[Rellshare]

Apparently this bill has been passed by the Montana state House, and is on its way to the state Senate.

Most Federal gun control laws say they apply to guns used or transported in interstate commerce. Montana is proposing to exempt guns made in Montana that never leave the state, thus avoiding that jurisdiction. In addition, the 1995 Supreme Court case US v. Lopez established limits to Federal abuse of the Commerce Clause, wherein the Fed tried to regulate things only vaguely related to interstate commerce. Might that have an effect here?

It raises an interesting question. If the Feds fight it on grounds that Federal law supersedes state laws, then it looks like Montanans will reply, "How about the Federal law in the Constitution, which says the RKBA (right to keep and bear arms) cannot be infringed (2nd Amendment)? And the part that says the states can have any power not specifically assigned to the Fed (10th amendment)? And how about the 1889 approval of the Montana Constitution by the U.S. Congress, which says the same thing about the RKBA?"

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

The Bozeman Daily Chronicle

Anti-federal bills move forward in House

by WALT WILLIAMS
Chronicle Staff Writer
Feb. 1, 2007

HELENA -- Lawmakers in the Montana House of Representatives collectively thumbed their noses at the federal government Monday by approving two bills exempting guns from federal regulations and driver's licenses from national standardization requirements.

The bills by Reps. Diane Rice, R-Harrison, and Roger Koopman, R-Bozeman, do different things but are driven by the same concern: the erosion of personal liberties by the federal government.

Koopman said Monday his gun bill, House Bill 366, would inspire a home-grown industry of gun-makers who produce firearms to be sold in Montana. It also sends a message reaffirming states' rights. "In that regard, this bill really has positive consequences, I believe, beyond the firearms industry itself," he said.

NATIONAL STANDARDS FOR DRIVERS LICENSES

Rice is sponsoring HB 304, which would prevent the state from cooperating with the federal government in establishing nationwide standards for noncommercial driver's licenses.

Federal standards, she said, amount to a national ID card. Critics fear that such standards will lead to the government tracking its citizens.

There was virtually no debate about the bill before lawmakers voted 94-6 to pass it, with a third and final vote expected today.

It also makes it illegal to issue driver's licenses to illegal aliens, which currently isn't prohibited under state law.

FEDERAL GUN CONTROL LAWS

Koopman's HB 366 would exempt guns made in Montana from federal regulation under the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution, as long as the guns remain inside the state.

Rep. Tim Dowell, D-Kalispell, criticized it as aiding terrorism. He noted that law enforcement officers used gun regulations to link the Washington D.C.-area sniper shootings.

Terrorists "can come to Montana, they can buy one of these weapons, go on a reign of terror, and there would be no way to track them down," he said.

He also questioned the logic of the state exempting itself from federal law.

"That's pretty cool, maybe we should say we aren't subject to the income tax," he said.

Dowell's complaints were dismissed as "crazy emotionalism" by Rep. Ed Butcher, R-Winifred. In the end, 73 lawmakers voted to move the bill forward, and afterward there was scattered applause on the House floor.

A third and final vote is expect today. If both bills pass their third vote, then they will move on to the Senate.

(Full text of the article can be read at the above URL)

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

Text of the firearms bill in the Montana legislature:

2007 Montana Legislature

HOUSE BILL NO. 420

INTRODUCED BY R. KOOPMAN


A BILL FOR AN ACT ENTITLED: "AN ACT EXEMPTING FROM REGULATION UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES A FIREARM, A FIREARM ACCESSORY, OR AMMUNITION MANUFACTURED AND RETAINED IN MONTANA."

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MONTANA:

NEW SECTION. Section 1. Short title. [Sections 1 through 6] may be cited as the "Montana Firearms Freedom Act".

NEW SECTION. Section 2. Legislative declarations of authority. The legislature declares that the authority for [sections 1 through 6] is the following:

(1) The 10th amendment to the United States constitution guarantees to the states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in the constitution and reserves to the state and people of Montana certain powers as they were understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889. The guarantee of those powers is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.

