I was quite impressed that the words were finally articulated by Judge Andrew Napolitano at Campaign For Liberty’s rally in St. Louis in March regarding the second amendment:
If a politician tells you that he’s in favour of the Second Amendment because he’s a hunter - he is no friend of the Second Amendment. Here is the dirty little secret of the Second Amendment that you never learned in public schools. The Second Amendment was written to give you the right to shoot at the government when it becomes a tyranny.
Now the Democratic governor of Montana has signed into law an incredible attempt to erode the power of the Federal Government as it applies to gun laws. Let me just lay it out from the bill:
A personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in Montana and that remains within the borders of Montana is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce...
What this functionally means is that items that the federal government loves to regulate and prohibit: handguns, silencers, ammunition, scopes and so on - would be perfectly legal in Montana and exempt from requirements to engage the Federal framework of registration.
Montana’s argument is sound - those items which are made in Montana for use in Montana are not being involved in “interstate commerce.” That small clause of the constitution which lies at the heart of many federal laws, including drug laws, alcohol laws, transportation laws and firearms laws among other things is being directly challenged by this legislation.
Attempts like this with medical marijuana have promoted Federal officials to react by performing armed raids of citizens in California, for example. Aside from the aggression on behalf of the federal agents - these confrontations generally were non-violent. However a very different scenario is now set up in Montana.
Gun loving people in the state are going to take advantage of this law. They are going to buy silencers, ammunition and guns - and a percentage of these are going to be willing to put Judge Napolitano’s words into action. A federal raid on gun-loving, moderately anti-government individuals may very well result in violence.
Unfortunately, this is the inevitable result of an aggressively growing central government that has run out of external enemies to prosecute. Those enemies of the state begin to be revealed from within. Average people, who merely want to keep the means to defend themselves or even exercise their rights of bearing arms may risk violent interaction with Federal agents in Montana.
EDIT: Looks like Tennessee is also on board.
I have no idea how the feds are going to respond to this, but its going to be interesting to watch this play out. I wouldn’t rule out their looking for another Waco-type siege in order to manipulate public opinion. At this stage, things are getting out of their hands and they almost have to react soon if they are going to override the authority the states are taking back. Maybe they’ll manufacture some more “homegrown terrorist cells” - you know the ones where they get a federal agent to coerce some weak-minded punks to plan some kind of crime against a military base and then bust it up before they have a chance to back out.
I think the Feds will be shaking in their collective boots over this and will do all they can to not let it stand. I think what they will try is to deny Montana federal funds in order to break the will of the state. God bless Montana and may you prevail!!
We need to protect our 2nd amendment and our state laws.
I am behind the state of Montana.
I think it will stand as states have individual rights that the federal government has no control over. The wording keeps pointing out ‘interstate commerce’. I’m no attorney, but I would expect that per this law, anything made in the state and ‘consumed’ in the state cannot be affected by Federal law. BUT, if it’s made elsewhere, and is imported into the state it could be regulated in the state that it comes from before it hits Montana.
There are ways that it can be handled, like blockades for raw materials like copper, lead, brass, steel, aluminum, etc. I don’t think that making a state subject to a blockade would go over too well.
I honestly don’t believe the Feds have the guts to lock horns with Montana on this. If they take it to the Supremes, they risk pretty much everything the feds have become over the years. The implications if this goes against them are just awesome. So much so, I honestly don’t believe they’d obey the decision.
More likely they may just let Montana skate on this one, which is why we need to get our own states to follow suit and on an individual basis stand with these patriots whatever the consequences. We have a great constitution, nice to see signs of it returning.
This is awesome news texas is to follow suit with utah not far behind its about time these liberals learn not to mess with the 2nd!!!!!!!!!!!
“If the judicial power fall short of giving effect to the laws of the union, the existence of the Federal government is at an end.” MARSHALL: Worcester V. Georgia 6 Pet 31 U.S. 515,570 (1832).
Dennis, can you elaborate?
The feds claim their power to regulate intra-state commerce and other state unique activities not allowed by the constitution from the Wickard v. Filburn 1943 SCOTUS ruling that “reasoned” that wheat grown for intra-state use effected inter-state commerce because it wasn’t released outside the state. Laws and rules grew from that until we are where we are today. Judge Napalitano on Beck tonight predicted that the Montana style gun legislation could overturn Wickard by a vote of 5-4 or even 6-3. Too many states are now invovled to do another Waco so it will probably be settled in the courts. The Montana legislation ties in nicely with the sovereignty resolutions many states have in place now.
As a result of this great news…
I am SERIOUSLY looking at Montana as a possible future home!!!
