Shooters Forum banner

1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
505 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
ATF Tries to Revoke "Montana Made" State Sovereignty Laws
We all predicted this would happen.

the BATFE has written gun dealers in the states of Montana and Tennessee to let them know the BATFE will be disregarding the state sovereignty gun laws of each state.

The "Montana Made" law, just like Tennessee's Firearms Freedom Act, is very simple.

Much of federal authority to regulate firearm sales and transfers stems from a liberal interpretation of every American tyrant's favorite subterfuge, the "interstate commerce" clause. In essence, this is what gives the BATFE its teeth.

With this in mind, Montana correctly understood that any weapon made in Montana by Montana residents and sold in Montana to Montana residents is Montana's business and Montana's business only.

Montana thus sought to take charge of its firearms industry with the application of a simple truism:

Any gun made in Montana by Montana residents and sold in Montana to Montana residents is intrastate commerce, not "interstate commerce," and thus does not full under the purview of the federal government.

Potentially, the state would be able to say goodbye to NICS checks; Brady background checks; NFA taxes, bans and NFA databases -- and most importantly, federal "assault weapons" bans, which Montana and Tennessee rightly anticipated.

In effect, the "Montana Made" law would have permitted Montana gun companies to manufacture any kind of weapon banned by federal law -- including so-called "assault weapons" -- and sell them to fellow Montana residents.

Moreover, in this scenario, no one -- neither the manufacturer nor the dealer nor the buyer -- would have to kowtow to the BATFE by paying them a $200 tax and surrendering one's privacy to their notoriously inaccurate and oft-abused National Firearms Registry.

It was a new day for freedom -- and other states besides Tennessee were thinking of following suit: Alaska, Colorado, Oklahoma and Texas.

Well, the BATFE -- never one to have its power downplayed (or acronym belittled)-- has written letters to both Montana and Tennessee gun dealers letting them know that they proceed at their own risk.

We can only guess what new horrors those words portend -- probably more dead housewives and children as ATF shoot-to-kill anyone suspected of perhaps owning a firearm not properly taxed and regulated by Washington, D.C., power brokers.

What else would be new.

A few of our members expressed interest in contacting the BATFE to vent some righteous anger -- the same thing we did when the Department of Defense said they were going to ban all once-fired military brass for resale.

Remember how the DoD reneged on that commitment after just a few days due to the widespread backlash from gun owners and law enforcement?

Well, this is a bit different. Writing the ATF and providing them with your information is akin to giving thieves your home address and the hours you won't be home.

We're going to take a different, less dangerous approach.

We've been talking to state officials from both Montana and Tennessee today to try to figure out the best way we can help these state laws succeed.

Please stay tuned to updates on this supremely important issue in our next email.

For now, click here to read Luke's commentary on his blog and leave a comment as this development unfolds.



In Liberty,
Dudley Brown
Executive Director
National Association for Gun Rights
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,053 Posts
This will definitely be decided by SCOTUS - will see if the 10th Amendment means anything or if the Feds will kill it and the Second Amendment in one blow. On these important issues there are only 4 good guys on the court, 4 definite bad guys (actually 2 gals and 2 guys) and one X-factor in Kennedy. That one man holds our future in his hands.
 

·
The Troll Whisperer (Moderator)
Joined
·
23,914 Posts
Sorry - we dont permit solicitations for donations on this board without the express authorization of the board's owner.

Thread locked

With an understanding of the original poster, this thread has been edited to remove certain objectionable items and is now unlocked to continue discourse.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
505 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Thankyou K-dub!
Sorry to any and all who were offended. As I was over looking the negative remarks in this about the BATF. I was just trying to not influence the intent of the writer, so It was left as found. These subjects get touchy, and my intent to merely to inform and share this info.

And JM we will and I hope that good(pro gun ideals) prevails.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
750 Posts
I wish we could get NH on that band wagon.

I would be Golden. Ruger, Thompson/Center and Sig!

I just need Ruger to start pumping out Full-Auto SR-556s........
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,624 Posts
States rights are going to be tested for other reasons, currently to do with health care, I expect. The Second Amendment is another matter, going in just the opposite direction. In the case of the Second Amendment we actually want federal constraints to apply to the states.

That said, it appears to me that as long at the manufacturers and dealers in MT and TN are federally licensed, the BATFE will hold the threat of yanking their licenses and ruining their livelihoods over their heads if they don't do as BATFE tells them to. It will likely take the creation of some unlicensed manufacturers and sellers willing to risk prison and felony records to get a test case.

Not sure what the OP's quoted source meant about MT and TN correctly anticipating the so-called assault weapons ban? The state Firearm Freedom Acts are relatively new, and post date the expired AW ban. There is currently no political will to bring that back to life, AFAIK, so it is too early to tell whether anticipation of a future ban will be proved correct or not? I may be picking nits here, but hate for guys on our side to to impugn their own credibility by looking like historical revisionists. That's the other side's bailiwick.