(2) The ninth amendment to the United States constitution guarantees to the people rights not granted in the constitution and reserves to the people of Montana certain rights as they were understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889. The guarantee of those rights is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.

(3) The regulation of intrastate commerce is vested in the states under the 9th and 10th amendments to the United States constitution, particularly if not expressly preempted by federal law. Congress has not expressly preempted state regulation of intrastate commerce pertaining to the manufacture on an intrastate basis of firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition.

(4) The second amendment to the United States constitution reserves to the people the right to keep and bear arms as that right was understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889, and the guarantee of the right is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.

(5) Article II, section 12, of the Montana constitution clearly secures to Montana citizens, and prohibits government interference with, the right of individual Montana citizens to keep and bear arms. This constitutional protection is unchanged from the 1889 Montana constitution, which was approved by congress and the people of Montana, and the right exists as it was understood at the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.

NEW SECTION. Section 3. Definitions. As used in [sections 1 through 6], the following definitions apply:

(1) "Borders of Montana" means the boundaries of Montana described in Article I, section 1, of the 1889 Montana constitution.

(2) "Firearms accessories" means items that are used in conjunction with or mounted upon a firearm but are not essential to the basic function of a firearm, including but not limited to telescopic or laser sights, magazines, flash or sound suppressors, folding or aftermarket stocks and grips, speedloaders, ammunition carriers, and lights for target illumination.

(3) "Generic and insignificant parts" includes but is not limited to springs, screws, nuts, and pins.

(4) "Manufactured" means creating a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition from basic materials for functional usefulness, including but not limited to forging, casting, machining, or other processes for working materials.

NEW SECTION. Section 4. Prohibition. 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.

NEW SECTION. Section 5. Exceptions. [Section 4] does not apply to:

(1) a firearm that cannot be carried and used by one person;

(2) a firearm that has a bore diameter greater than 1 1/2 inches and that uses smokeless powder, not black powder, as a propellant;

(3) ammunition with a projectile that explodes using an explosion of chemical energy after the projectile leaves the firearm; or

(4) a firearm that discharges two or more projectiles with one activation of the trigger or other firing device.

NEW SECTION. Section 6. Marking of firearms. A firearm manufactured or sold in Montana under [sections 1 through 6] must have the words "Made in Montana" clearly stamped on a central metallic part, such as the receiver or frame.

NEW SECTION. Section 7. Codification instruction. [Sections 1 through 6] are intended to be codified as an integral part of Title 30, and the provisions of Title 30 apply to [sections 1 through 6].

- END -

[MegaJIT]

This will be interesting. I'm still a little undecided on my opinon of gun control and I can see the state's position on this except for one aspect.
What happens when people visit Montana, buy guns, and then carry them to other states to sell as untraceable weapons? Presumabley Montana gun makers can also sell fully automatic weapons and armor peircing ammo too. What about bazookas? I realize the individuals who do the trafficking will be breaking federal and other state laws by doing so. Does Montana assume any responsibility at all for making such trade possible? And is there any relief for other states?

[Rellshare]

This will be interesting. I'm still a little undecided on my opinon of gun control and I can see the state's position on this except for one aspect.
What happens when people visit Montana, buy guns, and then carry them to other states to sell as untraceable weapons?

The Fed can regulate such, since it's interstate commerce. Whether they will want to, is a different question.

Presumabley Montana gun makers can also sell fully automatic weapons Nope. See Section 5(4).

and armor peircing ammo too. What's that? Any ammo can pierce armor, if the armor is thin enough. Gonna outlaw all of it?

What about bazookas? See section 5(3).

I realize the individuals who do the trafficking will be breaking federal and other state laws by doing so. Does Montana assume any responsibility at all for making such trade possible? Such illegal trade was possible long before Montana started making these laws. Why blame them?

[MegaJIT]

Such illegal trade was possible long before Montana started making these laws. Why blame them?

I have been told that there are bullets made with a steel or tungsten "penetrator" which allows the bullet to pierce body armor or the kind of "bullet-proff" shields and vehicle coverings tht are sometimes used by police forces. I've also been told sales of such ammo are illegal but maybe I have misunderstood.

