spring.

Group ready to test gun law

JENNIFER McKEE Gazette State Bureau | Posted: Monday, August 24, 2009 11:15 pm

HELENA - A prominent Montana gun rights group has partnered with a national organization to test federal authority over a new class of firearms: guns manufactured and used solely in the state of Montana.
The Montana Shooting Sports Association, with headquarters in Missoula, and the Second Amendment Foundation, of Bellevue, Wash., said Friday that they would file a federal lawsuit on Oct. 1 to prevent federal gun control laws from being enforced in Montana for guns made and used within the state boundaries.
"If a gun is made in Montana and stays in Montana, it isn't engaging in interstate commerce," said Alan Gottlieb, of the Second Amendment Foundation. "The federal government really should bug out."
At issue is the Montana Firearms Freedom Act, which passed the 2009 Legislature and was signed into law by Gov. Brian Schweitzer. That law states that guns, ammunition and certain gun parts manufactured and used in Montana are not subject to federal gun laws.
The law goes into effect Oct. 1. Several other states are considering identical legislation, although only Tennessee has passed a similar law.
Currently, individuals and businesses that sell or manufacture most guns must have a federal license.
Gary Marbut, president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, said that licensure is about control.
"Whenever there is licensure, there is control. That's the purpose of licensure," he said. "We don't think the source of those items that are essential to our Second Amendment freedoms should be controlled by the federal government."
Scot Thomasson, a spokesman for the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, declined to comment for this article.
However, the agency sent letters to all federal gun license holders in the state last month. That letter stated that the Montana Firearm Freedom Act did not nullify federal gun regulations.
"All provisions of the Gun Control Act and the National Firearms Act and their corresponding regulations continue to apply," according to the letter, which was signed by Carson Carroll, assistant director of the ATF in Washington, D.C. "These, as well as other federal requirements and prohibitions continue to apply whether or not the firearms or ammunition has crossed state lines."
It is important that the guns and ammo not be used outside Montana, Gottlieb said. So far, the federal government has justified federal control over guns by citing the "interstate commerce clause," which states that the federal government can regulate commerce between the states.
But if a gun will not be leaving Montana, there is no "interstate commerce" and the federal government has no standing to enforce its laws, Gottlieb said.
Marbut said they're planning to file suit in Montana federal court the day the law goes into effect. He said he has received letters from Montanans interested in making their own guns, but they're not sure the new law will protect them from federal prison time.
Those people, Marbut said, are the "test case." He is anticipating the suit will seek to prevent the ATF from enforcing federal laws. Marbut said he didn't want any Montanans to have to go to federal prison to test the legal arguments behind Montana's Firearms Freedom Act.
In the meantime, he said, please don't make a gun.
"We are continuing to highly recommend to Montana people that nobody make one of these Montana devices until we can clarify these legal issues in court," he said. "We don't want some Montana citizens to face potential federal prison time."
The law states that the gun must be machined in Montana; people couldn't simply assemble a gun here from parts they bought outside the state.
Marbut said gun laws ought to be made and enforced by the states.
"We would prefer that if there's going to be regulation (of guns) that it done at the state level in a way that is consistent with our people and our culture in Montana," he said. "We don't need the kinds of regulation that New Jersey may need or that California may need."

Henny
08-25-09, 08:11
Thanks for the update Dave. It will be interesting to see how this plays out!

A-Bear680
08-25-09, 08:12
The Second Amendment Foundation has an excellent track record for winning.
www.saf.org

They have a heavy case load and usually win. I just checked SAF's membership: 650,000 , that up 50,000 from the last figures a couple months ago. There's and there's whiners. The Second Amendment Foundation is a winner.

A-Bear680
08-25-09, 15:02
Follow-up:
There is a 4 page thread with quite a bit of background info concerning the Montana situation over on theakforum.net.
www.theakforum.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=95126


Registration might be a requirement to look over the site.

MarshallDodge
08-25-09, 17:59
I am eager to see them win this battle. :cool:

A-Bear680
08-26-09, 16:11
Seems like this movement could focus attention on Second and Tenth Amendment issues in a way that could force the gun-grabbers to dump huge amounts of money & political capital into a long struggle that they can never really win.
www.firearmsfreedomact.com

www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montana_Firearms_Freedom_Act
" ....Montana and Tennesse have passed these bills into law. However Texas , Alaska , Utah , Minnesotta , South Carolina , and most recently Florida have introduced similar bills."

Edit to add: This bill could could force the Justice Department and various wanna-be gun-grabbers to argue that single shot .22 rifles that are produced in a state , regulated by that state , & stay inside that state are an unacceptable threat to the public safety in San Francisco , Chicago , Boston , and New York. Not a good position for them in the run-up to the mid-term Congressional elections next year . Even worse as the next Presidential election cycle heats up 3 years from now.


Sucks to be them.
:p

kmrtnsn
08-26-09, 20:09
The bill is nothing more than feel good chest thumping by politicians trying to show they are standing up for State's rights for their constituencies. It means absolutely nothing. People move freely between States. People own firearms. The fed regulates firearms, any firearms that can, do, and might move between States.

A-Bear680
08-30-09, 07:22
We'll see how this develops. The Firearms Freedom Bill was introduced in Michigan this month. Officials in around 19 other states have pledged to introduce the bill . With around half of the states involved , it could be that this movement has legs.
Seems like this whole thing is more about breaking the gun-grabbers in court and in the mind of the public than anything else.
Kinda like all those BS lawsuits against the gun companies back in the 1980's & early 1990's.
:cool:

perna
08-30-09, 08:11
The fed regulates firearms, any firearms that can, do, and might move between States.

