Made in Montana

[2HOW]

Montana seeks to test states' rights
April 30, 11:36 AM · Add a Comment
ShareThis   Feed

Montana has passed an interesting law, HB246, firing a shot across the bow of the government in Washington, challenging their control over guns manufactured, sold, and used inside the state of Montana.  In 2005, a similar situation occured in California when a marijuana user named Angel McClary Raich tested the commerce clause of the Constitution. The courts held that the federal government could control strictly domestic marajuana because it was indistinguishable from the stuff grown anywhere else.  To address this precedent, Montana intends to stamp each gun "Made in Montana" to distinguish their weapons.  Practically speaking, this doesn't change much.  Only a few black powder and high end hunting rifles are actually produced in Montana right now.  As a test of states' rights however, this could be huge.  The expectation is that someone in Montana will begin to manufacture a .22 caliber rifle and inform the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms that they are not applying for a license to manufacture.

For too many years, states have seen their constitutional authority eroded under the federal government's regulatory practices.  The excuse in most cases has been the commerce clause which gives the federal government authority over products moving from state to state.  Since most everything we drive, eat, wear, and work with was manufactured somewhere else, Washington now controls almost everything a state might want to do on its own. There is a growing movement by states to reassert their own sovereignty based on the specifically enumerated powers given to the federal government with all other powers retained by the states.   These are driven mostly by states upset at unfunded mandates from Washington such as special needs education and No Child Left Behind which call for performance, but provide no funding to pay for it. So far, none of the laws intended to specifically address state sovereignty have passed into law.  The Montana case is interesting because it is asking the question "Is there anything left that the states can control totally within their borders?"  It could be that the unapproved guns would be confiscated if found anywhere outside of Montana.  It could be that BATF won't want to get stuck in that tar baby and simply look the other way.  They might say, "Sorry, the iron billets you brought in from Minnesota and the wood from Oregon constitute interstate commerce." and claim control.  If it goes to court it will compel the discussion of states' rights and the limits of the commerce clause, and I see that as a very good thing.

I believe that gun owners are more aware of issues of freedom and the Constitution than most folks.  I think they understand the deep justification for an armed citizenry in a free society. They understand the stakes are high and important.  America is unique in the world, and most of us want to preserve the clockwork structure, with checks and balances that our founding fathers set forth in the Constitution..  I am proud of Montana for passing this law, and I look forward to someone actually bearding the lion by manufacturing "Made in Montana" firearms.

(Denver Gun rights examiner)

[Bidah]

Yep.  we also passed a castle doctrine style law (finally).  We were really that way anyway, it just asserted it.  It also asserted that open carry is legal.

I hear that Texas is looking to pass a similar "made in Texas" law too. 

-Bidah

[runstowin]

I hear that Texas is looking to pass a similar "made in Texas" law too.  Smiley

-Bidah  The more, the merrier.