As far as I know, it is not now legal to buy weapons without identifying yourself. It looks like this law will change that. Am I misunderstanding the Montana law??

[DoctorIrokezov]

It's about time somebody called the Feds on their abuse of the Commerce Clause and/or their abdication of the 2nd Amendment! All the better I suppose to kill two birds with one stone!

[OpVJokl8]

It's about time somebody called the Feds on their abuse of the Commerce Clause and/or their abdication of the 2nd Amendment! All the better I suppose to kill two birds with one stone!

Now that we have a Supreme Court that doesn't lean to the left any longer, the Feds may not be able to abuse it much longer.

[Rellshare]

Now that we have a Supreme Court that doesn't lean to the left any longer, the Feds may not be able to abuse it much longer.

Commerce Clause abuse has been one of the more egrigious sins of Congress, so much so that the lean away from it was started more than 10 years ago.

The Commerce Clause simply says that Congress has the power to regulate commerce between the several states. It was put in to the Const because, before that document was written, the central government (under the Articles of Confederations) did NOT have the power to regulate interstate commerce... and the result was a huge snarl of contradictory and every-shfting tariffs, trade restrictions, etc. between each state and its neighbor. So the power to regulate that commerce was assigned to the Fed Govt by the Constitution, and thus taken away from the states.

It was meant to make trade better and smoother, not to obstruct it. But in the 1930s, the Fed govt under FDR wanted to start regulating everything under the sun. That was mostly unconstitutional, so they started adding the words "that are transported or used in interstate commerce" to each thing they wanted to regulate, to pretend that the Framers meant them to regulate anything and everything. And then they would simply start busting everybody who did anything with the regulated item, even if the particular one they were looking at hadn't been involved in interstate commerce at all. And they would also claim that even explicit language in the Constitution that prohibited regulation of certain items, was now superseded by this newly-discovered commerce-clause regulation. Guns were one of those items.

Check out the case US v. Lopez, from 1995. It is the first significant USSC case where the justices finally said, "Hey, wait a minute, the connection to interstate commerce is just too remote and speculative for the Feds to be able to claim the power to regulate it."

US v. Lopez was a case over the Federal law that banned guns within 1,000 feet of a school. As I recall, this law didn't even say "guns transported in interstate commerce" the way other mealymouthed gun-control laws did. The government lawyers used the following rationale:

1.) Guns in or near schools, created an atmosphere of fear and danger.
2.) That affected the kids' study habits, and that made them less likely to do well in school.
3.) That made them less likely to get good jobs and become productive citizens.
4.) That meant the the companies they eventually joined wouldn't make as good or as many products.
5.) That meant that they wouldn't do as much selling as they might have, including selling across state lines.
6.) And THAT meant that guns in schools affected interstate commerce!!!

At least, that was the argument the lawyers used, in front of the Supreme Court in US v. Lopez. With straight faces, even. The conservative justices literally laughed at them. Chief Justice Rehnquist asked one of the lawyers, if he could name one item in all of existence, that such an argument could NOT be used to justify Federal control over. They lawyer couldn't name one.

It was a stunning case in which common sense actually prevailed over the agenda of unlimited government expansion and control. The gun-free school zones law was stricken. (It was re-written later, omitting the commerce part, and using some other excuse.)

It's similar to the wheat-farmer case, where someone was trying to pretend that items not in interstate commerce, were still subject to Federal control for the very reason that they were NOT, and affected commerce by their absence. It's a bizarre twist, that can be applied to every item on the planet: everything is either involved or not involved! That's how screwy the arguments are getting, in the government-uber-alles people's desperate attempts to expand Federal control over everything they can see.

[MzTT]

I have been told that there are bullets made with a steel or tungsten "penetrator" which allows the bullet to pierce body armor or the kind of "bullet-proff" shields and vehicle coverings tht are sometimes used by police forces. I've also been told sales of such ammo are illegal but maybe I have misunderstood.