It is going to take bold, strong states to stand up to this socialist government that has evolved here in the United States of America!
I, for one, intend to do all in MY power, to take back OUR COUNTRY!
The Constitution of the United States of America, starts off, “WE, the PEOPLE”… It is OUR Constitution! It was written FOR US and BY US, just as the government is SUPPOSED to be “OF the PEOPLE”, “BY the PEOPLE”, and “FOR the PEOPLE”!!!
NOT… “of the ELITE” or “of the RULING CLASS” or “of the ENLIGHTENED”, or “OF the DEMOCRATS”, or “of the BIG BUSINESS”, or “of the SPECIAL INTERESTS GROUPS”, or “OF the LOBBYISTS”…
NOR… is it “FOR the ELITE” or “FOR the RULING CLASS” or “FOR the ENLIGHTENED”, or “FOR the DEMOCRATS”, or “FOR the BIG BUSINESSES”, or “FOR the SPECIAL INTERESTS GROUPS”, or “FOR the LOBBYISTS”…
NOR… is it “FOR (governing) EVERYONE BUT the ELITE” or “FOR (governing) EVERYONE BUT the RULING CLASS” or “FOR (governing) EVERYONE BUT the ENLIGHTENED”, or “FOR (governing) EVERYONE BUT the DEMOCRATS”, or “FOR (governing)EVERYONE BUT the BIG BUSINESSES”, or “FOR (governing) EVERYONE BUT the SPECIAL INTERESTS GROUPS”, or “FOR (governing) EVERYONE BUT the LOBBYISTS”…
NOR… is it “BY the ELITE”, or “BY the RULING CLASS”, or “BY the ENLIGHTENED”, or “BY the DEMOCRATS”, or “BY the BIG BUSINESSES”, or “BY the SPECIAL INTERESTS GROUPS”, or “BY the LOBBYISTS”…
NOR… were our founding fathers CAREER POLITICIANS! Too many GREAT candidates for President have been put-down and dismissed because they had no experience as a LAWYER! NOWHERE does OUR Constitution say that you have to be a LAWYER to be the President! Just as Sarah Palin was put down for not having any INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS experience! THESE ARE NOT QUALIFICATIONS for President!
We need to understand, we DO NOT WANT, NOR do we NEED career Politicians! They know how to do ONE THING and ONE THING ONLY! “Sue people”=(TAKE MONEY FROM SOME PEOPLE and GIVE it to OTHER PEOPLE) Their political experience shows them how to SPEND MONEY. It shows them how to sneak around laws and to IGNORE ALL ETHICS, MORALS, and VALUES.(The EXACT VALUES that made this country GREAT!!!!!!!
These Socialists in D.C., have NO IDEA what a Dollar is worth! They spend TRILLIONS of Dollars! They have NO IDEA what it takes to RUN A BUSINESS, or OPERATE within BUDGET CONSTRAINTS! If they don’t have enough money to give away to their buddies who donated big money to their campaigns, they just TAKE MORE AWAY from the people who DIDN’T give big money to their campaign!
Our Founding Fathers were FARMERS! Yes, FARMERS! The eight week recess that Congress gets in the summer, is because they had to go home to take care of harvest and/or planting crops!!!
Let’s focus on finding GOOD HONEST MEN, who are willing to do what is BEST for The United States of America, and NOT what is best for THEMSELVES and their cronies ONLY!
They have eroded our civil rights until we are no longer FREE!
Freedom has come to mean, “the absence of slavery”, or “the absence of incarceration”. That is NOT what FREEDOM is! FREEDOM is when you are FREE to do ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING you want, ANYTIME, ANYWHERE! Our VALUES and PRINCIPLES, and our MORALS, and our ETHICS are what regulate us… WE REGULATE OURSELVES! That is what makes freedom such an ABSOLUTELY BEAUTIFUL THING! That is why it is SO PRECIOUS! Those who did NOT self-regulate themselves, and ABUSED their ABSOLUTE FREEDOM, and USED their ABSOLUTE FREEDOM to infringe upon the FREEDOM and/or GOD-GIVEN RIGHTS of another, were SEVERLY punished. The reason they were so severely punished, is that they had ABSOLUTE FREEDOM in their hands, and what they chose to do with it was UNCONSCIONABLE! They used it AGAINST the FREEDOMS and GOD-GIVEN RIGHTS of another!
WE NEED TO FIGHT TO GET BACK OUR FREEDOM!!!!!
Good step in the right direction, MONTANA!!!
Tom F
California
It’s a beautiful thing…
I just heard about this today on the Glenn Beck show. Nothing in the media. Then I did some research and found that Utah, Texas, Arkansas, and several others are pondering the same thing. This is amazing. If successful, it could reverse all the BS that has been happening for years. Imagine that States Rights …
I knew I was in love with Montana every time I travel through it. Now I know why …. Do you take refugees from California?
