Washington Moves to Strike Montana's Secessionist 'Firearms Freedom Act'

[Frontpage]

Montana doesn't have the authority to exempt itself from national gun control laws, the federal government argued in new court filings, hoping to beat back a movement from states adopting the Firearms Freedom Act.

The Department of Justice, in a brief filed this week in U.S. District Court in Missoula, said that federal gun control is a "valid exercise of Congress' commerce power under the Constitution."

The agency asked a judge to dismiss a lawsuit filed last year by gun advocates in Montana who argued the state should decide which rules, if any, would control the sale and purchase of guns and paraphernalia made in Montana. The state would then be exempt from rules on federal gun registration, background checks and dealer-licensing.

The lawsuit followed overwhelming support in the state Legislature for an act that declared Montana's sovereignty on the issue. That Montana Firearms Freedom Act was subsequently signed by Gov. Brian Schweitzer.

Gun advocates want a court declaration preventing federal agents from enforcing federal gun laws on Montana-made equipment. They said it's disappointing the Justice Department would seek a dismissal of the suit rather than arguing its merits.

"The first import of this response is that the legal game is now on," said Gary Marbut of the Montana Shooting Sports Association.

Tennessee adopted a clone of the Montana act, which has been proposed in many other states.

The Justice Department argued in its brief that the state act is pre-empted by federal gun control. It also said the advocates don't have standing to bring the lawsuit.

The brief said the 1934 National Firearms Act was first put in place to regulate guns that could be "used readily and efficiently by criminals or gangsters."

Congress followed it in 1968 with a gun control act aimed at decreasing serious crime, and further strengthened its control over interstate commerce, the brief points out.

Those laws and others all mean to keep tabs on guns that easily pass between state borders, the Justice Department argued.

"To achieve this goal, Congress put in place a comprehensive scheme to regulate the movement of firearms in commerce," the government lawyers wrote in their brief.


[Associated Press, via gunpolicy.org ]

Source (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/01/21/financial/f141253S87.DTL)

[Steve Balmer]

Go Montana, GO!. (Who needs state's rights anyways?)

[MrTwigg]

This could get "interesting" as it brings state sovereignty to the forefront again.

[Clinotus]

Pesky States Rights.

[Fang]

Unfortunately, legal precedence holds that almost anything affects interstate commerce. If memory serves, the Supreme Court held that medical marijuana laws in California affected the interstate commerce in illegal marijuana, and therefore fell under federal jurisdiction.

[Clinotus]

Unfortunately, legal precedence holds that almost anything affects interstate commerce. If memory serves, the Supreme Court held that medical marijuana laws in California affected the interstate commerce in illegal marijuana, and therefore fell under federal jurisdiction.

Everything falls under interstate commerce, its the dirty underbelly of the shiny serpent.

[Danube]

This speedbump and the civil war sure point to what happens when a state gives up its 'rights' to join the union of states. Some of them never took into account that their soverign authority would be trumped in areas unseen.

[Miso Beno]

This is going to be a huge trainwreck. I'm gonna pop some popcorn if you guys wanna grab a seat.

[JunkCollector]

There are a lot of taxes associated with firearms and by exempting locally produced guns from those you are basically providing a tax incentive for people to purchase locally instead of something made in say Alabama. You could in theory start a state to state trade war like that. It's a fairly obvious example of interstate commerce in my opinion.

Now should this...

"the 1934 National Firearms Act was first put in place to regulate guns that could be "used readily and efficiently by criminals or gangsters."
Congress followed it in 1968 with a gun control act aimed at decreasing serious crime, and further strengthened its control over interstate commerce, the brief points out."

be sufficient reason to levy a tax on a constitutionally guaranteed right is another matter.

[Clinotus]

Good points there, certainly an angle worth consideration when these issues come to head.

[Danube]

Another one, with teeth!

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/02/09/wyoming-firearms-freedom-act-with-teeth/



Wyoming Bill Seeks to Combat Federal Distortions of Commerce Clause, 2nd Amendment – Includes Penalties of up to Two Years in Prison for Federal Agents Violating the Law.

Wyoming State Representative Allen Jaggi has introduced a “Firearms Freedom Act” (FFA) for the state – it’s filed as House Bill 95 (HB95).

While the FFA’s title focuses on gun regulations, it has far more to do with the federal violations of the commerce clause, which D.C. has used as an excuse to prohibit and regulate everything from wheat, to marijuana to guns.

If passed, the will would provide “that specified firearms that are manufactured, sold, purchased, possessed and used exclusively within Wyoming shall be exempt from federal regulation, including registration requirements”

Some supporters of the legislation say that a successful application of such a state-law would set a strong precedent and open the door for states to take their own positions on a wide range of other activities that they see as not being authorized to the Federal Government by the Constitution.

Wyoming joins 21 other states considering similar legislation – including New Hampshire, Virginia and Missouri.

In 2009, Tennessee and Montana passed a version of the Firearms Freedom Act into law. The Montana Shooting Sports Association (MTSSA) and the 2nd Amendment Foundation (SAF) have filed a federal lawsuit to validate the principles of the law.

NULLIFICATION

The principle behind such legislation is nullification, which has a long history in the American tradition.

When a state ‘nullifies’ a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or ‘non-effective,’ within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as the state is concerned.
But nullification is more than just a mere rhetorical statement or a resolution affirming the position of the legislature. To effectively nullify a federal law requires state action to prevent federal enforcement within the state.

INTERPOSITION

Implied in any nullification legislation is enforcement of the state law. In the Virginia Resolution of 1798, James Madison wrote of the principle of interposition:

That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.

