Montana Firearms Freedom Act
- 05-06-2009, 01:14 PM
Montana Firearms Freedom Act
Montana is stating that they will begin manufacturing guns inside the state and that NO federal laws apply to those guns and accessories so long as they stay in Montana..... Which effectively is true, the federal government only has the right to legislate interstate commerce.
HOUSE BILL NO. 246
INTRODUCED BY J. BONIEK, BENNETT, BUTCHER, CURTISS, RANDALL, WARBURTON
AN ACT EXEMPTING FROM FEDERAL REGULATION UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES A FIREARM, A FIREARM ACCESSORY, OR AMMUNITION MANUFACTURED AND RETAINED IN MONTANA; AND PROVIDING AN APPLICABILITY DATE.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MONTANA:
Section 1. Short title. [Sections 1 through 6] may be cited as the "Montana Firearms Freedom Act".
Section 2. Legislative declarations of authority. The legislature declares that the authority for [sections 1 through 6] is the following:
(1) The 10th amendment to the United States constitution guarantees to the states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in the constitution and reserves to the state and people of Montana certain powers as they were understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889. The guaranty of those powers is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.
(2) The ninth amendment to the United States constitution guarantees to the people rights not granted in the constitution and reserves to the people of Montana certain rights, as they were understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889. The guaranty of those rights is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.
(3) The regulation of intrastate commerce is vested in the states under the 9th and 10th amendments to the United States constitution, particularly if not expressly preempted by federal law. Congress has not expressly preempted state regulation of intrastate commerce pertaining to the manufacture on an intrastate basis of firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition.
(4) The second amendment to the United States constitution reserves to the people the right to keep and bear arms as that right was understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889, and the guaranty of the right is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.(5) Article II, section 12, of the Montana constitution clearly secures to Montana citizens, and prohibits government interference with, the right of individual Montana citizens to keep and bear arms. This constitutional protection is unchanged from the 1889 Montana constitution, which was approved by congress and the people of Montana, and the right exists, as it was understood at the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.
Section 3. Definitions. As used in [sections 1 through 6], the following definitions apply:
(1) "Borders of Montana" means the boundaries of Montana described in Article I, section 1, of the 1889 Montana constitution.
(2) "Firearms accessories" means items that are used in conjunction with or mounted upon a firearm but are not essential to the basic function of a firearm, including but not limited to telescopic or laser sights, magazines, flash or sound suppressors, folding or aftermarket stocks and grips, speedloaders, ammunition carriers, and lights for target illumination.
(3) "Generic and insignificant parts" includes but is not limited to springs, screws, nuts, and pins.
(4) "Manufactured" means that a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition has been created from basic materials for functional usefulness, including but not limited to forging, casting, machining, or other processes for working materials.
Section 4. Prohibitions. 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. It is declared by the legislature that those items have not traveled in interstate commerce. This section applies to a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured in Montana from basic materials and that can be manufactured without the inclusion of any significant parts imported from another state. Generic and insignificant parts that have other manufacturing or consumer product applications are not firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition, and their importation into Montana and incorporation into a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured in Montana does not subject the firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition to federal regulation. It is declared by the legislature that basic materials, such as unmachined steel and unshaped wood, are not firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition and are not subject to congressional authority to regulate firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition under interstate commerce as if they were actually firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition. The authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce in basic materials does not include authority to regulate firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition made in Montana from those materials. Firearms accessories that are imported into Montana from another state and that are subject to federal regulation as being in interstate commerce do not subject a firearm to federal regulation under interstate commerce because they are attached to or used in conjunction with a firearm in Montana.
Section 5. Exceptions. [Section 4] does not apply to:
(1) A firearm that cannot be carried and used by one person;
(2) A firearm that has a bore diameter greater than 1 1/2 inches and that uses smokeless powder, not black powder, as a propellant;
(3) ammunition with a projectile that explodes using an explosion of chemical energy after the projectile leaves the firearm; or
(4) a firearm that discharges two or more projectiles with one activation of the trigger or other firing device.
