Way to go Montana!!!

[U2SLOW4ME]

Well I am surprised no one has posted this yet.


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 Obamas 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 sold 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.

[U2SLOW4ME]

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

[06GTOSC]

Yeah I'm glad to see that a state is standing up against the government. I'm just wondering what their response will be.

[oodn-oodn]

Way to go Montana!

OK, do I want to move to Montana? Lessee:

Scenic beauty +++
Lots of elbow room +++
Gun friendly +++++
Speed limits +++++
Mild winters ------------

Well, they're getting there. Maybe global warming will help them out.

[Mossberg]

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.

Why is that a good thing?

[U2SLOW4ME]

Guns are not as "Traceable" as all these "CSI" shows make it out to be. You cant go to a computer, type in a serial # and see who bought it. In states where you don't register your guns people can buy and sell them freely with no paperwork already.

[Steel Chicken]

I am HUGELY pro-gun, but I think no criminal records check, no registration, no paperwork etc is a bad idea.

But in general, go Montana. Tell the feds where to stick it.

This made me lol though
Since when did the USA start following their own laws especially the constitution of the USA, the very document that empowers the USA.

Is the author still in middle school?

[U2SLOW4ME]

I am HUGELY pro-gun, but I think no criminal records check, no registration, no paperwork etc is a bad idea.

But in general, go Montana. Tell the feds where to stick it.

This made me lol though

Is the author still in middle school?

True. Making sure someone is not a convicted felon is a GREAT idea.

[Flashpoint]

I am HUGELY pro-gun, but I think no criminal records check, no registration, no paperwork etc is a bad idea.

But in general, go Montana. Tell the feds where to stick it.

This made me lol though

Is the author still in middle school?

I'm thinking the idea is first getting the power back from the FEDs that they should have never had to begin with, then regulate how the state see's fit.

By the way, Utah also passed a bill based on the Montana one , and Texas has also or are in the process of doing that.

Montana is the first one that will actually go into effect first though.

The ruling if it goes as far as supreme court will have a major impact in alot of other areas as well, not just guns.

[JTSnooks]

So in a short period of time there would be millions and millions of unregistered untraceable guns in Montana.

The entire population of Montana is rougly 967,000 people. I guess everyone there is going to own 4 guns to reach the double-plural millions mark?

[Flashpoint]

The entire population of Montana is rougly 967,000 people. I guess everyone there is going to own 4 guns to reach the double-plural millions mark?

:owned:Chaos, anarchy, robberies, mass shootings, oh noes / liberal dooshes comments

You know Gun Control works... just look at the city of Chicago. Must be the safest city of live in, right? ;)

[gametech]

Why is that a good thing?

Why do I want millions of tax dollars "spent" to make sure that a convicted felon doesn't buy his full-autoa K47 from the dealer down the street, while in the meantime millions more are spent keeping law-abiders from damaging their hearing? Am I the only one tha sees a problem here?

[CamaroKid89RS]

Whoever was the author of that article needs to proofread before he publishes something. There are spelling and grammar errors everywhere.

It only makes him/her look less intelligent.

I am glad that government (in this case state) is doing something positive for its people.

[Mossberg]

Why do I want millions of tax dollars "spent" to make sure that a convicted felon doesn't buy his full-autoa K47 from the dealer down the street, while in the meantime millions more are spent keeping law-abiders from damaging their hearing? Am I the only one tha sees a problem here?

The whole silencer thing is smurfing retarded, don't try and justify a smurfing silencer. That just makes gun enthusiasts look like the crazy gun nuts that most left wing people stereotype us as. Ear protection, use it.

As far as background checks for convicted felons and mentally unstable people, how the hell can you not want that????

[bondosgto]

finally a state is standing up to the goverment! i like the bill over all, but i think it goes a bit to far, the felons and mentally ill should not be able to own them. can they now get full auto's too?

[Nmbr1GMfan]

Come on Florida!

[FAIRMONTGN]

Way to go Montana!