As far as I know, it is not now legal to buy weapons without identifying yourself. It looks like this law will change that. Am I misunderstanding the Montana law??

You've been told a lie.

Virtually any centerfire rifle round WILL penetrate all known soft body armor, and some hard armor. Body armor comes in varying levels of effectiveness which will determine what it MAY stop (its not a guarantee).

The steel core is not a "penetrator" per-se, especially when you're dealing with handgun rounds. In a rifle, yes, it does become a bit different, but again, a steel core does not make it somehow more deadly. To an extent it makes it more surviveable as it will simply poke through and keep right on going.

The hoopla surrounding AP rounds is just that - hoopla.

As far as identifying yourself, its always been legal to buy anything from a private party without producing ID. I see nothing wrong there. I further see nothing wrong with not producing ID when purchasing a new weapon at a retail location. Quite frankly, no amount of restrictions to legal sale is going to make a damn bit of difference to keeping them away from the people you'd worry about anyway. I mean, seriously - big deal. So you know Jethro has a gun. Whoop-de-shit. What exactly does demanding ID from a purchaser do? Seriously. Think about that for a moment.


As far as Im concerned, good for Montana. A few more states need to start telling the federal government to go take a flying leap at a rolling donut.

[MegaJIT]

You've been told a lie.

Virtually any centerfire rifle round WILL penetrate all known soft body armor, and some hard armor. Body armor comes in varying levels of effectiveness which will determine what it MAY stop (its not a guarantee).

The steel core is not a "penetrator" per-se, especially when you're dealing with handgun rounds. In a rifle, yes, it does become a bit different, but again, a steel core does not make it somehow more deadly. To an extent it makes it more surviveable as it will simply poke through and keep right on going.

The hoopla surrounding AP rounds is just that - hoopla.

As far as identifying yourself, its always been legal to buy anything from a private party without producing ID. I see nothing wrong there. I further see nothing wrong with not producing ID when purchasing a new weapon at a retail location. Quite frankly, no amount of restrictions to legal sale is going to make a damn bit of difference to keeping them away from the people you'd worry about anyway. I mean, seriously - big deal. So you know Jethro has a gun. Whoop-de-shit. What exactly does demanding ID from a purchaser do? Seriously. Think about that for a moment.


As far as Im concerned, good for Montana. A few more states need to start telling the federal government to go take a flying leap at a rolling donut.

My mistake then. Are you saying that I can buy any weapon I want without identifying myself if I just buy it from a private party? Then what's all the fuss about with people claiming the government is trying to take away our guns?

[MzTT]

My mistake then. Are you saying that I can buy any weapon I want without identifying myself if I just buy it from a private party?

Yep. You've always been able to do that. No law will EVER change that either.

Then what's all the fuss about with people claiming the government is trying to take away our guns?

Perhaps because there is a finite amount of resale firearms on the market? Perhaps because even the ability to buy a used gun as described above is under attack? Perhaps because in some states, you need permission from the state to purchase any form of firearm? Perhaps because the BATFE, without warning or rationale will change the rules from day to day as to what they consider legal?

Do you want MORE examples?

How about the fact that I can only buy a gun in the state in which i live? How about the fact that while there are federal laws in place to protect me if i am transporting my guns from one state to the next, these laws are routinely ignored and innocent behavior can get me jailed?

You want more?

[MzTT]

It's about time somebody called the Feds on their abuse of the Commerce Clause and/or their abdication of the 2nd Amendment! All the better I suppose to kill two birds with one stone!

DING DING DING! We have a winner!

Too many people are forgetting that the commerce clause is superceded by the Bill of Rights.

The commerce clause is NOT blanket permission for the federal government to do whatever it damn well pleases, no matter how much some people would like it to be.

Government may do ONLY what is specifically granted to it. EVERYTHING else is reserved to the states and/or the people.

[Gedominew]

I have been told that there are bullets made with a steel or tungsten "penetrator" which allows the bullet to pierce body armor or the kind of "bullet-proff" shields and vehicle coverings tht are sometimes used by police forces. I've also been told sales of such ammo are illegal but maybe I have misunderstood.

