Montana's News Station tells us about House Bill 246, under consideration in the Montana House.
The State House voted in favor of House Bill 246 in second reading on Saturday, and the bill could have the effect of releasing Montana gun owners from federal registration requirements.
The measure applies to firearms, firearm accessories and ammunition that are made and sold in the state.
Make sure you watch the accompanying video. As for the native Montanan in the gun shop who sees registration as "common sense," I submit he hasn't thought things through. Either that or he has...
You can read the text of the bill here. Essentially, here's what's being claimed:
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.
This bill is something to watch, because it could provide a template for other states to model laws after.
But before we pin too many hopes on this, understand the feds will fight it tooth and nail. And don't be surprised if they dust off Wickard v. Filburn to make their case. If they insist that wheat that a farmer grows for his own consumption is subject to interstate commerce regulation, just imagine the fight they and the entire establishment will put up over guns.
Check out the latest from other Gun Rights Examiners: Austin: Another Brady hallucination: More guns, more ‘gun violence’ (Part 1) Charlotte: Phony gun groups, Part 3: 'American Hunters and Shooters Association' Cleveland: News from the weekend illustrates futility of gun control schemes
DC: DC City Council enables residents’ easy access to mail order handgun carry permits! Denver: Granny, get your gun Los Angeles: Gun Control: the very first pig with lipstick on it. Milwaukee: Time to change our attitude about guns Minneapolis: The folly across the river St. Louis: What's next--a .499 caliber ban?
[Via Les K ]
Comments
So . . . unless I'm way off the mark here, the National Firearms Act is basically a registration requirement. Would this mean that homemade full-auto firearms would be exempt from the federal hoops, or would the Hughes Amendment still apply (assuming this passes, and somehow survives the feds' full court press)?
This will be VERY interesting to follow. Thanks, David.
Well, that's one of the things Wayne Fincher was hoping would work in his favor, Kurt. But when the judge won't let you argue the Supreme Law of the Land in US Court it becomes problematic...
For those who aren't familiar with this case, go to my WarOnGuns blog (linked to in my bio) and enter "Fincher" in the search box.
Kurt,
The NFA is simply a registration and tax scheme. This was the only nexus by which they could (at that time) justify "regulating" arms of any sort without violating the Constitution. The position Wayne Fincher (and many of us) hold(s) to is the 1934 NFA violated 2A even as a tax and registration scheme as "shall not be infringed" is an absolute term. The only regulation that could be constitutionally levied is a regulation pertaining what persons could possess arms, not what arms could be possessed by individuals.
So long as an individual is constitutionally qualified (non-felon, mentally incapable, drug/alcohol addict, certain government officials in their official capacity) then they can possess whatsoever personal arms they wish, without question or restriction.
It is not constitutionally lawful to restrict all persons from the exercise of a right simply because a few violate the rights of others under color of a particular constitutional right.
Correction:
So long as an individual is constitutionally qualified (non-felon, mentally capable, not drug/alcohol addict, and not certain government officials in their official capacity) then they can possess whatsoever personal arms they wish, without question or restriction.
My apologies. (I wish there was a "preview" option.
U.S. v. Fincher
Hearing on Motion in Limine, transcript pp. 55-56
Argument of the prosecution
One other thing that I want to close with, Your Honor, is the Defense has brought up some discussion about interstate nexus, and has proposed that that be an additional element of the offense, and I think the most compelling case, albeit it’s not in the Eighth Circuit, is the Stuart decision, because it went up to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court reversed it and sent it back to the Ninth Circuit. The Stuart case is cited as 451 F.3d 1071.
In this particular case -- this is an Arizona case, and it involved homemade machine guns. The Ninth Circuit held that that did not have an affect on interstate commerce, and therefore 922(O), as applied to this Defendant Hale, was unconstitutional. When that went to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court vacated the Judgment and remanded the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for further consideration in light of Gonzales v. Raich, R-a-i-c-h, 545 U.S. 1, a 2005 decision, wherein it was very clear that the Supreme Court distinguished Lopez, a case we’ve just discussed, the school case, the possession of machine guns on school grounds. The Raich court distinguished Lopez as concerning a brief, single-subject statute making it a crime for an individual to possess a gun in a school zone.