God bless the State of Montana
Go Montana!!!
NOR… were our founding fathers CAREER POLITICIANS!
A fair number of them were career politicians.
All I have to say is Messiah, Dead Fish, Turbo Tax, and all of the other pieces of crap in Washington, bring it on baby!!! Your reign of terror is about to come to an abrupt end. WE WANT OUR COUNTRY BACK!!! Just as our founding fathers fought to free this country, I too will fight to free it again. The 2nd Amendment was put into place for the reasons that we see being played out in front of our eyes everyday. It is there for us to defend ourselves from tyranny. Montana, Texas, Utah, and any other state that is introducing legislation that is similar in nature to what Montana has signed into law are doing our founders proud. I say hell yes!!!
God Bless the Union of Organized States, commonly reffered to as the United States. God Bless Montana, Utah, Texas and any other State challenging Federal totalianarianism. Note - we have never been a Federalized Organinization of States. The Federal Government grew from the need of an organized army to protect the STATES, not the Feds. Use of the Military to protect the Federal Government from the States is a direct violation of States rights. The Military belongs collectively to the states, managed by the feds.
This is the most powerfull and welcome movement I have witnessed in my lifetime. The is the ONLY good I have seen come about as a result of last years election (stolen by ACORN).
I am contacting all the people I know in our state governemt and will be asking them to introduce similar bills.
It is time, and I am ready!
People keep refering to the government as “socialist”. It isn’t socialist, it is Facist. There IS a difference. This Obama guy reminds me of Mussolini. Check the history books, you’ll see what I mean. FDR fell into the same category. The interstate commerce clause of the Constitution has been abused all out of shape, and is the source of most of the Federal power abuse.Maybe this Montana law will help correct that.
When I was in the military, I swore an oath to “protect the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, both foreign AND DOMESTIC.” (my emphasis) Does this mean that I am obligated to shoot some jerk trying to take my gun away in Montana? Just a thought.
See also Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d 98 (9th Cir.) (plaintiff lacked standing to challenge denial of permit to carry concealed weapon, because Second Amendment is a right held by states, not by private citizens), cert. denied 117 S. Ct. 276 (1996); United States
This is an amusing little game by pandering politicians. To think that a state could, by itself, pass a law and thereby exempt itself from federal law. To think that a state could, by itself, overrule an authoritative interpretation of the U.S. Constitution by the Supreme Court of the United States.
Those of you who carry your constitution in your shirt pocket should check out that section known as the Supremacy Clause. Those of you who know a little bit about law should read the case of Willard v Fickburn. And, for that matter, Marbury v Madison. Don’t think for a minute that any court in the United States is going to overrule those cases and uphold this bit of silly foolishness.
But, by all means, please do move to Montana.
Impeach and Deport the Kenyan Usurper. Here’s what I think is going to happen.
Step 1:
Obama’s Muslim-hugging appeasement policies are going to result in nukes falling into the hands of Taliban/AlQaida “terrorists” (oh, please excuse me. I meant to say “perpetrators of man-caused disasters” - the word “terrorist” can now only be used to describe “domestic” AMERICAN terrorists, i.e people who talk too much about the Constitution!)
Step 2:
Suitcase nukes smuggled in through America’s unsecured borders will go off in one or more cities - all the more reason to move to Montana!
Step 3:
Our patriotic generals will be awaiting orders from the Commander-in-Chief to go and return the entire Middle East to the stone ages.
Step 4:
The President will refuse to give that order, whereupon the military, realizing what must be done if the country is to literally and physically survive, will have no other choice than to arrest the President, and confine him to be tried for treason at a later date.
Step 5:
There will be a temporary, and very welcome imposition of martial law, until our military leaders can take care of making sure that America’s mortal enemy, namely Islam, is rendered utterly and completely incapable of perpetrating any addition harm, or posing any kind of a further threat to Western Civilization.
LOL
Supremacy Clause
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
notwithstanding being the key word and meaning “without being opposed or prevented by”.
So what this clause states is it will be the supreme law unless superseded
by state law.
And is so written as to not infringe on state rights and law.
I was unable to find case law matching Willard v Fickburn,or Marbury v Madison.
Where should I be looking?
WAY TO GO MONTANA!! I STAND BEHIND YOU AND THE 2nd AMENDMENT 100 PERCENT!! ENOUGH ALREADY WITH THE GUN GRABING “DUM-A-CRATES”!!