OK, do I want to move to Montana? Lessee:

Scenic beauty +++
Lots of elbow room +++
Gun friendly +++++
Speed limits +++++
Mild winters ------------

Well, they're getting there. Maybe global warming will help them out.

The severe winters are what keeps the riff raff out! LOL

[Tbonekilla]

The whole silencer thing is smurfing retarded, don't try and justify a smurfing silencer. That just makes gun enthusiasts look like the crazy gun nuts that most left wing people stereotype us as. Ear protection, use it.

Are you smurfing retarded???

Next time do some research. Even in gun hating European countries silencers are legal because it reduces noise pollution. No permit or tax. Keep the ignorant liberal Hollywood BS to yourself.

[Mossberg]

Are you smurfing retarded???

Next time do some research. Even in gun hating European countries silencers are legal because it reduces noise pollution. No permit or tax.

Is their something hard to comprehend about my statement? First of all name one use for a silencer. Second of all from the looks of it Finland is the only country in Europe that permits silencers, as far as I knew there was more then one country in Europe.

The point I was trying to get at with my first post was, that there really isn't a need for them. If they became legal to the majority of US citizens then it would just be something else we would have to listen about from the liberal media.

Keep the ignorant liberal Hollywood BS to yourself.

Ignorant? I expressed an opinion, at least I didn't try to present it as a fact, unlike your post.

[toxie]

Is their something hard to comprehend about my statement? First of all name one use for a silencer. Second of all from the looks of it Finland is the only country in Europe that permits silencers, as far as I knew there was more then one country in Europe.

The point I was trying to get at with my first post was, that there really isn't a need for them. If they became legal to the majority of US citizens then it would just be something else we would have to listen about from the liberal media.


Ignorant? I expressed an opinion, at least I didn't try to present it as a fact, unlike your post.


Actually, silencers are useful for you know, QUIETING firearms. There are lots of places where noise abatement effects ranges (urban areas). Also useful for hunting and possibly getting a second shot at game. There are lots of things you DON'T need. Matter of fact, the only things you NEED are gruel, water, air and shelter. Everything else is gravy, so thats a lame and unproductive reason, after all you don't NEED an AR-15, but THEY are legal.
That's besides the point though, because I can tell that you've NEVER shot one a real can. They (other then .22LR) are NOWHERE NEAR like television, and you still need hearing protection for ALL rifle calibers when you use one. If the reasoning that we not fight for an expanded right is that the MEDIA might WHINE about it, we would have given up all our AR's a long ass time ago.

All that is AGAIN useless, because in MANY states they are legal to own, only needing a $200 tax stamp.

You opinion, IMHO IS ignorant and defeatist. Cans are FREAKING COOL.

[Tbonekilla]

Ignorant? I expressed an opinion, at least I didn't try to present it as a fact, unlike your post.

How about the UK? So that makes at least two countries in Europe by your post. Therefore qualifying the term "countries" and both being in Europe as "European." Wow, I guess that is fact.

How about Sweden? Guess that makes three now.

[bondosgto]

silencers are quite handy for killing those noise birds at wake you up in the morning when you live in an apartment complex in a city.
just giving an example of why you would want to use one, not like have ever done such a thing.

[Mossberg]

How about the UK? So that makes at least two countries in Europe by your post. Therefore qualifying the term "countries" and both being in Europe as "European." Wow, I guess that is fact.

How about Sweden? Guess that makes three now.

I believe you said without a stamp or tax. In England your chances are slim to none of getting a permit to use a silencer and it only permits you to use them on shotguns. In Sweden you need to obtain a license for it.

[Napoleon_Tanerite]

still no machine guns. what bullshit. maybe Springfield Inc, Rock Island and several other manufacturers that have been threatening to move out of IL for some time will finally have the motivation to do it now.

[Napoleon_Tanerite]

Is their something hard to comprehend about my statement? First of all name one use for a silencer. Second of all from the looks of it Finland is the only country in Europe that permits silencers, as far as I knew there was more then one country in Europe.

The point I was trying to get at with my first post was, that there really isn't a need for them. If they became legal to the majority of US citizens then it would just be something else we would have to listen about from the liberal media.