Section 6. Marketing of firearms. A firearm manufactured or sold in Montana under [sections 1 through 6] must have the words "Made in Montana" clearly stamped on a central metallic part, such as the receiver or frame.
Section 7. Codification instruction. [Sections 1 through 6] are intended to be codified as an integral part of Title 30, and the provisions of Title 30 apply to [sections 1 through 6].
Section 8. Applicability. [This act] applies to firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition that are manufactured, as defined in [section 3], and retained in Montana after October 1, 2009.
- 05-06-2009, 01:25 PM
05-06-2009, 01:25 PM
unless of course they actually dont know how to make a gun and they all explode when someone pulls the trigger...that would be bad
05-06-2009, 01:38 PM
If only others would follow suit. A lot of states don't have the balls to even attemp it. Props to Montana.
05-06-2009, 02:41 PM
05-06-2009, 02:49 PM
Much like minimum drinking age is state controlled - yet the Fed indirectly forces compliance by withholding funds - I can see them doing something similar here.
Best of luck to them, though...kudos for a step in the right direction.
Evolutionary Muse - Inspire to Evolve
Flawless Skin Couture - We give you the tools to make you Flawless
05-06-2009, 02:51 PM
05-06-2009, 02:53 PM
05-06-2009, 02:54 PM
05-06-2009, 10:15 PM
05-06-2009, 11:31 PM
05-07-2009, 05:28 PM
05-07-2009, 06:25 PM
Although i will state IF there was any state in the US that started building its own guns, I would have to say montana would probably be the most qualified.
05-07-2009, 09:12 PM
Didn't a fella named Schecter try this once with chickens and then the Supreme Court decide that anything that happens anywhere is interstate commerce?
05-07-2009, 09:17 PM
And this is a state changing its local laws to read that way anyhow, not an individual or company. About the only way interstate commerce could come into play was if the other gun + accessory manufacturers could show they were disadvantaged against locally made guns.
05-08-2009, 12:42 AM
05-08-2009, 12:16 PM
The court case to watch for isn't Schecter but Wickard V Filburn, it involved wheat produced in excess of federally mandated amounts. The court ruled that wheat produced beyond the amount mandated, even if it never left the state or even entered into the state's commerce because it was all used to personal purposes never to be sold or traded, still influenced interstate commerce because the farmer, and all others who might follow suit, would have bought that wheat on the market had they not produced it themselves.
In other words the federal government and the SC will find any way to use the interstate commerce clause to slime their way into any and evey transaction and nontransaction and possible transaction. It's a short argument from this to gun production in a state, even if it is limited to that state, having an effect on the interstate market. Hell, they could argue that a drop in demand in Montana thanks to them making their own would lead to more aggressive sales in other states so companies can make up for the loss, and thus affects interstate commerce by directing a greater supply into the remaining states. Either way, if Montana follows suit there will be some effect on weapons manufacturers that will allow the Feds to argue that Montana doesn't exist in a vacuum and is thus subject to the laws the Feds want to enforce upon Montana. They will simply tailor the argument to the inevitable effects that will surface, torture some logic and grease some fallasciousness to tie those effects to crime or drugs or pedophiles or something else universally demonized, and get the ruling the want.
05-08-2009, 04:14 PM
05-08-2009, 04:32 PM
I don't think so, I'm honestly not sure on the details of Schecter. Wickard is probably the most convoluted logic I've heard in an interstate commerce clause argument, that's why I'm familiar with it. I like abomonations.
Similar Forum Threads
- By Zero V in forum PoliticsReplies: 55Last Post: 09-19-2009, 12:55 AM
- By hillbilly_210 in forum PoliticsReplies: 14Last Post: 05-12-2009, 12:13 PM
- By Beta BBer in forum General ChatReplies: 5Last Post: 05-21-2003, 08:02 PM
- By DevilSmack in forum General ChatReplies: 17Last Post: 03-03-2003, 03:53 PM