It is certainly a great bit of news ! However, there must be more States that follow Montana’s lead. Now, is the time to push, for this type of Legislation, in every State. Montana has made the first move, let’s not leave them out there by themselves.
The Supremacy Clause states that the judges of every state shall be bound by the Laws of the United States (i.e. the supreme Law of the Land), even if state laws conflict with that law. Notwithstanding means the same thing as regardless, or even though. So to translate: regardless of what state laws say, state judges must apply federal law.
This isn’t some crackpot theory. It’s one of the most fundamental legal principles in our country, and it is applied every day by the courts at all levels in all states.
As for those cases, Marbury v. Madison is the single most important case ever decided by the Supreme Court. It is the basis for our entire tradition of judicial review. It’s an 1803 decision of the US Supreme Court and a brief query on google will bring up more information than you possibly need. Willard v Fickburn is also a very famous case. Google and ye shall find.
I’m writing an article for my personal blog about this, and came across this site. Lots of people who seem to be the enemy of my enemy, so I guess you’re friendly enough to leave a comment. :Þ
Nice post Colin, and some good comment reading as well. I also agree with this decision, and I see the points of both sides.
The government only has a hammer, something they have hoped gave them a right to monitor/regulate, and everything they wanted to regulate became a nail and they used that same hammer to nail all of their needs into their little box of sorts, and now it’s about time to step outside of the box.
Montana, and those like her, will help change the paradigm, and for those of us in the states who do, it’s going to be a great ride.
Sincerely,
John Dawson
Thanks for the comments John. I’ll be sure to check out your blog!
Chris A hit the nail on the head.
Today, it is widely accepted that the Constitution authorizes courts to review and invalidate state laws that conflict with federal statutes. At the same time, prominent commentators and even some judges maintain that courts should not seriously review the constitutionality of federal statutes alleged to exceed the scope of Congress’ enumerated powers. In their view, the constitutional structure protects the states (and thereby reduces the need for judicial review of federal power), but establishes no comparable safeguards to deter states from interfering with federal prerogatives. Contrary to this position, there is an express textual basis for judicial review of federal statutes alleged to exceed Congress’ enumerated powers. The Supremacy Clause establishes a rule of decision for courts adjudicating the rights and duties of parties under both state and federal law. Under our federal system, the States possess sovereignty concurrent with that of the Federal Government, subject only to limitations imposed by the Supremacy Clause. The Clause, in turn, designates as the supreme Law of the Land only those Laws of the United States . . . made in Pursuance of the Constitution. If a federal statute satisfies this condition, courts must apply the statute notwithstanding contrary state law. If the federal statute fails this condition, however, it does not qualify as the supreme Law of the Land and courts remain free to apply state law. Thus, in order to apply the Supremacy Clause, courts must necessarily consider and resolve challenges to the constitutionality of federal statutes. The text, history, and structure of the Constitution confirm that the Supremacy Clause authorizes judicial review of federal statutes alleged to exceed the scope of federal power. The Founders considered three alternative mechanisms for resolving conflicts between state and federal law: coercive military force, congressional power to negative state laws, and adjudication under the Supremacy Clause. The decision to enlist courts - rather than Congress or the President - indicates that the Founders preferred to treat conflicts between state and federal law as judicial, rather than political questions. In addition, by expressly conditioning the supremacy of federal statutes on their constitutionality, the Supremacy Clause reassured the states that courts (both federal and state) would keep the federal government within the bounds of its assigned powers. Thus, in effect, the Clause reserves all remaining powers to the states, or to the people. These conclusions find support in the Supreme Court’s early invocation of the Supremacy Clause to explain judicial review of federal statutes in cases like McCulloch v. Maryland and Gibbons v. Ogden.
The constitutionality of a federal gun control law does not depend on what the state of Montana thinks about. Any gun dealer has long been able to refuse to comply with federal laws, and then challenge those laws as unconstituional. The strength of that case does not at all depend on Montana’s “declarations.”
There is a reason the NRA has never challenged federal gun control power to the Supreme Court. It will lose. There is no way in Hades that the Supreme Court would find federal gun control laws to be beyond federal power. In fact, gun control laws are a perfect example of what the federal government is supposed to do. Many states, for instance, would like to regulate guns. These efforts would be completely undermined if their neighbor states opted for no regulation. This is a paradigm situation where the federal power should intervene, and that has been recognized since nearly the beginning of the Republic. It was the basis for the Dred Scott decision, for instance.
“The constitutionality of a federal gun control law does not depend on what the state of Montana thinks about.”
Yes it does,
If federal Legislation does not seek to abide 100% by and for the Constitution then it has no authority.