Ignorant? I expressed an opinion, at least I didn't try to present it as a fact, unlike your post.

name one use for a 400hp car that justifies you owning one that does NOT justify you owning a suppressor, AR-15, machine gun, or just about anything else for that matter. fact of the matter is YOU CAN NOT.

[Mossberg]

name one use for a 400hp car that justifies you owning one that does NOT justify you owning a suppressor, AR-15, machine gun, or just about anything else for that matter. fact of the matter is YOU CAN NOT.

I never said anything about an AR-15 or a machine gun.

I think I got off on the wrong foot. Let me just say this, I am a gun enthusiast (hence the name Mossberg) and I own a fair amount of firearms. The thing with the suppressors is that they are already legal in most states, however you have to go through the paperwork to obtain them. Most people have no problem filling out paperwork. However what Montana is pushing for is that you don't have to fill out paperwork or register them or do any kind of background check.

[traumadog]

Here's some backup as to what Mossberg is saying:

Firearms Laws for Montana
Caution: This summary is meant for general purposes only. Firearm laws frequently change.

(As of July, 2006)

Quick Reference
Rifles and Shotguns
•Permit to purchase rifles and shotguns? No
•Registration of rifles and shotguns? No
•Licensing of owners of rifles and shotguns? No
•Permit to carry rifles and shotguns? No
Handguns

•Permit to purchase a handgun? No
•Registration of handguns? No
•Licensing of owners of handguns? No
•Permit to carry handguns? Yes*
* A permit to carry concealed is not needed outside the limits of cities or towns (see Carrying below).

State Requirements
Purchase
No state permit is required for the purchase of any rifle, shotgun or handgun.
Possession
No state permit is required to possess a rifle, shotgun or handgun.
It is unlawful for a parent or a guardian to permit a minor under 14 years of age to carry or use a firearm in public unless the minor is accompanied by the parent or guardian or under supervision of a qualified firearms safety instructor who has been authorized by the parent or guardian.

It is unlawful to purposely and knowingly possess, carry or store a firearm in a school building, or for a parent to permit a minor to do so.


Carrying
It is unlawful to carry or bear a concealed handgun without a permit to carry. Concealed is defined as wholly or partially covered by the clothing or wearing apparel.
This prohibition on concealed carry does not apply to peace officers, a person who is outside the official boundaries of a city or town or the confines of a logging, lumbering, mining or railroad camp or who is lawfully engaged in hunting, fishing, trapping, camping, hiking, backpacking, farming, ranching or other outdoor activity in which weapons are often carried for recreation or protection, or the carrying of arms on one's own premises or at one's home or place of business.

A county sheriff shall within 60 days after the filing of an application issue a permit to carry a concealed weapon for a term of four years.

The applicant must be:

•A U.S. citizen.
•18 or older.
•Holds a valid picture identification issued by the state.
•A resident of the state for at least six months.
A permit may not be denied unless the applicant:

•Is ineligible under Montana or federal law to own, possess, or receive a firearm.

•Has been charged and is awaiting judgment in any state for a state or federal crime that is punishable by incarceration for one year or more.

•Has been convicted in any state or federal court of a crime punishable by more than one year of incarceration.

•Regardless of the sentence that may be imposed, a crime that includes as an element certain acts, attempted acts, or threats.

•Has been convicted of carrying a concealed weapon while under the influence or of carrying a concealed weapon in a prohibited place and the applicant has not been pardoned or five years have not elapsed since the date of conviction.

•Was dishonorably discharged from the United States armed forces.

•Has a warrant outstanding for his arrest.

•Has been adjudicated to be an unlawful user of an intoxicating substance and is under a court order of imprisonment or other incarceration, probation, suspended or deferred sentence, treatment or education, or other condition of release or is otherwise under state supervision.

•Or has been adjudicated to be mentally ill, defective, or disabled and is still subject to a disposition order of that court.
A permit may be denied based on a reasonable cause to believe that the applicant is mentally ill, defective, or disabled or otherwise may be a threat to the peace and good order of the community.

