The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: Bidah on April 15, 2009, 10:11:52 PM
-
Dear MSSA Friends, GOOD NEWS! Governor Schweitzer signed HB 246, MSSA's Montana-made guns bill, today. HB 246 declares that any guns and ammunition made and retained in Montana are not subject to ANY federal regulation under the authority of Congress to regulate commerce "among the states."
HB 246 will become effective on October 1, 2009. MSSA is beginning now to plan our legal strategy for vetting the legal principles involved. Soon after October 1st, MSSA will determine if it is necessary to file a lawsuit in federal court to prove the principles established in HB 246. If we do need to file this lawsuit (probably will), MSSA will need to do some serious fundraising to defray the expenses involved.
Meanwhile, we firmly recommend that no Montanans begin making the proposed Montana-made guns until we are able to vet the legal principles. We do not want any Montanan to become subject to possible federal criminal charges until the legal issues associated with HB 246 are resolved.
We are ready now to accept any donations for this project. Remember, MSSA is not a tax-exempt entity - we've never sought that status because of the political limitations on tax exempt organizations. So, any donation you may care to make for this effort is NOT tax deductible. If you care to make a donation to MSSA for this purpose, you can make a check payable to MSSA and mail it to MSSA at P.O. Box 4924. Missoula, Montana 59808. In the memo portion of your check, write "Montana-made guns."
Thanks! Our hearty thanks go out to valiant HB 246 sponsor Rep. Joel Boniek (R-Livingston). Joel is a real hero for having carried this bill and having done it so well. This result is especially complimentary to Joel because he is a freshman legislator. He had a steep learning curve going into this session with no prior legislative experience.
We also thank those many Montana legislators who supported HB 246 during the legislative process, and we thank Governor Schweitzer both for demonstrating the right Montana attitude by signing HB 246, and for doing what he said he'd do on his 2008 MSSA Candidate Questionnaire.
Finally, thanks to ALL of you for having supported HB 246 with messages to legislators. We couldn't have done it without you!!!
Best wishes,
Gary Marbut, presidentMontana Shooting Sports Association
http://www.mtssa.org
author, Gun Laws of Montana
http://www.mtpublish.com
-Bidah
-
Hot Damn! I'm moving to Montana!
-
In THEORY does this mean a resident of Montana could manufacture a select-fire weapon to keep for themselves without going through the licensing and registration that is required by the federal government?
-
now lets see how long it takes for some one to build a machine gun and end up in federal court. several hundred years of case law says, your going to lose.
-
Several hundred years and maybe 2 cases. it is time to brandish. Weak kneed people. It has only been barely a hundred that full autos have been around, and that was belt fed. TAB is of so little faith. Brow beat by his fellow statesman, socialistpeople, no faith, that states have more power than the government, he's right up to the point not only We say no, but our Governor's, do too. Mine did, FQ`13, how about yours. Bidah, congratulate your state reps for me, and your Governor.
-
I was speaking about the fed goverment can place a tax on something, then make it so you can't pay the tax. Also how the 10 amendment basicly means shit.
-
I was speaking about the fed goverment can place a tax on something, then make it so you can't pay the tax. Also how the 10 amendment basicly means shit.
No reason to write the law off already. The law was just passed and signed, and the steps of clearing the way for it in the Federal Courts has just begun. Take it through the system in a strong ans systematic manor, and it has a chance ... How many people wrote the Heller case off as "been there done that gonna lose?"
Go for it in the best interest of all citizens!
-
Its a step in the right direction, for state's rights and gun owners.
-
I was speaking about the fed goverment can place a tax on something, then make it so you can't pay the tax. Also how the 10 amendment basicly means shit.
Funny YOUR state was fighting the feds on medical pot 10 years ago defying the DEA. How about back in the 70's when Jerry Brown defied federal warrants and granted Russel Means of The American Indian Movement "political asylum".
Again TAB babbles .
-
Funny YOUR state was fighting the feds on medical pot 10 years ago defying the DEA. How about back in the 70's when Jerry Brown defied federal warrants and granted Russel Means of The American Indian Movement "political asylum".
Again TAB babbles .
its still never been resolved, about every 6 months you will see where the DEA and or FBI arrests a bunch of people ( normally in LA or the bay area) on drug trafficing. No one has ever won thier case in federal court. Many have tried, all have failed. Its also funny that just about every city has passed laws saying " not in our city" Even sacramento, which is very liberal( damn bay area people moving in) pass such a law. Many countys have done the same. its only, ( and here is a shocker) the bay area and LA area that let them sell inside city limits.
-
No reason to write the law off already. The law was just passed and signed, and the steps of clearing the way for it in the Federal Courts has just begun. Take it through the system in a strong ans systematic manor, and it has a chance ... How many people wrote the Heller case off as "been there done that gonna lose?"