OK. But what does it matter whether Montana thinks that the federal law is unconstitutional? Are you suggesting that states are free to decide for themselves which federal laws they have to recognize? That would be some crazy system.
Montana’s statute is political posturing, and nothing more. As I said, the NRA and gun dealers have always had the power to challenge federal gun control legislation in court. To my knowledge, they have not tried, or else they have tried and failed. That is because no court in this country would ever rule in their favor. Montana’s “declaration” that federal laws don’t apply to it doesn’t change the legal arguments or legal calculus one iota.
We are pleased that we are both Americans and Montanans. We have no interest in breaking free from our nation, but want to only see a limitation on the powers of the federal government. Less centralized powers are better we sense; allowing the States their rights, because this is where most of the programs are located anyway… simply stated.
Montana is a free state inside the Union, and lest anyone say otherwise, we are all very loyal Americans. We mind our own business and still help our neighbours and wave when people pass by in a automobile. That is the way we like it.
I thank our elected lawmakers and applaud them for standing firmly … because frankly this is what most Americans want to see happening.
Good job Montana!
Also, “LOL”:
State soveriegnty was emplaced for the purpose of empowering states to defend themselves against intentionally misplaced laws passed in spite of being 100% against Constitutional rights. For an example of this look at the 10th Amendment please.
“Regulation” could be interpreted as a “first-step” to imposition, and violation of the Bill of Rights. I notice you like to specify court cases (A court may follow, or not follow Federal law depending on circumstances, and applicability), so I am pondering the following:
It has been affirmed via the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) that the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, does in fact uphold the individual citizens right to bear arms. (See DC vs. Heller)
The 2nd Amendment does not specifically specify the federal governments ability to moderate it. Thereby the power is not granted to the Federal Government via the Constitution.
So where-in does the Federal Government derive its power to impose limitations on constitutional rights?
Good job Montana, way to set an example! The lefty legal types are now trying to find reasons to disqualify your achievements, with laws they are not authorized!
Well, It seems we have come down to this basis of thought. We both have an opinion or rather our interpretation of what the Constitution means. We get in trouble when we try to interpret what someone else has said or written.
Written words are used for a purpose, that is to state clear thought. Clear and rational words need not be interpreted just accepted as stated. When we try to change the thought behind an expressed statement, we are trying to become the author instead of the reader. There is great error in trying to
interpret what others have written, no one has the authority to interpret what I write, it’s just plain words, just read.
from lol “Are you suggesting that states are free to decide for themselves which federal laws they have to recognize”?
Yes, but only when the state law is in line with the Constitution and the federal is not. The Federal Gov. was created for and by the states, it should not over step it’s authority given by the states.
Finally, a force greater than that of just the average citizen has put their foot down. Everyone, we must petition our representatives, legislators and Governors to stand up against a federal government that has been out of control for years. We need the help of everyone. The time is now! What has been done to our nation and the path that our nation has traveled for many years is so far removed from that which the founders intended. Every year our personal freedoms have diminished while those of illegal aliens and absolutely insane liberals have grown. The hate crime laws will protect pedophiles. My God what have we done? Why are the insane liberals protecting these people? Power, Power, Power. They have to recruit more and more to stay in power. They lie, deceive, cheat and steel to gather as many votes as possible. Why? To stay in power. The actions of Montana are just the start. A foothold so to speak. But it is one rung on a long ladder. Support Montana, but fight for your state to join. This has gone far enough. The federal government is out of control. Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians and Independents know it. Everyone within these groups is not insane. We must all band together and fight. Show your support. Fly a Don’t Tread On Me flag. Do something. Recruit Like minded people. Do something damnit. Our Life and Liberty are at stake.
kevinegan1@gmail.com
Nullification has been dead since 1833. It ain’t going to happen.
“The Federal Gov. was created for and by the states, it should not over step it’s authority given by the states.”
I’m not going to pretend to be a Constitutional scholar, since I know I will get schooled, but this is the question: From whence does the federal government derive it’s authority? If it comes from the states, as has been suggested and as I believe, then states have every right to reassert their sovereignty whenever the federal government tries to usurp power it was never granted. And the Supremacy Clause would naturally have to be contextually interpreted in light of this fact.
But here is why this is a big deal. The feds have been very busy making ready for martial law at least since the 80’s and Rex-84. Most recently they have created NorthCom as a domestic military unit to be used against the American people. They have routinely violated Posse Comitatus by using the military for everything from traffic stops to maintaining general order at crime scenes. In some instances, the governors of states are completely unaware of this until they find out from the news media. Border patrol is being allowed to conduct routine traffic stops and warrantless searches of American citizens more than 100 miles from the border. (Some of you will remember the news link about the Baptist pastor that was beaten and tased by them when he refused to comply with a warrantless search.) So all this and much more is going on and cooperation on the part of the states is more crucial to the federal government than it has been possibly since the Civil War.