At the time the permit is denied, the sheriff shall give the applicant a written statement of the reasonable cause upon which the denial is based unless the applicant is the subject of an active criminal investigation.

An applicant must demonstrate familiarity with a firearm by completion of a firearm safety course or possession of a license from another state to carry a firearm that is granted upon completion of a course demonstrating familiarity with a firearm.

The permit fee is $50.00; renewal is $25.00.

A criminal history record and background check of the applicant shall be conducted and a $5.00 fee may be charged for fingerprinting.

A permit may be revoked or its renewal denied if circumstances arise that would require refusal to grant the permittee an original license. Denials and revocations are subject to appeal to the District Court and then to the Montana Supreme Court.

Changes of address notifications must be given within 10 days.

The issuer of a permit is not liable for damages in a civil action by a person or entity claiming death, personal injury, or property damage arising from alleged wrongful or improper grant, renewal, or failure to revoke the permit, except for actions that constitute willful misconduct or gross negligence.

It is unlawful to purposely and knowingly carry a concealed firearm under the influence of an intoxicating substance or in portions of a building used for state or local government offices and related areas in the building that have been restricted; financial institutions during their normal business hours, but this does not prohibit carrying a concealed weapon while using the institution's drive-up window, ATM, or unstaffed night depository, or if the branch is in a mall or grocery story or other place unless the person is inside the enclosure used for the institution's financial services or using its financial services; or a room where alcoholic beverages are sold, dispensed, and consumed under a license issued for the sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises.

A concealed weapon permit from another state is valid in Montana if the person issued the permit has the permit in the person's immediate possession, the person bearing the permit is also in possession of an official photo identification of the person, and the state that issued the permit requires a criminal records background check for permit applicants prior to issuance.

Antiques
Montana statutes are silent on antique and replica firearms.
They are treated as ordinary firearms for possession and carrying purposes.

Machine Guns
A machine gun is defined as a firearm designed to discharge more than one shot by a single function of the trigger.
Possession or use of a machine gun in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of a crime of violence is punishable by not less than 20 years in prison.

Possession or use of a machine gun for an aggressive or offensive purpose is prohibited. A presumption of possession for an aggressive or offensive purpose is raised by possession or use by a person who has been convicted of a crime of violence.

This law does not prohibit or interfere with the possession of a machine gun for scientific purposes, or the possession of a machine gun that is not usable as a weapon and possessed as a curiosity, ornament or keepsake, or the possession of a machine gun for a purpose manifestly not aggressive or offensive.

Miscellaneous
•The right to sue a firearms or ammunition manufacturer, trade association, or dealer for abatement, injunctive relief, or tort damages resulting from or relating to the design, manufacture, marketing, or sale of firearms or ammunition sold to the public is reserved exclusively to the state and may not be exercised by a local government. The state may sue on its own behalf or on behalf of a local government unit, or both.

•No unit of local government may prohibit, register, tax, license, or regulate the transfer, delay in transfer, ownership, possession, transportation, use, or carrying of firearms. But local governments may regulate the discharge of firearms and may prevent the carrying of firearms to a public assembly, publicly owned building, park, school, and the possession of firearms by minors and other prohibited persons.

•It is unlawful to shoot a firearm within the limits of any town or city or a private enclosure that contains a dwelling house.

•It is unlawful to shoot game from any self-propelled or drawn vehicle or on or from a public highway.

•It is unlawful to shoot a firearm from or across the right-of-way of a highway.

•It is unlawful to discharge a firearm from or upon a snowmobile.

•It is unlawful to remove or otherwise obscure the manufacturer's serial number on any firearm with the purpose of concealing, misrepresenting or transferring the firearm.

[traumadog]

As I read the above, a person can commit mass-murder, be committed as insane, declared "cured", released, and on the day of his release, can purchase any handgun or long-arm without a check.

Oh, and as he was declared "insane", he was never "convicted", therefore he can also conceiveably buy a "machine gun", and only be subject to a 20-year mandatory sentence after he demonstrates an "aggressive act" with it.

Edit: personally, I think the law's toast once FBI/ATF finds a "Made in Montana" gun used outside of Montana.