Go for it in the best interest of all citizens!
TAB for one ;D
Should I go back and cut and paste the posts ;D
-
its still never been resolved, about every 6 months you will see where the DEA and or FBI arrests a bunch of people ( normally in LA or the bay area) on drug trafficing. No one has ever won thier case in federal court. Many have tried, all have failed. Its also funny that just about every city has passed laws saying " not in our city" Even sacramento, which is very liberal( damn bay area people moving in) pass such a law. Many countys have done the same. its only, ( and here is a shocker) the bay area and LA area that let them sell inside city limits.
Not even the whole Bay area when I was there, Just SF, but the fact remains that it's 10 years later and it is still alive and spreading.
-
I'm sending this on to all my state legislators. Maybe if more states get on this bandwagon and pass similar legislation, it might pick up more steam.
Tell the feds where they can stick it.
-
Not even the whole Bay area when I was there, Just SF, but the fact remains that it's 10 years later and it is still alive and spreading.
the other side of that is 10 years later and the federal goverment is still going after people. Anyone with half a brain would realize that the CA system is just a way for stoners to get high with out being pestered by the cops.
-
"the other side of that is 10 years later and the federal goverment is still going after people. Anyone with half a brain would realize that the CA system is just a way for stoners to get high with out being pestered by the cops."
Not that I am for it, but if your state decides this is the law, then it should be, and the feds be damned. Now by state decides, I mean the voting members, not the legislature. Your state is overfull of fruits and nuts and who knows how the vote would go? Especially when non citizens get to vote and often, with no identification necessary.
-
So if lets just say GA, wants to pass a law that says blacks can't vote. the people voted on it... it should be law right?
The voters of CA have passed many things that have been struck down in federal court. Gay marrage for example. We pass a law that said no, the federal court said yes. So we had to pass a amendment to the CA cons.
We pass a prop saying no schooling for illegal aliens, guess what, the 9th disrtict said too bad.
-
So if lets just say GA, wants to pass a law that says blacks can't vote. the people voted on it... it should be law right?
The voters of CA have passed many things that have been struck down in federal court. Gay marrage for example. We pass a law that said no, the federal court said yes. So we had to pass a amendment to the CA cons.
We pass a prop saying no schooling for illegal aliens, guess what, the 9th disrtict said too bad.
9th district is the most overturned COURT in America. Weinstien in NY is the most overturned judge. He was the judge in the NY anti gun company lawsuits, but he originally made his name with Mafia trials.
-
So if lets just say GA, wants to pass a law that says blacks can't vote. the people voted on it... it should be law right?
.
Diferent issue. The 15th ammendment guarantees that. The court ruled in the machine guns case in '38, I believe, and the ban isn't really isn't a ban, just a requirement for tax stamps. This was ok'ed under the intertate commerse clause as the abilty to tax interstate commerse, at whatever rate is an enumerated power. The only prohibition would be on 2a grounds and that has not been an issue until Heller. I DID learn that in Tx. one private citizen can ship a gun to another in state withought going through an FFL,if they don't use the US mail. I wouldn't reccomend it, but there you go, it gets around the '68 gun control act. Maybe the MT law does as well. As far as the '86 ban who knows how that will apply I've neverread it don't know the exact wording. I agree with OP that I wouldn't start making machine guns in my garage, but it will make for an interesting legal case.
FQ13
FQ13
-
So if lets just say GA, wants to pass a law that says blacks can't vote. the people voted on it... it should be law right?
The voters of CA have passed many things that have been struck down in federal court. Gay marrage for example. We pass a law that said no, the federal court said yes. So we had to pass a amendment to the CA cons.
We pass a prop saying no schooling for illegal aliens, guess what, the 9th disrtict said too bad.
No, because voting is guaranteed by the Constitution....just like the 2nd Amendment is supposed to be (although there are states that allow that right to be directly infringed upon).
All Montana is saying is that the 2nd Amendment directly guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and beyond that, it reserves the right to decide how it is administered within the boundaries of their state.
Other things not noted in the Constitution, like gay marriage and illegals in schools are still at the discretion of overzealous federal level judges with their own agendas to pawn over.
-
All Montana is saying is that the 2nd Amendment directly guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and beyond that, it reserves the right to decide how it is administered within the boundaries of their state.
It is really about them unequivocally agreeing with that darn "Shall not be infringed" clause.
-
Wish I could import your legislators and governor to Connecticut.... :'(
-
Wish I could import your legislators and governor to Connecticut.... :'(
Easier to export youself to Mt., where the fishing is a lot better. If it wheren't too damn cold, I'd be thinking about it.
FQ13