In his famous speech during the war of 1812, Daniel Webster said:

“The operation of measures thus unconstitutional and illegal ought to be prevented by a resort to other measures which are both constitutional and legal. It will be the solemn duty of the State governments to protect their own authority over their own militia, and to interpose between their citizens and arbitrary power. These are among the objects for which the State governments exist”

Here Madison and Webster assert what is implied in nullification laws — that state governments not only have the right to resist unconstitutional federal acts, but that, in order to protect liberty, they are “duty bound to interpose” or stand between the federal government and the people of the state.

PENALTIES FOR FEDERAL AGENTS

HB95 includes this principle, and if passed, would impose penalties for violations of the law:

Any official, agent or employee of the United States government who enforces or attempts to enforce any act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the United States government upon a personal firearm, a firearm accessory or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in Wyoming and that remains exclusively within the borders of Wyoming shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, shall be subject to imprisonment for not more than two (2) years, a fine of not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00), or both.Sources close to the Tenth Amendment Center tell us to expect to see as many as 30 states consider similar legislation in 2010.

CLICK HERE – to view the Tenth Amendment Center’s Firearms Freedom Act Tracking Page

CLICK HERE – Firearms Freedom Act Talking Points from the Tenth Amendment Center.
(tri-fold brochure, printable in color or b/w, pdf format)

Michael Boldin [send him email] is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center

Copyright © 2010 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given

[Snarlbuckle]

I'm glad to see one of the states standing up to the federal government. This not only sets a precedence for gun control, but for other powers of the federal government. In theory, it may possibly act to counter things like healthcare legislation.

[Cyrano 4747]

I'm glad to see one of the states standing up to the federal government. This not only sets a precedence for gun control, but for other powers of the federal government. In theory, it may possibly act to counter things like healthcare legislation.

If push came to shove the gov't would just do what they did with the drinking age and tie acceptance of healthcare/ATF regulation of firearms/whatever in to receiving federal funds for any number of things.

The states are highly dependent on federal money and that's going to be the ultimate arbiter of most of these disputes.

[Bob La]

If push came to shove the gov't would just do what they did with the drinking age and tie acceptance of healthcare/ATF regulation of firearms/whatever in to receiving federal funds for any number of things.

The states are highly dependent on federal money and that's going to be the ultimate arbiter of most of these disputes.

Does anyone know why we are sending all this money to the federal government ?
Keep it in each state, we should not be paying for someone else's dream's.
If you can't pay for it, you can't have it.
If State X wants State Y's money let them ask for it.
Rebates and tax give backs are a scam to make work for the peolple who process them.
Thank you for listening.
: )

[Clinotus]

Does anyone know why we are sending all this money to the federal government ?
Keep it in each state, we should not be paying for someone else's dream's.
If you can't pay for it, you can't have it.
If State X wants State Y's money let them ask for it.
Rebates and tax give backs are a scam to make work for the peolple who process them.
Thank you for listening.
: )

I'm all ears. :) Its laughable at the amount that each state renders upwards to the Federal Government, while their state and local economies falter. Then they turn around and ask the Federal Government for funds which are their own funds.

We have to be realistic though in relation to the fact that the Federal Government was given this authority by the states themselves when they joined the union, that the states are in turn regulated by the oversight of the Federal government in relation to clauses such as the interstate commerce clauses (again granted) and so on.

Its a boondoggle all around when those same states attempt to push states rights...something that they gave away for the most part.

[Cyrano 4747]

Does anyone know why we are sending all this money to the federal government ?
Keep it in each state, we should not be paying for someone else's dream's.
If you can't pay for it, you can't have it.
If State X wants State Y's money let them ask for it.
Rebates and tax give backs are a scam to make work for the peolple who process them.
Thank you for listening.
: )

1) Medicare/Medicaid

2) servicing the national debt, which was largely built up by expenditures on various federal programs (including the military) that the state representatives voted for

3) social security

These are the three biggest chunks of the federal budget and alone count for 2/3rds of the national-level spending.

As for the other third, the so-called "discretionary spending," a massive chunk of that is DoD related. After that you have various federal programs and agencies (everything from National Parks to the BATFE), plus funding for federally coordinated infrastructure projects and networks.

There is a lot of pork in the federal budget, but it's no where near as easy to cut as the most vocal small government proponents would have you believe - and I say this as a fan of small gov't who really, really wants to see some cutbacks.

That's ignoring the fact that the distribution of economic resources is very uneven across the states, and many of them are further complicated by local politics which are frequently corrupt and need periodic intercession by federal agencies. Were Louisiana to be left purely to its own devices it would look more like a third world country than part of the US.

Finally, a lot of the states that benefit the most from economically their geographic position do so precisely because they act as a gateway for goods going to and from those poorer, inland states. There's a good argument to be made that a huge chunk of California's economy wouldnt exit were it not for the import/export activity that it watches over (the Port of LA alone services more or less the whole country south of Portland and west of Texas) and that some redistribution of those profits to the states that make them possible is not only equitable but the only way to make a multi-state union work. If each state were truly its own economic entity this would be taken care of by individual import/export tariffs, but we decided (for good reasons) a very long time ago that we didn't want, for example, Oklahoma putting a state-level export tariff on all the wheat it produces.

[Bob La]

I'm going to jump back a few posts.
What guns are inefficiently used by criminals?
What firearms are not readily available to them?
Boy were we sleeping in 1934 when this gem was passed.

"the 1934 National Firearms Act was first put in place to regulate guns that could be "used readily and efficiently by criminals or gangsters."

[Fang]

It would seem "the type of gun used by criminals/terrorists" has always meant "the type of gun I especially don't like."