A very interesting bill has been introduced in the Montana house of representatives.  It declares that any firearms manufactured and retained in Montana are simply not subject to any federal regulation under the power of Congress to "regulate commerce ... among the several states."

If it passes, this bill will open the door to unregulated, Montana-only firearms manufacture. It may also set up a nifty test case over the alleged power of Congress to regulate everything under the Sun under the guise of regulating "interstate commerce."  I'd love to hear what you guys think about this law.

You can read the bill at: http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2007/billhtml/HB0420.htm



Quote:

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 -

-b0b
(...is excited.)

GO MONTANA!!

This is amazing...a state that is willing to give up $$$ for protecting the rights of its citizens!!!   [smiley=Shocked.gif]

I love how the federal government basically declares everything bit mirrored laws (ex: federal taxes and state taxes etc) as needed to be under federal rule.  You could say that about anything and everything if you really want to.  I really don't think that's what the Fathers had in mind when writing that.  Esp since they made the fed govt as small as they could.

X

My guess is that FedGov will claim that manufacturing and retaining an item in-state will still qualify as "interstate commerce" because it reduces the demand for out-of-state goods.  The federal government did the same thing with a medical marijuana case in California.  

The defendant grew her own medical marijuana using seeds obtained in-state, perfectly legal under state law.  The FedGov destroyed her plants, leading her to sue them for damages because the FedGov has no jurisdiction over intra-state commerce.  The supreme court disagreed, stating that the defendants homegrown and home-consumed marijuana constituted inter-state commerce because she would no longer buy her marijuana out-of-state (which is illegal anyway, but that apparently doesn't concern SCOTUS).  The commerce clause apparently deals with not only supply, but demand (or, in this case, the inherent lack thereof).

That kind of thinking, folks, is tyranny in action.

-b0b
(...takes a bow.)

Here's the Wikipedia entry for the case I was referring to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel_Raich

-b0b
(...loves Wikipedia.)

Well even going back to the very first lawsuit on the federal government under the regulation of inter state commerce is still pretty wacky to me.

A farmer in the Midwest grew his own personal crops and fed it to his own livestock and him and his family ate it.  They didn't sell the crops, nor did they buy any.  The fed govt swooped in and burned his field.  Their justification was that this farmer would drive up the prices of food stocks because he wasn't purchasing food sources that he would use to feed his family and his live stock.  Please forgive me for not remembering the cases name.

So there you have the govt basically limiting the ability for an individual to provide in a manner for his lifestyle and family all on his own.

I don't understand a lot of what the feds say fall under interstate commerce.  I think they should sink all their money into our roads and let schools become more state run.  Make the roads out of something like that clear concrete or just have metal roads!  Something that wouldn't require them to work on them every 2 years!

X

The case you're referring to is Wickard v. Filburn, a case that dealt with the (highly unconstitutional) Agricultural Adjustment Act.  I was thinking about mentioning that very same case in my earlier post but forgot to do so.

Here's the Wikipedia page for the case...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

-b0b
(...is full of Wiki links.)

Yep that's the one!  Thanks.

X

For what it's worth, there was at least one case that swung in our favor on the Commerce Clause, US v. Morrison.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._v._Morrison

-b0b
(...wonders how you can have both stances?)

I don't understand what that case had to do with the Commerce Clause.  It's about a rape assault not about money or food or goods or services?

X

That guy in the Wickard case is full of shit.  Look at the Wikki page.  He claimed the wheat was for private use, yet he would have had to eaten 44 1 pound loaves of bread every day for a year to eat it all with his family?

Guy was BSing trying to get around commerce laws.

Well he also had livestock he was going to feed with it to.  It's misleading a bit with the wording but personal use also meant to feed his family and livestock.

X

Yeah, livestock consume a lot more wheat than a human ever could.  That statistic is somewhat retarded and I don't understnad the point of including it in the Wiki (outside of pure bias).

As for the Morrison case, Pat, "not understanding what that case had to do with the Commerce Clause" is the entire point.  It has absolutely nothing to do with commerce, which is why the federal government had absolutely no legal right to pass such a law in the first place.  Rape is a state issue, not a fed issue.

-b0b
(...shrugs.)

Ha ha ....ok I thought I was missing something there.  And what I was missing was that I got the point.

X
(weird!)

I thought you guys might like to know that the bill passed all three readings and passed the House of Representatives 83-17.  It's going to the Senate!

-b0b
(...w00t!)

Awesome...The MT Senate will more than likely pass it too.   Good for them.

X