Montana bill HB 246 assed through both the House and Senate and is now awaiting Governor Schweitzer’s signature. The general consensus by the author of the Bill and others I have spoken to is that he will sign it.
As for the strategy of getting this to court without someone being arrested;
According to Gary Marbut, the Bill’s author, “we plan to find a ‘squeaky clean’ Montanan who wants to send a note to the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives threatening to build and sell about 20 such rifles [single shot .22lr rifles] without federal dealership licensing. If the ATF tells them it’s illegal, they will then file a lawsuit in federal court — with any luck triggering a legal battle that lands in the nation’s highest court.”
As for the legal battle, consider this statement from the attorney who argued the Gonzalez v. Raich case which is current precedent for enforcing federal law that is more restrictive than state law;
In the Gonzalez v. Raich case […] the court said that because marijuana produced within and outside of California is essentially indistinguishable, the government must regulate both to enforce national drug laws. Montana, though, could potentially argue that its guns are sufficiently unique and segregated as to lie outside of overarching federal regulatory schemes, Barnett said.
Did you actually read what this was about before you opined? It specifically refers to weapons manufactured within Montana that stay inside the state, thus making the applicability of the commerce clause null and void.
Except there are long-standing SCOTUS decisions that say otherwise.
[ul][li] Did all of the parts originate within MT?
[/li][li] Did all the raw materials for all the parts come from MT?
[/li][li] Could the production, possession, and/or sale of this firearm reduce the number of non-MT-made firearms sold in MT?[/ul]
[/li]
Etc.
The Commerce Clause has become a blank check for Congress to control almost anything it wants. It’s ridiculous, but it’s the law.
Thanks for the additional clarification. I was simply commenting on the face value of the whole thing and its intent. As to the additional things that you have pointed out. If you thought about them as issues, then why haven’t they?
I certainly cannot speak for the legislators in MT. Maybe they didn’t do their homework. Maybe they’re fed up and don’t care. Maybe they think this law will get SCOTUS to readdress the issue. Maybe they think they’ve found a loophole. Maybe, just maybe, they’re politicians acting like politicians.
The bill calls upon the state Attorney General to defend anyone prosecuted under federal law for violating federal statutes, which to me sounds like an outright admission that they know the federal government isn’t likely to agree with MT’s interpretation of things. What will be interesting is to see how the Governor and AG handle this bill now that it’s on the Gov’s desk.
I’m teaching a class in MT next month. I expect this will be a topic of conversation, especially with some of the feds who’ll be in the class.
Can’t say I’m a big fan of this bill as it has little to do with guns and everything to do with initiating a protracted, expensive legal battle with the feds by a small group of state’s rights advocates looking to the taxpayers of Montana to foot the bill for their political hobby horse. I’m all for people pounding their own drum but I shouldn’t have to pay for the band.
“Firearms are inextricably linked to the history and culture of Montana, and I’d like to support that,” said bill sponsor Rep. Joel Boniek, R-Livingston, during its House debate. “But I want to point out that the issue here is not about firearms. It’s about state rights.” (source: Billings Gazette, 4/6/2009)
I believe some of the previous questions regarding utilizing parts not manufactured in Montana, raw materials, etc. can be answered by reading the language of the bill. Noticeably lacking are any provisions for monitoring or enforcement.
My point was that the bill, by its own language, inadequately addresses the issue.
For example, the bill says that raw steel is not a firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition and thus it cannot be regulated by the federal government the way a firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition can be regulated. But that isn’t the test used to determine Commerce Clause applicability. By explicitly stating that steel from out of state can be used, the bill all but declares itself void.
It’s not just about whether the end product (or its finished components) move in interstate commerce. By using steel made in another state, for example, the manufacturing of the firearm in Montana clearly has a nexus to interstate trade and thus is controlled by federal laws & regulations about manufacture and distribution of firearms.
The funniest twist in all of this is BHO himself. He recently made comments to the effect that he didn’t want the DEA cracking down on medical marijuana suppliers and users because he believes that is a states’ rights issue with no meaningful interstate nexus. So, Mr. President, I wonder if you’ll take that same pro-state approach with this MT bill.
Now that my opinion is out there. I believe you are correct, the Feds can’t let one state out of the barn so of course they will squish this.
My thing is… The backlash against federal power is growing. Not just gun control, but federal bailouts for the states, numerous “mandate but don’t fund” pronouncements. Where does it all lead?
how 'bout- “you know what? screw it- we tried to do it ‘legally,’ but now you give us no choice. no federal agents allowed on Montana soil for the purposes of detaining, arresting, or prosecuting Montana residents.” when was the last time a state stood up for something other than POT?
Like many of you mentioned, nothing may become of this and sure the Feds may squash this immediately, but this along with all of these 10th Amendment movements by states across the country gives me hope we the people are realizing the massive size of the Federal government and trying to do something about it!
So while all three branches of the federal government believe it’s lawful, you’ve determined that they’re all wrong?
It’s funny. If this was some kind of gun- or tactics-related issue and every single major trainer & team in the country agreed that one way was “right,” people at M4C would shout down folks coming in with the “well I know better” attitude. But someone doesn’t like the state of the legal system and it’s fair game for any & all laymen.
There’s a little matter of the Supremacy Clause. MT cannot simply ban federal agents or tell the federal government it’s got no authority within the state. If that’s the route they want to go, they would need to secede. I think we all know how that’s gone in the past.
Agree 100%. Hopefully, what MT is doing will at least be a warning bell for the folks in DC to realize that it’s time to scale back the massive federal intrusion into states’ rights.