Fortunately, McDonald v. Chicago is not about interstate commerce. At this point it seems highly likely the SCOTUS will find for the plaintiff (McDonald) against Chicago. I get that idea in part because of the trend in the amicus briefs filed with the court for the case are widely bipartisan. A simple majority of senators and representatives have signed the one Senator Hutchinson filed siding with the plaintiff, more than in any other amicus brief in history on either side of a case. The reason appears to be correctly explained in the portion of the Wikipedia entry on the case that I have quoted below.

Constitutionally, this is a big deal, reaching beyond the Second Amendment, and has the attention of constitutional scholars. I have to wonder if this may be what Scalia was hoping would come out of Heller all along: Heller leading to a case that results in an historical decision that broadens the application of the whole Bill of Rights nationally?


Wikipedia entry for McDonald v. Chicago said:


Legal Basis for Incorporation


All of the post-Heller cases, including McDonald, NRA v. Chicago, Nordyke and Maloney, have argued that the Second Amendment, in addition applying to federal jurisdictions, should also be applied against state and local governments, using a judicial process called Selective Incorporation. Selective Incorporation involves convincing the court that a right is "fundamental" by being “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty” or “deeply rooted in our nation’s history and traditions” as defined most recently in the 1968 Supreme Court case Duncan v. Louisiana.

In addition to claiming the Second Amendment should be incorporated through the selective incorporation process, McDonald is unique among post-Heller g2un cases in that it is asking the court to overturn the 1873 Slaughter-House Cases. Slaughter-House determined that the 14th Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause did not apply the Bill of Rights to the actions of states (and by extension, local governments). If overturned, the Selective Incorporation process would be moot and unnecessary, as the entire Bill of Rights, including the 2nd Amendment, would be applied against the states.

In attempting to overturn Slaughter-House, this case has garnered the attention and support of liberal legal scholars interested in its potential application in areas outside of firearms law. Their interest is that if Slaughter-House is overturned, it is possible that constitutional guarantees such as the right to a jury in civil cases, right to a grand jury in felony cases, and other parts of the Bill of Rights, as well as future court rulings and existing federal precedent, not universally guaranteed in actions by the states, would be applied against the states automatically.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-10">[11]</sup><sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-11">[12]</sup><sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-12">[13]</sup>


Amicus curiae
briefs


Thirty-three amicus curiae ("friend of the court") briefs for this case have been filed with the Clerk of the Supreme Court.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-13">[14]</sup>

One of these briefs was filed by U.S. senators Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R, TX) and John Tester (D, MT) and U.S. representatives Mark Souder (R, IN) and Mike Ross (D, AR) asking the Supreme Court to find in favor of the petitioners and rule that the Second Amendment does apply to the states.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-14">[15]</sup> The brief was signed by 58 senators and 251 representatives, more members of Congress than any amicus curiae brief in history.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,053 Posts
All this is true but in the end Justice Kennedy will decide - interstate commerce, 2nd Amendment and 10th Amendment and as you have pointed out the 14th amendmnt. I can't wait to see the 4 "bad" Justices resort to internatonal law to decide all this.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,624 Posts
Perhaps on future cases, but I don't think you'll see that in McDonald v. Chicago. With the pro-2nd A. side having so much liberal as well as conservative support as it does, I won't be surprised to see a unanimous decision in our favor, if for no other reason than overturning the 1873 decision on the 14th Amendment increases the scope of SCOTUS power. The stars appear to be lined up right for a slam dunk in our favor for this one.

Keep in mind we had a unanimous opinion among the justices in Heller that the 2nd A. was an individual right, so that would have been a unanimous decision, except for disagreement about how far "reasonable" local regulation can limit the right. Scalia basically went as far toward total 2nd Amendment freedom as he could take Heller, short of losing the 5:4 win. So we were guaranteed of at least getting the collective right interpretation flushed.

But I don't see that kind of thing having to happen in this case unless, for some unexpected reason, they step back from overturning the 1873 decision and revert to special incorporation. Overturning the 1873 decision will clearly be the broad overarching principle in the case, and if that overturning is included in the decision, I won't be at all surprised to see a 9:0 win. Those who favor the 2nd A. will vote yes. Those who oppose independent state's rights will vote yes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,053 Posts
As far as the Chicago gun ban I agree with you - except Sotomayor was one of the appellate judges who got Heller upside down in the first place. Don't see how she will change her "mind." When the intrastate commerce case comes along in the next couple years I will faint if it is not split down the middle and that is what I have been referring to and I assume you too. Since I don't practice constitutional law any more I've forggoten half as much as I learned in the first place.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,624 Posts
Yeah, she got Heller wrong. Still, I don't think that will be the big decider in McDonald. I think McDonald will all turn on the overturn of the 1873 decision, and the fact it is a 2nd A. case will be lost in the shuffle for the liberal side. She won't have to reverse her opinion of Heller; just favor overturning the Slaughter-house case law in McDonald.