[toxie]

I never said anything about an AR-15 or a machine gun.

I think I got off on the wrong foot. Let me just say this, I am a gun enthusiast (hence the name Mossberg) and I own a fair amount of firearms. The thing with the suppressors is that they are already legal in most states, however you have to go through the paperwork to obtain them. Most people have no problem filling out paperwork. However what Montana is pushing for is that you don't have to fill out paperwork or register them or do any kind of background check.

See, the thing is that silencers aren't dangerous. There is absolutely nothing lethal about them, they aren't even freaking QUIET. Moron legislators just watch a movie where some assassin kills 34,534 people with none the wiser using a silencer and say "We GOTTA ban those!". There is no realistic reason to have them controlled as they are. You shouldn't HAVE to do any of that for a silencer, doube so since in the REAL world two things are true:
A: If you really want one, any highschooler in shop class can make one, and
B: A swiss army knife is deadlier then a can, since a can CAN'T kill you, and they are nothing like public perception.

Edit: personally, I think the law's toast once FBI/ATF finds a "Made in Montana" gun used outside of Montana.

That depends entirely on how the supreme court rules, the FBI can't decide if something is legal or not, double so since it'll be the ATF, not the FBI that gets all bent out of shape.

[traumadog]

That depends entirely on how the supreme court rules, the FBI can't decide if something is legal or not, double so since it'll be the ATF, not the FBI that gets all bent out of shape.

Hmm... well with Sotomayor looking like a lock for Souter's position, I'd bet that SCOTUS might lean towards the Feds with this one.

And I mentioned FBI as it'd be their crime lab determining origin.

[Napoleon_Tanerite]

Hmm... well with Sotomayor looking like a lock for Souter's position, I'd bet that SCOTUS might lean towards the Feds with this one.

And I mentioned FBI as it'd be their crime lab determining origin.

i doubt it. montana's law derives its power from the 10th amendment. the feds derive most of their power from their ability to regulate interstate commerce. GFL standing on that house of cards against the bill of rights.

And in regards to the NFA process for silencers et.al.-- infringement is infringement.

[traumadog]

i doubt it. montana's law derives its power from the 10th amendment. the feds derive most of their power from their ability to regulate interstate commerce. GFL standing on that house of cards against the bill of rights.

And in regards to the NFA process for silencers et.al.-- infringement is infringement.

Last I heard, Sotomayor had written in a ruling (following precedent, but its there) that the Second Amendment - and by extension the rest of the Bill of Rights - only apply to the Federal Government.

NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/05/26/us/ 0526-scotus.html)
Second Amendment
Judge Sotomayor rejected a claim that a New York ban on a martial arts weapon (a nunchuka) violated a man's Second Amendment rights, explaining the Second Amendment only applies to the federal government. In this case, Maloney v. Cuomo, the court noted that the Supreme Court's ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, which struck down parts of the District's gun control law, did not invalidate this principle, and "to the extent that Heller might be read to question the continuing validity of this principle," earlier Supreme Court rulings took precedence in the case.

And the Federal power to regulate interstate commerce arises from the Constitution proper, not an Amendment. (Artilce I, Section 8, para 3)

[04_GTO_Jimbo]

I am HUGELY pro-gun, but I think no criminal records check, no registration, no paperwork etc is a bad idea.


I agree. The same rules that apply for us law abiding citizens also apply for the felons and criminals. If my 2 day wait to buy a handgun means that the guy who walked in the store behind me with a criminal record doenst get his his weapon then I think this is a good thing. Unless we start tattooing "CRIMINAL" on convicts forheads when they get released you dont know who is who, which is why certain, not ALL, but certain laws are created. To weed out the bad doers and reward the law abiding.

I will be the first to say that there are people trying to take things to far on both sides of the arguement, as in not everybody should be granted access to a weapon, but you shouldnt impeed on the rights of the good in doing so. We need laws to prevent criminals from being armed, but we also need laws to keep my law abiding rights safe.