As far as I know, it is not now legal to buy weapons without identifying yourself. It looks like this law will change that. Am I misunderstanding the Montana law??

Acorn knew what type of ammunition you were refering to, which is why he hasn't bothered to respond back.

[corolaelwis]

Interesting, looks like the states have a good way to circumvent federal law here.

[Gedominew]

Interesting, looks like the states have a good way to circumvent federal law here.

And since this administration happens to agree with this particular states attempt to promote states rights over federal law I do not see the justice department really doing anything about it. However that may not be the case with the next administration. Too bad they can't or don't honor states rights decisions in other areas.

[corolaelwis]

Heh i agree with this way of protecting state's rights; but the federal government in this administration's case hasn't tramped on state's rights. Its been more of a battle between the executive and legislative as to who has what power within the federal government.

[Gedominew]

Heh i agree with this way of protecting state's rights; but the federal government in this administration's case hasn't tramped on state's rights. Its been more of a battle between the executive and legislative as to who has what power within the federal government.

Please tel that to the people of Oregon and California. In both cases people voted for issues which were opposed by the fed and the justice department intervened. Last I heard the justice department is part of the executive not the legistlative branch.

[corolaelwis]

The legislative branch is also a part of the federal government, with the Dems in charge they could pass the law through Congress and it would become law.

But my point was that this administration hasn't trample on state's rights, to quite the contrary, they've allowed for such things like various state's to form their own version of Kyoto. This administration's main beef has been with Congrss which hasn't allowed the executive branch of the fed government to run the country, like is their job. Congress always gets carried away and somewhere along the lines thinks its their job to run the country.

[Gedominew]

The legislative branch is also a part of the federal government, with the Dems in charge they could pass the law through Congress and it would become law.

But my point was that this administration hasn't trample on state's rights, to quite the contrary, they've allowed for such things like various state's to form their own version of Kyoto. This administration's main beef has been with Congrss which hasn't allowed the executive branch of the fed government to run the country, like is their job. Congress always gets carried away and somewhere along the lines thinks its their job to run the country.

Traveler please lets not try to kidd each other hear. This administration has for the most part not had to concern itself with a hostile Congress, we both know that. Moreover it was the Justice Department, not Congress, that decided people in California that decided an issue on the medical use of marijuana were wrong and in Oregon that decided the peoples decision on the end of life had to be quashed.

So please Traveler do not insult me with an argument that this administration headed by someone who claimed to be for states rights before the 2000 election has done nothing but uphold the concept of states rights.

With respect to Kyoto the only time the fed could get involved is if a particular state treid to sign an agreement with a foreign government on Kyoto. Even california hasn't done that, so anything else they have done is within thier rights. The CAA allows states to go beyond the restrictions imposed by the act, they just can't lessen the requirements, which frankly would be pretty ahrd to do given the current EPA rules on CO2.

[corolaelwis]

Some of the provisions that the CA statute involving emissions violates federal law as it curbs production of certain gasses; the feds have already set manditory lmits which cannot be adjusted by the states. Or actually the feds may have set a limit and state's can't exceed it, i'm not sure

As for CA and OR boh cases violate federal law or are isues which are to be decied by the federal governent not state's righs issues; it just isn't the jurisdction of the state.

As for Bush over-riding the rights of state's, if he did then he would have gone into LA after Katrina irrelevant of protest by the Governor.

[MzTT]

Some of the provisions that the CA statute involving emissions violates federal law as it curbs production of certain gasses; the feds have already set manditory lmits which cannot be adjusted by the states. Or actually the feds may have set a limit and state's can't exceed it, i'm not sure

As for CA and OR boh cases violate federal law or are isues which are to be decied by the federal governent not state's righs issues; it just isn't the jurisdction of the state.

As for Bush over-riding the rights of state's, if he did then he would have gone into LA after Katrina irrelevant of protest by the Governor.

The local laws can be (and in the case of CA are) more restrictive than federal law without running afoul of it. Those mandatory limits must be MET by the states, but the states can very easily require much more restrictive limitations.