Montana has been know to buck federal law before, like the 1974 55 mph speed limit.
The Second Amendment is a restriction on federal and state power. So is the First Amendment, for that matter. The federal and state governments don’t “limit” rights; rather, rights limit the power of the governments.
However, no right is absolute. This is a fairly basic proposition that derives from the notion of a right itself. The classic example is that a person has no free speech right to shout fire in a crowded theater. Nor does a person have a free speech right to order another person to kill, or conspire with another person to rob a bank, etc.
Second Amendment rights are not absolute either. The Second Amendment gives you the right to bear arms. It does not grant you the right, however, to bear any arms under any circumstances. The government has, and always will have, the right to prevent you from owning a nuclear bomb. The government has, and always will have, the power to prevent you from carrying any gun on an airplance. The government does not need “power” to limit your rights. The rights are limited by their very nature.
It is impossible to live in a society where residents walk around with unlimited rights.
ChrisA, states do have the right to assert their sovereignty when a federal law has overstepped its authority. And there is a method for doing it, too. Namely, challenge the law in court.
I know that some people don’t like the idea of the US Supreme Court deciding the law of the land, because it’s part of the federal government. But if you think it through, there is no other way to organize society. Every country needs a highest court. Everyone in that country needs to recognize the power of that court to decide disputes. That way, when there are disputes, the problem can be peacefully resolved without resort to war or violence.
Think about what’s wrong with the UN. Well, there are many things, but one central problem is its ineffectiveness. Why is it ineffective? Because it does not have a judicial power that is accepted by all of its members. It has the Security Council, which issues resolutions and the resolutions are supposed to have the force of law. But countries routinely ignore the resolutions, because they do not accept the final authority of the Security Council. And wars inevitably follow.
The logic of this statute inevitably leads to war. Just as it about a hundred and fifty years ago. If states take an attitude that they get to decide when federal law applies, it won’t be long until they are disregarding every law that works to their disadvantage. Why should the state of Michigan respect a judgment of a court in the state of Georgia against General Motors, for breach of contract? Michigan might say that the decision is wrong, and they won’t honor it. Only the power of the US Supreme Court keeps Michigan and Montana in line. And without it, the federal union would become a conferation of quarrelling states.
“ChrisA, states do have the right to assert their sovereignty when a federal law has overstepped its authority. And there is a method for doing it, too. Namely, challenge the law in court.”
Again, I’m not going to pretend to be a legal scholar here, but this doesn’t make sense to me. If we are talking about two sovereign entities, the state government could not acquiesce to a federal court without relinquishing its own sovereignty in the process. Certainly this may be one civil way of hashing out differences, should the state choose to take this route, but it seems that other, more severe options should be available as well. The refusal to comply with a federal law seems like it should be a viable option to me.
too…much…funny…in this thread….
God bless Montana and all the other states that are doing the same thing. But the Feds will probable withhold any Federal funding for projects like road repair or any other projects you get Federal aide for until you comply, no, make that submit to their will. Stand your ground. The Federal Government has taken to much power and control over every state and personal right and freedom. Violating the Constitution of the United States.
We’re not talking about two equally sovereign entities. We are talking about the federal government and a state government. Like it or not, the states do not have and never have had full sovereignty under the Constitution. They ceded much of it when they joined the Union.
What “more severe” options should a state contemplate instead of complying with the dictates of a federal court? Secession? Are you serious? That’s what it comes down to. I guess there really is a lot of tainted kool-aid going around this time of year.
John L….the state of Montanta has thumbed their noses at Federal Funding for one, for two, this is a lose, lose proposition for the Fed…if the Supreme Court rules against MT, they have already said they will secede…and believe me, other states will follow suit. If the Supreme Court rules for MT, you will see the biggest rollout of state laws nullifying a great deal of Federal laws. We, the People, have pretty much had it, and they know it. Obama can dismiss those of us who stood up at Tea Parties(”a bunch of folks waving tea bags”) but I wouldn’t think they could ignore the state governments for too long.
Further, the Obamalama Administration has already shown their unwillingness to stand up against people/entities that stand up against them. Do you think, even for a minute, that the people of the USA would put up with CWII? There are too many people with friends/family in other states. That is one idea that the American people would not countenance. The Fed will, in all probability, try to ignore what is going on. That is how they do business. Ignore it and hope it goes away.
“We’re not talking about two equally sovereign entities. We are talking about the federal government and a state government. Like it or not, the states do not have and never have had full sovereignty under the Constitution. They ceded much of it when they joined the Union.”