Well not really since states like, CT, MA, MD, NJ, NY, and CA make their own restrictions. Not being able to bring a legally owned firearm that I bought under federal regulations into those states means the feds do not make the regulations, the states do.

Probably the best that can come from this is that the states that over regulate will be forced to change to federal regulations. That is if the feds win, meaning that states cant make their own firearms laws. That gives a precedence for those states to be sued for changing federal regulations.

If the feds lose, well that can actually change the way this whole country operates, not only for firearms, but stuff like drug laws which the feds violate right now.

kmrtnsn
08-30-09, 11:00
Perna,

You don't understand the difference between federal law and authority and that of the States. State A can make a law more restrictive of federal law. For example, you can own a Sched III FA 8" AR in Nevada with the blessing of NV and BATF but if you want the same in MA, you can't if MA says you can't. Chalk one up for "State's rights". California may say medical marijuana is legal but marijuana is a scheduled prohibited drug under federal law so one can and will go to federal prison for possession with the intent to distribute if the quantity is sufficient. Where these States are mistaken in this movement is in trying to say a item has to move in interstate commerce to be regulated by the federal government. This is an incorrect assumption. It is sufficient for the item to have the potential to move in ISC or be part of a class of items regulated as moving in ISC. Firearms, regardless where they are manufactured fit this definition. As I said, this is nothing more than a feel good, chest thumping, "Look at what I am doing to stand up to the feds" smoke and mirrors move so that politicians can look like they are doing something for their constituency when in fact they are not.

A-Bear680
09-13-09, 11:21
It's not about winning in court.
It's about focusing public attention on firearms civil rights during the run-up to the next two federal elections. YKWIM , at exactly the time when the senior leadership of the Democratic Party want very desperately for the issue to go away.
:D

boltcatch
09-13-09, 11:59
Perna,

You don't understand the difference between federal law and authority and that of the States. State A can make a law more restrictive of federal law. For example, you can own a Sched III FA 8" AR in Nevada with the blessing of NV and BATF but if you want the same in MA, you can't if MA says you can't. Chalk one up for "State's rights". California may say medical marijuana is legal but marijuana is a scheduled prohibited drug under federal law so one can and will go to federal prison for possession with the intent to distribute if the quantity is sufficient. Where these States are mistaken in this movement is in trying to say a item has to move in interstate commerce to be regulated by the federal government. This is an incorrect assumption. It is sufficient for the item to have the potential to move in ISC or be part of a class of items regulated as moving in ISC. Firearms, regardless where they are manufactured fit this definition. As I said, this is nothing more than a feel good, chest thumping, "Look at what I am doing to stand up to the feds" smoke and mirrors move so that politicians can look like they are doing something for their constituency when in fact they are not.


We know exactly what you're talking about in regards to the commerce clause.

We're also saying it is total and complete bullshit. EVERYTHING has a potential to move in interstate commerce. The feds position on the commerce clause is established by old case law; it can be overturned just as easily.

The federal government has construed the commerce clause to allow regulation of virtually anything and everything that they can manage to politically squeeze past the other amendments.

It's bleedingly obvious that the founders did not intend the interstate commerce clause to be a "ha ha, I win, I'm going to give myself any non-enumerated power I damn well please in order to 'regulate' interstate commerce" clause for the federal government.

As a side note, 9th circuit has been attacking the commerce clause on a number of fronts for years, from drugs to NFA items.

A-Bear680
10-16-09, 17:59
" Plaintiffs filed suit.... in federal district court , on October 1 2009."

www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montana_Firearms_Freedom_Act

:)

PRGGodfather
10-16-09, 18:55
The bill is nothing more than feel good chest thumping by politicians trying to show they are standing up for State's rights for their constituencies. It means absolutely nothing. People move freely between States. People own firearms. The fed regulates firearms, any firearms that can, do, and might move between States.

And according to the case law on such matters, you are correct.

The Interstate Commerce issue is why when it came to the Medical Marijuana question -- the conservatives on SCOTUS ended up defending the dope along with the states rights -- and the liberals ended up against dope by supporting federal oversight!

Interstate commerce and states rights can be double-edged swords, depending on the object at hand.

Sometimes, politics makes for strange bedfellows...

chadbag
10-16-09, 18:59
Perna,
Where these States are mistaken in this movement is in trying to say a item has to move in interstate commerce to be regulated by the federal government. This is an incorrect assumption. It is sufficient for the item to have the potential to move in ISC or be part of a class of items regulated as moving in ISC.

At least that is the claim of the federal govt

A-Bear680
10-16-09, 19:22
In related news:
SCOTUS to hear SAF case against the Chicago gun ban.

www.saf.org

Artos
10-16-09, 19:36
On a side note...this has me thinking.

-If the state of Montana wins...It would be interesting to see how many others follow suit and which states could survive in a very competetive market by only supplying products within that particular state.

-Which leads to....can said company sell the product with two seperate sets of rules. One for the residents of Montana and also the current out of state sales w/ ffl etc??


This is going to be very interesting to watch.

kmrtnsn
10-16-09, 23:35
"At least that is the claim of the federal govt"

No, not the claim of the Fed but the ruling of SCOTUS.