1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

Montana did it BamBam now what???

Discussion in 'Politics, Elections & Legislation' started by The Rock, May 12, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. The Rock

    The Rock Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,491
    State of Montana has signed into power a revolutionary gun law

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Could get interesting.

    Panama Legal
    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.

    Rock

    Jim
     
  2. The Rock

    The Rock Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,491
    Forget the silencer part.

    Rock

    Jim
     
  3. Damifino

    Damifino Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2009
    Messages:
    323
    Location:
    Prior Lake, MN
    I think Montana will lose this one. There is apparently some (bad) case law in the books already from about 70 years ago. A farmer contended that if he grew his wheat and sold it within his state he was exempt from federal involvment (not sure what the fed issue was). He lost on the argument that the "effects' of his commerce transcends state lines. BS


    Will be GREAT if MT wins. We'll see.
     
  4. bigdogtx

    bigdogtx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2006
    Messages:
    10,650
    Someone had to start,,,,WTG Montana!!!!
     
  5. ccw1911

    ccw1911 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    816
    You got "revolutionary" right. This is about states rights, the same stuff that started that civil war most people think was about slavery. Nearly everything the Feds control and tax is at risk if Montana's position holds. We may be in some very historical times in more than one way.
     
  6. 100straight

    100straight Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    584
    Montana has an ace in the hole. It is called "The Compact With the United States." When Montana entered the Union in 1889 the Civil War was fresh in everyones minds, and Montana wanted a guarantee in writing that its Contitutional rights would never be denied, and that if their rights were denied, they (Montana) would be free to leave the Union. President Harrison signed it. As I understand it, Montana is not claiming a specific Second Amendment right in this move, but rather a Tenth Amendment claim.

    The Tenth reads, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

    As I understand it, Montana's defense, when the time comes, will be that the regulation of the manufacture of firearms is not specifically delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor are States specifically banned by the Constitution from regulating firearm manufacturing, so therfore it must be a right reserved to the State and/or the People.

    Shoot well and often,

    Mark.
     
  7. Bushmaster1313

    Bushmaster1313 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2009
    Messages:
    1,605
    If four so-called liberal Justices who fashion themselves to be the defenders of individual rights are unable to conclude that the 2nd Amendment protects the right of people to keep and bear arms, we must assume that they and their liberal successors will have no trouble finding that Federal law preempts Montana law.

    Lou
     
  8. bigdogtx

    bigdogtx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2006
    Messages:
    10,650
    They may find that it does, but according to a previous post the Compact has been signed by a President and would also be ratified by Congress. This could get interesting.
     
  9. Jerbear

    Jerbear TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,588
    WEAPONS OF CHOICE
    Gun protections on agenda in Utah
    Following Montana's lead in states' rights affirmation

    Posted: May 11, 2009
    10:03 pm Eastern


    By Jerome R. Corsi
    © 2009 WorldNetDaily



    New protections for gun owners are on the agenda in Utah, where state Rep. Carl Wimmer is preparing to introduce a bill that would assert the state's sovereignty under the Ninth and Tenth amendments.

    Utah apparently is following Montana's lead in attempting the plan that would protect residents' Second Amendment gun rights.

    Wimmer intends his legislation to exempt from federal gun regulations any Utah resident seeking to own a firearm made in Utah.

    Wimmer explained to WND that he intends to introduce a bill, not a resolution.

    (Story continues below)


    "A resolution has no teeth to it because a resolution amounts to a state saying to federal government, 'We are going to stand up and assert our rights, if you will let us please do so, federal government,'" said Wimmer. "A bill is an actual state law that will put into place the fact that if a firearm is manufactured in Utah, sold in Utah and kept within the boundaries of Utah, that firearm will be exempt from federal regulation under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution."

    Wimmer also told WND the legislation would avoid federal regulation under the Commerce Clause because firearms made in Utah and owned in Utah would not be subject to interstate commerce because the firearms never crossed state lines.

    Sign WND's petition for 'Re-Declaration of Independence'!