I’m not going to say you’re wrong, but can you back up this statement? Perhaps “equal” is not the proper description. Obviously all states adhere to the Constitution under the Union. But in doing so I don’t see how this limits their sovereignty. It seems to me that this is just the agreed-upon establishment of a framework within which the sovereignty of each state operates. I cannot see how joining the Union, which is really a confederation of states, means that the Union itself trumps state sovereignty.
“What ‘more severe’ options should a state contemplate instead of complying with the dictates of a federal court? Secession? Are you serious? That’s what it comes down to. I guess there really is a lot of tainted kool-aid going around this time of year.”
Don’t put words in my mouth. I didn’t say anything about secession. If you read my comments again in context, you’ll see that the only “more severe” measure I mentioned was refusing to comply with federal authorities.
The new Montana law says that Federal gun laws are based ONLY upon the authority of the Congress to regulate interstate commerce, therefore, they don’t apply to guns and gun parts produced in Montana. As for silencers, the law states that the Federal requirement to register silencers doesn’t apply to those made in Montana. Wrong!
The drafters of this law didn’t do their homework. They should have consulted with a good constitutional lawyer. Had they done so, they would have learned that the Federal requirement to register silencers and certain other items was not based on Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce. Rather, it was based upon Congress’ power to TAX. The Federal registration requirement applies to taxable articles regardless of whether they move interstate.
By enacting this law, Montana has done its residents a grave injustice. Montana has encouraged them to ignore and violate applicable Federal law, exposing them to criminal and civil tax liabilities. It’s too bad that the law’s political supporters won’t have to serve his jail time or pay his tax.
I hope Nevada follows suit. All this does is roll back the laws that were passed from 1968 through the present. There was no Brady Bill,no background checks , no restrictions on prior felons owning a firearm also, no assault weapons ban . You could even order a pistol through the mail..Have any of these laws reduced the amount of crime? No, its worse than ever out there. If we all had the unlimited option of carrying firearms , there would be less need for police and the prison system. I always thought that “An Armed society is a polit society.” All the freedom loving people should demand that their state lawmakers follow the lead of Montana!!!
The guy who tried to mug me
I was the guy with the black Burberry jacket that you demanded I hand over, shortly after you pulled the knife on me and my girlfriend. You also asked for my girlfriend’s purse and earrings. I hope you somehow come across this message.. I’d like to apoligize. I didn’t expect you to crap in your pants when I drew my pistolafter you took my jacket.. Truth is, I was wearing that jaacket for a reason that evening, and it wasn’t that cold outside. You see, my girlfriend had just bought me that Kimber Model 1911 45 ACP pistol for Christmas, and we just picked up a shoulder holster for it that evening. Beautiful pistol , eh? It’s a very intimidating weapon when pointed at your head, isn’t it? I know it wasn’t a great deal of fun walking back to wherever you’d come from with that brown sludge flopping about in your pants. I’m sure it was even worse since you alos ended up leaving your shoes, cell phone and wallet with me. I couldn’t have you calling up any of your buddies to come help you mug us again. I took the liberty of calling your mother or “Momma” as you had her listed in your cell and explaining to her your situation. I also bought myself and 4 other people in the gas station this morning a tank full of gas on your credit card. The guy with the big motor home took 150 gallons and was sxtremely grateful!I gave your shoes to one of the homeless guys over by Vinnie Van Go Go’s along with all the cash in your walllet. threw the wallet in a fancy pink “Pimp Mobile” parked at the curb after I broke the windshield and side window out and keyed the driver’s side. I called a bunch of phone sex numbers from your cell phone. They’ll be on your bill in case you’d like to know which ones. Ma Bell just shut down the lineand I’ve only had the phone for a little over a day now, so I don’t know what’s going on with that. I hope they haven’t permanently shut off your service. I could only get in two threatening calls to the DA’s office and 1 to the FBI with it. The FBI guy was really pissed and we had a long chat. I would also like to apoligize for not killing youand instead making you walk back home humiliated. I’m hoping that you’ll reconsider your choice of path in life–Next time you might not be so lucky—LOL
I think Montana as a sovereingh state has the power to secede from the Union, the power to abolish the 2nd amendment, the US Constitution, and the power to secede from planet Earth if it wants
Mr Patterson is right. Title 2 and 3 stuff (silencers, machine guns, all that kind of stuff) is registered with the ATFE…and it is indeed a tax stamp. Oh by the way, lots of restrictive administrative folderal, but still a tax. Good, good point. Fed definitely certainly does have the power to do that.