[Flashpoint]

I agree. The same rules that apply for us law abiding citizens also apply for the felons and criminals. If my 2 day wait to buy a handgun means that the guy who walked in the store behind me with a criminal record doenst get his his weapon then I think this is a good thing. Unless we start tattooing "CRIMINAL" on convicts forheads when they get released you dont know who is who, which is why certain, not ALL, but certain laws are created. To weed out the bad doers and reward the law abiding.

I will be the first to say that there are people trying to take things to far on both sides of the arguement, as in not everybody should be granted access to a weapon, but you shouldnt impeed on the rights of the good in doing so. We need laws to prevent criminals from being armed, but we also need laws to keep my law abiding rights safe.

Except for the fact that Most criminals will not walk into a store and buy a gun, even without a check. Why? because they can get them on the street cheaper.

Criminals doesn't give a rats ass about any law that is passed.

I agree that a background check should be required for criminal records and mental health (an instant one) anything beyond that only hurts the Law biding citizens.

[04_GTO_Jimbo]

I dont think a 2 day wait on hand guns hurts anyone, personaly. I can wait to have something I want, its called being a mature adult. Your ID may be correct, but others who want to buy a gun to go shoot their boss 10 minutes after they get laid off is helping more than you know. Most people are emotional and irrational under stress. I beleive the laws are in play to "help" prevent undo harm. As a supervisor who has fired someone, Im glad there are limits to prevent this situation for my safety and for others. I would be happy to have a law that states any gun transfer must me re-registered with the state and anyone caught with a unregistered weapon would have a 2-3 times the normal prison sentance. That way we can have what we want, and it "may" deter people from using guns in criminal acts that are stolen or be fugitives/criminals. I just dont want them to pass a bill stating my gun is now illegal and that i have to turn it over.

Everybody has a different level which they are comfortable at concerning the government. That doesnt make mine wrong and your right. It just means we are different in what we want from your leaders.

[Napoleon_Tanerite]

Last I heard, Sotomayor had written in a ruling (following precedent, but its there) that the Second Amendment - and by extension the rest of the Bill of Rights - only apply to the Federal Government.

NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/05/26/us/ 0526-scotus.html)


And the Federal power to regulate interstate commerce arises from the Constitution proper, not an Amendment. (Artilce I, Section 8, para 3)

I realize that the fed gets their ability to regulate interstate commerce from the constitution; however, I'm sure you'll agree that they have stretched that ability to the limit using it to apply to basically and literally anything they want to do.

Montana's move it clearly defined within the 10th amendment. It would then fall on the court to decide if the constitution proper and the powers congress has derived from Article 1 trump that reserved to the states in the 10th amendment.

Regarding people who say they are ok with background checks, waiting periods and other mindless infringement on the 2nd amendment-- I don't appreciate having my rights violated in any manner, shape or form. the "if it saves one child" argument is horseshit concealed with smoke and mirrors. Gun control of any kind is a proven failure time and again. Absolutely NO gun control law on the books has EVER shown any noticeable effect on crime, mostly because they are based on a flawed premise-- that criminals, who by their very nature disregard the law, will somehow abide by a law that restricts the means of their profession.

[Flashpoint]

Everybody has a different level which they are comfortable at concerning the government. That doesnt make mine wrong and your right. It just means we are different in what we want from our leaders.

The problem with that is the "leaders" are the ones deciding and not the people.

The anti-whatever groups that want to take away anything will never be happy without a full outright Ban.

Take the Driving with a cell phone law, They want a hands free device, it eventually passes, now they are saying No it is not good enough, Now we want to Ban driving while talking on a phone even with a hands-free device, since now more cars have Bluetooth included standard.

The Smoking laws are another example. Here in NY they passed a law for restaurants that can have a smoking section if they build a closed off room with separate HVAC system, A few years later after owners spent thousands for these mandates, the state says No, now you can't allow smoking in your privately owned restaurant and added Bars to the law.

I would have been fine with the letting owners deciding if they wanted to allow smoking or not, Don't like it don't go to that business, go to a place that didn't allow it, then you can vote with your dollars.


There is no compromise, because its "chip, chip, chip away" until it's completely banned.