Subject: HB246 Montana Firearms Freedom Act


Montana Governor Signs New Gun Law
Executive Summary � The USA state of Montana has signed into power a revolutionary gun law. I mean REVOLUTIONARY. The State of Montana has defied the federal government and their gun laws. This will prompt a showdown between the federal government and the State of Montana . The federal government fears citizens owning guns. They try to curtail what types of guns they can own. The gun control laws all have one common goal � confiscation of privately owned firearms.
Montana has gone beyond drawing a line in the sand. They have challenged the Federal Government. The fed now either takes them on and risks them saying the federal agents have no right to violate their state gun laws and arrest the federal agents that try to enforce the federal firearms acts. This will be a world-class event to watch. Montana could go to voting for secession from the union, which is really throwing the gauntlet in Obama's face. If the federal government does nothing they lose face. Gotta love it.
Important Points � If guns and ammunition are manufactured inside the State of Montana for sale and use inside that state then the federal firearms laws have no applicability since the federal government only has the power to control commerce across state lines. Montana has the law on their side. Since when did the USA start following their own laws especially the constitution of the USA , the very document that empowers the USA .
Silencers made in Montana and sol in Montana would be fully legal and not registered. As a note silencers were first used before the 007 movies as a device to enable one to hunt without disturbing neighbors and scaring game. They were also useful as devices to control noise when practicing so as to not disturb the neighbors.
Silencers work best with a bolt-action rifle. There is a long barrel and the chamber is closed tight so as to direct all the gases though the silencer at the tip of the barrel. Semi-auto pistols and revolvers do not really muffle the sound very well except on the silver screen. The revolvers bleed gas out with the sound all over the place. The semi-auto pistols bleed the gases out when the slide recoils back.
Silencers are maybe nice for snipers picking off enemy soldiers even though they reduce velocity but not very practical for hit men shooting pistols in crowded places. Silencers were useful tools for gun enthusiasts and hunters.
There would be no firearm registration, serial numbers, criminal records check, waiting periods or paperwork required. So in a short period of time there would be millions and millions of unregistered untraceable guns in Montana .... Way to go Montana !
Discussion � Let us see what Obama does. If he hits Montana hard they will probably vote to secede from the USA . The governor of Texas has already been refusing Federal money because he does not want to agree to the conditions that go with it and he has been saying secession is a right they have as sort of a threat. Things are no longer the same with the USA . Do not be deceived by Obama acting as if all is the same, it is not.


Text of the New Law
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.

Way to go Montana!

Time to email the Governor and congratulate his actions. Texas isn't too far off on this either.

Ingwe

Reckon what the feds think of this? Might get interesting.

I was wondering what aspect of this would get tested? Cooper arms is in Montana right? So someone could purchase a cooper in Montana without a NCIS check now right?

I've been thinking about moving back West for a while now... this is incentive to start acting on it!

It is notable that Montana has a 50/50 split in the House, a Republican majority in the Senate, and Democrat governor.


And they can acheive more common sense in one session than all the crap that takes place in Washington for decades........




Casey

Send me a few bucks and I will go test this new deal.

I am gonna find out tomorrow.

Glad to hear it--go for it......




Casey

How cold does it get?

10 below zero is t-shirt weather, so you can go from there. Anyway nice to see our legislators got something done this year.

Winter ain't that bad.

Spring is another matter..

That's great news. Glen Beck says that Texas is working on a similar bill. I hope this trend spreads. The Commerce Clause in no way was intended by its framers to give the Federal Government regulatory control of what kinds of items people choose to purchase, sell, or own. It's purpose was to provide a common system of law by which interstate trade could proceed unhampered by conflicting regulations between states.

PS Maybe Obama will be more of a second coming of Abe Lincoln than he had quite envisioned. Hopefully, this time, a failed one.

Unfortunately, the Federal government won't let 'made in Montana' fly. The argument that the commerce clause doesn't apply has already been settle in a Medical Marijuana case by the 9th circuit. It could move in interstate commerce, therefor the Federal government still retains jurisdiction.

See: GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al. v. RAICH et al.

Congress' power to regulate purely local activities that are part of an economic "class of activities" that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce is firmly established. See, e.g., Perez v. United States, 402 U. S. 146, 151. If Congress decides that the " 'total incidence' " of a practice poses a threat to a national market, it may regulate the entire class. See, e.g., id., at 154-155. Of particular relevance here is Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U. S. 111, 127-128, where, in rejecting the appellee farmer's contention that Congress' admitted power to regulate the production of wheat for commerce did not authorize federal regulation of wheat production intended wholly for the appellee's own consumption, the Court established that Congress can regulate purely intrastate activity that is not itself "commercial," i.e., not produced for sale, if it concludes that failure to regulate that class of activity would undercut the regulation of the interstate market in that commodity.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-b...navby=case&vol=000&invol=03-1454

actually i think there is a difference Tod......the reason given with marijuana is that you could not differentiate between pot grown in Cali and pot grown in Montana.....you can stamp a rifle receiver "Made In Montana, Not Legal To Sell Out Of The State" or some such thing so that it is obviously different.......

I am only repeating what I heard from a senior Federal agent. It appears that the government is likely to take that tack. Does anyone really see the Federal government meekly accepting sates rights over Federal power? Particularly under a democratic administration.

oh i defiantly figure on the Feds challenging this.....just saying that the reason given in the pot case shouldnt hold water as a reason to stop this one.....

Yes, but the point is that you and I, and every reasonable human being on the planet, understands this to be pure unadulterated sophistry, having nothing whatever to do with the intent of the Constitution's framers.

I don't know, but it seems an acceptable hill on which to meet one's end. I cannot wait to see state police arresting Federal agents for attempting to enforce facially unconstitutional laws in the state of Montana.

Now that's common sense gun legislation!

Absolutely!!

I certainly hope that more states follow Montana's lead on this.
That would be a sight to see!!

The difference being, RKBA is a protected "right" by both state and fed constitutions.

That is why guns were selected as the vehicle for this legislation.

in the Medical Marijuana case they ruled it would have an impact on the trade in illegal marijuana in other states.

Good point. Of course the SCOTUS's reasoning either way is specious, but it's true that even their specious arguments don't justify stopping this Montana legislation.

I heard the US Attorney out of Billings say this law probably would stand in a Federal court. Of course, he said this long before it became law.

I hope the law stands, but I suspect that many at the Federal level are getting worried about the rising tide of states rights issues. Governments don't willingly relinquish power. The enumerated powers hasn't stopped a vast Federal bureaucracy pushing its way into every facet of American life.

It's about time the states started pushing back again.

Alaska has one in the works too, but the legislative session has ended and I haven't found out if it passed the senate. It blew through the house with little opposition.

Alaska state legislature's official website:

http://w3.legis.state.ak.us/