For future cases, I don't doubt you are correct. And that's another worry. Dispute over the extent of reasonable local regulation will be constantly tested by authoritarians, too full of themselves, down the road, as it already has in DC. I just hope Scalia outlasts Obama's term(s) of office. He'll be 74 at his next birthday and will be nearing 82 when Obama is gone for sure.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
425 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,879 Posts
Any reason to think that any of the justices would favor blocking federal taxing authority? That's a noticeable portion of what these laws are about; shoving the taxman back across the border. Idaho already has a Constitutional prohibition on special taxation of firearms, ammo, &c, but the feds' authority has never been challenged on that point that I know of? If our Constitution won't do it, no way in h311 will a simple statute do it (pre-empt federal taxing authority), unless it would have but no one's ever dared try?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
6,248 Posts
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=550><TBODY><TR><TD colSpan=2>


</TD></TR><TR><TD style="TEXT-ALIGN: left; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman; FONT-SIZE: 15px">
FEDS RESPOND TO FIREARMS FREEDOM ACT LAWSUIT MOTION TO DISMISS "EXPECTED"


MISSOULA - The United States has made its first response to a lawsuit filed in federal district court in Missoula to test the Montana Firearms Freedom Act (MFFA), passed by the 2009 Legislature and signed into law by Governor Schweitzer.

The MFFA declares that any firearms, ammunition or firearms accessories made and retained in Montana are not subject to federal regulation under the power given to Congress in the U.S. Constitution to regulate commerce "among the several states." The MFFA is a states' rights challenge on Tenth Amendment grounds, with firearms serving as the vehicle for the challenge.

This lawsuit to validate the MFFA was brought by the Montana Shooting Sports Association (MSSA) and Second Amendment Foundation (SAF). The suit names U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder as defendant, and is referred to as MSSA v. Holder.

The first response to the lawsuit by the United States is a Motion to Dismiss, submitted January 19th and considered to be a standard procedural maneuver in lawsuits against the U.S government . This motion seeks to avoid the legal merits by asserting that the Plaintiffs lack standing to sue, that a justiciable controversy does not exist, and that prevailing case law is against Plaintiffs.

MSSA President Gary Marbut, also a Plaintiff in the lawsuit explained, "The first import of this response is that the legal game is now on. There was some concern that the defendants would forfeit the game with no response in an effort to prevent this important issue from being adjudicated properly. We are now beyond that hurdle." However, the Motion to Dismiss by Washington also seeks to sidestep proper adjudication.

SAF Founder Alan Gottlieb said, "We are disappointed but not surprised that the government would try to kill this suit on standing, rather than arguing about the merits of the case."

The MFFA concept has gained traction across the Nation since its passage in Montana. Tennessee has enacted a clone of the MFFA, and other clones have been introduced in the state legislatures of 19 other states, including: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming. . Ten or more additional states are expected to introduce yet more MFFA clones in the next few weeks. (See: http://www.FirearmsFreedomAct.com)

The U.S.'s Motion to Dismiss and Brief in Support are viewable at: http://FirearmsFreedomAct.com/montana-lawsuit-updates/

MSSA and SAF have assembled a litigation team for this effort consisting of three attorneys from Montana, one from New York, one from Florida and one from Arizona. Lead attorney for the Plaintiffs is Quentin Rhoades, partner the Missoula firm of Sullivan, Tabaracci and Rhoades. Other interested parties from both in and out of Montana are preparing to weigh in on this issue of national interest and national importance as amicus curiae (friends of the court).

Marbut commented, "The FFA concept has created a firestorm of interest nationwide. Lots of people and other states are watching carefully to see how Montana fares in this challenge to overbearing federal authority and to Washington's attempt to control every detail of commerce in the Nation, especially including activity wholly confined within an individual state. That level of micro management certainly was not the intent of our founders when they gave Congress limited power in the Constitution to regulate commerce 'among the states'." (See: http://FirearmsFreedomAct.com/what-is-the-commerce-clause/)

MSSA is the primary political advocate for gun owners and hunters in Montana, having gotten 54 pro-gun and pro-hunting bills through the Montana Legislature in the past 25 years. SAF is a pro-gun foundation in Bellevue, Washington, established to press the rights of gun owners primarily in judicial fora. SAF has been a party to numerous lawsuits to assert the rights of gun owners across the Nation.



The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nations oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and an amicus brief and fund for the Emerson case holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
77 Posts
I dont think...

its going to matter much. The government broke many laws when they took over the car companys, Gave hunderds of billions to banks(including at least 80 billion to foriegn banks thru aig). A week ago the administration gave the irs power to tax to pay for health care to the poor. Couldn't get it done leagally thru congerss so they just did it. But other than a couple articles on the net nobody talked about it. Do you think a government that doesn't follow its own laws will not find a way when they think its time for there move. Remember they just confiscated guns in new orleans because they wanted to. Not because of a court desision.....
 

·
The Hog Whisperer (Administrator)
Joined
·
37,095 Posts
OK guys keep it on the topic of firearms.....
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top