The traitors on the Potomac are, I repeat, ARE capable of staging a mass shooting in the state, or some type of terrorist attack to sway the media and public opinion against this freedom initiative in Montana. Montana law enforcement needs to be aware of all federal officers withing their state, and their activities. Meanwhile, everyone in Montana needs to CALL and EMAIL their rep to get this passed.
Thanks for the update! I am keeping a close eye on this and will let my readers know what is going on.
Oh man, can I move to Montana now????
I seem to be seeing two and two put together here. I just today read an article that our US Representative Rehberg (R) plans to invite Obama to "go fishing/etc" with Rehberg and our Gov. Schweitzer and Senators Baucus and Tester (all D).
It leaves me wondering whose side anyone is on (meaning Rehberg and Tester as Baucus clearly sides with the D.C. crowd). It makes me wonder what the sudden interest is on the part of a President in this state (and Colorado and others--see where Obama went to sign his Swindle-Us bill.) Something smells fishy in Denmark and it ain't a simple fishing trip. Keep up the good work on this site. We, in Montana, will put up the good fight for our rights here and hope other states will follow the lead in this. To quote Benjamin Franklin: "We must all hang together or assuredly we shall all hang separately."
Paul W. Davis:
"The NFA is simply a registration and tax scheme."
But it's not really enforced as one. Just because it involves taxes doesn't mean that what they do with the taxes, or how they punish non-payment may include illegal, unconstitutional powers. Or... okay maybe it can?
Was David Olofson given an order by the court to pay taxes and late fees on a "machine gun", or did they just toss his rear end in jail like he violated a disarmament edict?
On "interstate commerce":
The verb 'to regulate' as in 'regulate interstate commerce' is the same verb used in the 2nd amendment. It does not mean 'to bury in a mountain of legislation'; it means 'to make uniform' like the regulator on your SCUBA tank does.
This allows the feral government to forbid NY and NJ from engaging in trading practices which cut PA out of the action.
The current definition of 'regulate' is as wrong here as when applied to guns, and it's about time we put a stop to it.
I rise in whole-hearted support of the distinguished representatives of the Great State of Montana and their Righteous and Moral actions to Protect, Secure and Defend the ’Rights’ of their Citizens--
from those persons within the Federal government having now evidenced such a long train of abuses and assumption of powers never granted to them by Consent of The People, and having volitionally and wantonly ignored those laws as written in the Second Amendment to the Constitution of these United States specifically prohibiting all persons in the Federal government from any manner of infringement on the unalienable and inviolable ’Right’ of every American Freeman to Keep and Bear Arms.
May the actions of those stalwart Defenders of the ‘Rights’ of the Citizens of Montana to Keep and Bear Arms stand as stark and irrefutable testament for all to bear witness to, that such a thing as a written Constitution has only the meaning and significance afforded to it by Citizen-Freemen with the Will and the Arms necessary to Secure their own Rights.
"The NFA is simply a registration and tax scheme. This was the only nexus by which they could (at that time) justify "regulating" arms of any sort without violating the Constitution."
Did you miss the news when ATF was moved from Treasury (the "tax folks") to Homeland Security (the Federal PO-lice)? That fig leaf has been long shredded, fella.
Can you imagine how great it would be for all 50 states to adopt legislation like this! Not only would it be the ultimate expression of freedom, it would also boost the economy in every state. Firearms manufacturers would spring up in each state, creating jobs and tax revenue. It would also result in less crime since more people would be allowed to protect themselves.
I can't see it happening here in the People's Republic of Connecticut, but you never know.
I tip my hat to the good people of Montana.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!