    "This is a righteous battle," Wimmer said, "and it is one I am read to step up and fight.

    "Our freedoms on a daily basis are being destroyed by a massive, centralized, statist federal government, and we have to do something to reverse that," he said.

    Wimmer told WND he is organizing a new group called "The Patrick Henry Caucus" to bring together state legislators throughout the United States to fight back against the federal government in the defense of Second Amendment rights at the state level.

    "I looked at my three kids and I thought that I don't want to have to stand before them when they grow up and explain to them that their dad did not do more to fight to defend their liberty and freedom," he said.

    "So, I decided that if I was walking around with a knot in my stomach about what was going on with our liberty and freedom, then I know other state legislators are feeling this way around the country," he said.

    Wimmer plans to take his Patrick Henry Caucus nationwide, with the goal to form a chapter in each state that is available for membership exclusively to state legislators who agree to the strategy of using states rights laws to move forward at the same time across the United States.

    "If one state acts on states rights, the federal government ignores it," he said. "But if 25 or 30 states pass states rights legislation together, the federal government has to stand up and take notice."

    Wimmer told WND he has reserved a URL domain under "ThePatrickHenryCaucus.com" and has hired a website developer.

    His goal is to have the legislation ready for introduction when the Utah legislature next convenes in January 2010.

    Wimmer, a resident of Herriman, Utah, works as a small business officer and a police officer.

    The Utah Shooting Sports Council lists eight manufacturers of firearms domiciled in Utah, including Browning Firearms, which is the largest.

    The Ninth Amendment to the Constitution specifies that, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

    The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution specifies that, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

    The Commerce Clause is a federal government enumerated power in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, delegating to Congress the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the states, and with Indian tribes.


    ************************************************************
    As I understad it Michigan is looking into the same thing. We need to do something here to survive.


    Jerbear
     
  10. Jerbear

    Jerbear TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,588
    I am a member of the Michigan Coalition of Responsible Gun Owners and the above link has all the up to date info that's going on in the US on laws and bills.

    Here is an open carry law suit here in MI.

    Federal Civil Rights suit filed in Michigan over 'open-carry' ordinance
    2009/05/12
    Law Offices of Steven W. Dulan, PLC - www.stevenwdulan.com
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    May 12, 2009

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

    The Law Offices of Steven W. Dulan, PLC announces federal civil rights suit against City of Grand Haven and Ottawa County over open-carry ordinance.

    The suit, brought under Title 42, Section 1983 of the U.S. Code, was filed on behalf of Christopher Fetters, an off-duty Air Force Security Officer who was attending the Coast Guard Festival in Grand Haven last year. Mr. Fetters was openly carrying a holstered pistol, which is legal under Michigan law, as in most states. He was arrested and detained and charged with a violation of a Grand Haven city ordinance prohibiting open carry of firearms. His gun was initially seized, although it was later returned.

    Michigan law prohibits local units of government from making any law with respect to firearms, (MCL 123.1102.) The public policy goal of the statute is to provide a uniform system of gun laws statewide so that citizens do not have to guess regarding what local rules might exist as they move from one locality to the next.

    The complaint alleges, among other issues, violations of Mr. Fetters' civil rights under the 2d, 4th, and 14th , Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and Article I, Section 6 of the Michigan Constitution, which reads, "Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state," when he was physically restrained, disarmed, and subjected to verbal harassment and ridicule by law enforcement personnel.

    Criminal charges were later dropped by the Grand Haven City Attorney's Office, after being informed of the unenforceability of their ordinance. No allegations were ever made that Mr. Fetters ever threatened anyone, or in any other way disturbed the peace on the day of his arrest. He is demanding damages for violation of his civil rights as a citizen of the United States and of Michigan.

    The case has been filed in the U.S. Court, Western District of Michigan in Grand Rapids and has been assigned Case Number 1:09-CV-00190.

    -END-

    Steven W. Dulan is a current member of the Board of Directors of MCRGO.

    There is much more news on there along with Utah allowing guns in cars now anywhere.