Doesn’t mean Montana still ain’t got the right to tell the feds to take a leap, though (which really is all that this is - a “political gesture”). Some poor misguided Joe is going to get nailed to the wall in the test case, though.
Just remember Ben Franklin’s quote… ‘DEMOCRACY IS TWO WOLVES AND A LAMB VOTING ON WHAT TO HAVE FOR DINNER. LIBERTY IS A WELL-ARMED LAMB CONTESTING THE VOTE
Here’s an interesting aside:
IF Montana ever decided to secede from the Union — and, depending on who you talk to, Montana thinks about it every so often — it would immediately become the fourth largest nuclear power in the world. (There are a LOT of Minuteman missile sites scattered across that state.)
Gives a whole new meaning to the State vs Fed firearms argument.
My money’s on Montana. Go Big Sky.
Of course those bases are all manned by military personnel loyal to the federal government who wouldn’t turned weapons over to traitors.
Jasen, why wouldn’t they? Look how the vets get screwed from almost every war they’ve fought in.
I’m moving to Montana in 57 days, yes I’m counting the days. I’m living on the control grid and it reminds me of a giant prison. Anyways, I’ve saved for a true Montana rifle for home safety, Montana Freedom Defenders, and hunting…live free or die!
If you support our state I thank you, but please stay the hell out. We have enough wacko’s all on our own we don’t need yours. Oh and we’ll never fallow the federal law anyway, every one forgets that Montana has an extensive history of subversion. If you make an activity that we love illegal we’ll just take it underground. We always have and always will, from booze to broads and gambling we do what we want. Montana was once a major corridor for moonshine and whiskey smuggling and western state organized crime practically originated here in 1860’s with the corrupt sheriff Hennrey Plummer in what became Virgina city. He had over 100 murders credited to him and his men. To all outward apperances we Montanan’s seem welcoming and warm but underneath we are nearly to the native man (and I don’t mean Indian I mean born in Montana) wherry of out-of-stater’s and their influence. Most of us are type-A personalities that more than a little passive aggressive or just plain fucking aggressive. Don’t take it to mean we don’t like you we do, just stay the fuck out.
Good for Montana. It’s about time the federal government learned that it is a creation of the states, not the other way around. This law should pass as it makes sense. I hope my state and others will follow suit with similar laws. The interstate commerce clause is way over used and needs to be restrained. This is not the way the countries fathers wanted it to be used. Just read their writings. Go Montana.
Henry plummer was dancing under the cottonwood trees. He was hung by vigilantes.
An armed person is a citizen. An unarmed person is a subject. Government fears citizens, and desires subjects
Those of us who come from a military back ground of special force delta force to be precise 1970’s version have had to take many years off from normal life to regain our health. Now for me as my health returns I see that with which we fought against in the 70’s on our own soil have been gaining more ground and are closer to upsetting life as the founding fathers made ready for us. There are still good people in the military or this country would have folded many years ago. There are also those beings that defy our understanding of reality. There are many soldiers who can clam something helped them that cannot be explained by normal logic. Without being religious I would say that there are those beings that refuse to make themselves seen that are helping us for good.
There are those that do the opposite and to this I say I myself have been a part of some very interesting situations. What happened to George Washington in his days of fighting for freedom? Helped by that which he himself stated as Divine hand of that which is greater then we can understand fully.
We need help and I do not believe we as humans can fight demons that work in the minds and hearts of heartless people who wish to turn this UNITED STATES OF AMERICA into hell on earth and that includes many in the highest offices on earth.
But if people stop praying for right and do nothing to stop it hell will come in do course.
I am not proposing going to church and forgetting common sense. You do not need the bible to tell you that if you find a wallet on the ground find out who’s it is and do not keep the money.
The bible does have very good things in it as other books on the matter of life do to. Jesus said to be like children and all children without exception wish for happiness and hugs and kisses and something to eat and a warm home and maybe even a kitty.
As someone from the past delta force, deltas dragon I am not willing to let evil people be led by beings that seem to hate human kind for what ever reason and I know of a few very strong ones to say the least.
If we must die then the words of a great states man from the 1775′ish period William Penn stand true: FREEDOM IS ETERNAL VIGILANCE. SO BE IT
Many people, myself among them, are beginning to look at Montana, and other conservative states willing to take a stand against federal tyranny, as possible future homes. No other time since the Revolution has it been so important for us to make our voices heard. I commend Montana for having the courage to stand up and be counted, and I encourage others, states and individuals alike, to do the same. Do not let the feds control you by making you a slave to federal funding. I would gladly drive on dirt roads if it meant not giving up more of my freedoms to the feds.
This brings new hope to my heart, hope which I thought would never return. Count me in! I hope that Wyoming follows suit.