    Obama wanted change... he got it, and then some.


    Jerbear
     
  11. Jerbear

    Jerbear TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,588
    California kills ammo bill.

    Anti-gun legislation shelved
    Horrific ammo bill put in 'suspense file' by state Assembly
    Jim Matthews, Outdoor Writer
    Posted: 05/07/2009 11:50:44 PM PDT


    One of the worst pieces of anti-gun owner legislation in a number of years effectively has been tabled by the California legislature when Los Angeles Democratic Assemblyman Kevin De Leon's AB962 was put in the Suspense File by the Assembly Appropriations Committee on Wednesday this week.
    While the bill can be revived, it is likely dead for this year.

    The bill would have stopped the private transfer of more than 50 rounds of ammunition per month between individuals or by stores to individuals. It would have licensed and taxed anyone selling ammunition commercially and forced these stores to get background checks on anyone selling ammunition. It would have required a thumbprint from anyone buying handgun ammunition (and a costly bureaucracy to manage those thumbprints) and it would have banned all mail-order ammunition sales.

    The stated intent of the bill was to stop felons and gang members from getting ammunition. If you can figure out how those provisions would have somehow stopped that, give me a call and explain that to me.

    Since the so-called intended targets of the legislation would have easily avoided its requirements, it became clear the legislation was all about harassing, taxing and discriminating against legal gun owners and those in the business of selling ammunition.

    Lawsuit challenges arms ban

    A lawsuit challenging California's arbitrary ban on many handguns based on a set of criteria that supposedly make



    the guns "not-unsafe" was filed last week by The Calguns Foundation, the Second Amendment Foundation, and four California residents.
    California still uses this list despite a ruling by the US Supreme Court last summer that protects handguns that ordinary people traditionally use for self-defense, and a recent ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that affirms that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments.

    The California regulations have prevented any new firearm from being added to the list in three years, and it will eventually ban the purchase of almost all new handguns, as manufacturers change models or refuse to pay annual fees to have their guns "certified." The four individual plaintiffs, Ivan Pe a, Roy Vargas, Do a Croston, and Brett Thomas, all have individual reasons to challenge the California regulations.

    California "tells Ivan Pe a that his rights have an expiration date based on payment of a government fee. Americans are not limited to a government list of approved books, or approved religions," said Alan Gura, the lead attorney representing the plaintiffs in this case. "A handgun protected by the Second Amendment does not need to appear on any government- approved list and cannot be banned because a manufacturer does not pay a special annual fee." "The Para Ordnance P-13 was once approved for sale in California," Pe a said.

    "But now that a manufacturer didn't pay a yearly fee, California claims the gun I want to own has somehow become `unsafe'." Vargas story varies the theme: "The Glock-21 is the handgun I would choose for home defense, but California has decided the version I need is unacceptable. I was born without a right arm below my elbow and therefore the new ambidextrous version of the Glock-21 is the safest one for me. " Vargas said.

    Do a Croston's handgun would be allowed if it were solid black, green, or brown, but her bi-tone version is supposedly `unsafe' merely based on color.

    "I didn't realize that my constitutional rights depended on color. What is it about two colors that makes the gun I want to purchase `unsafe'?" asked Croston.

    Brett Thomas seeks to own the same model of handgun that the Supreme Court ordered District of Columbia officials to register for Dick Heller, in its landmark decision affirming that Second Amendment is an individual right last year. However, that particular model is no longer manufactured.

    "There is only one model of handgun that the Supreme Court has explicitly ruled is protected by the Second Amendment, and yet California will not allow me to purchase that gun," Thomas said.

    Co-counsel in this case Jason Davis said it perfectly: "The California Handgun Roster has always been about making the possession of handguns for self defense more difficult by imposing arbitrary and unconstitutional restrictions that limit choice and increase the cost of exercising a fundamental right."

    Jim Matthews' Outdoors columns runs on Friday. For more outdoors info, go to www.outdoornewsservice.com.


    50 rounds, we go throught that in practice on doubles. Jerbear
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.