It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

MT House measure would change gun rules

page: 1
24
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 12:22 PM
link   

MT House measure would change gun rules


www.montanasnewsstation.com

Firearms manufactured and used in Montana would become exempt from federal regulation under a bill being considered in the Montana House.

The State House voted in favor of House Bill 246 in second reading on Saturday, and the bill could have the effect of releasing Montana gun owners from federal registration requirements.

The measure applies to firearms, firearm accessories and ammunition that are made and sold in the state.

(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 12:23 PM
link   
WOO-HOO!!!

Now THIS is potentially VERY exciting news! And it could also have EXPLOSIVE implications.

But, if this goes through, this may well be THE way to fight the gun grabbers in power, and it sends a strong message about state rights over the current bunch of goons attempting to regulate and take away our firearms and ammo!

Keep a close eye on this one folks, this could be HUGE!

www.montanasnewsstation.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 12:37 PM
link   
DD, I believe your going to see more and more of these things happen as time goes by. States are just now getting enough backbone to stand up for the people. The government wants to keep taking things away from us, and not give anything in return, only more laws to force us down and out. More power to the states I say.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 12:46 PM
link   
As soon as the federal government tries to impose mandatory serial numbers on ammo watch people like Federal, Remington, Winchester flock to Montana. Great law, will not only improve the corporate base in the state but tells Washington the same thing that the New Hampshire resolution did. "Your laws are fine, but we will abide by the Constitution, so dont tread on us."



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 12:48 PM
link   
That is outstanding news, but unfortunately, Federal law supercedes State law in all cases. The Federal courts will not allow it to stand.

Of course, there's the problem of enforcement if the state government of Montana ignores that order. It could get very interesting, especially if they can get support from other states and quite likely, they will.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by vor78
That is outstanding news, but unfortunately, Federal law supercedes State law in all cases. The Federal courts will not allow it to stand.


Hopefully we can find some judges that actually understand this...
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.

Tenth Amendment



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by vor78
 


I was going to say, something of that nature would be a slap in the face of all states. It would be like telling each state, your state government has no power at all. That in itself would be nothing more then a death blow to the Federal Government. You think states will just set there and let the Federal Government walk on them, and tell them they don`t matter? I doubt it. If any of the states let them get away with that, then those state governments are useless, and should be put out of power.



[edit on 17-2-2009 by FiatLux]



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by vor78
That is outstanding news, but unfortunately, Federal law supercedes State law in all cases. The Federal courts will not allow it to stand.

Of course, there's the problem of enforcement if the state government of Montana ignores that order. It could get very interesting, especially if they can get support from other states and quite likely, they will.



What are you talking about??

State law takes precedence over Federal law in every case unless spelled out in the US Constitution.

That's why it's a "Federal Republic".

The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America:




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.


There was a small skirmish called the "Civil War" where this was discussed at length.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by salchanra
 


you said it before i could dang nabbit. if that goes thru every gun manufacturer and ammo manufacturer will suddenly be located in montana.
now my next question would be if they do that what happens to the states they leave and pay ALOT of taxes too?
will those states suddenly jump on board to keep them or just say "oh well" ?
doubt the feds will put up with it but it is time the states have their and OUR rights back- why we have a constitution right



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by emsed1
 


The problem is, those states fighting for their 10th amendment rights lost the Civil War. The Federal government hasn't given a damn about States rights for almost 150 years now. They've been overstepping on gun control for years. Its not like states could selectively decide to ignore the '94 assault weapons ban, for example. There were plenty of states that would've ignored that one otherwise.

Don't get me wrong, I am 100% in support of the state of Montana, but they have an uphill battle on their hands with the Federal courts and government if it passes, depending upon how far-reaching the bill is.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 01:42 PM
link   
Vor

You can find the bill here

Short one, only 4 pages long. Note line 25 on page two. Fairly good reach for the Montana House.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfoot1212
reply to post by salchanra
 

now my next question would be if they do that what happens to the states they leave and pay ALOT of taxes too?


Those states dont want them there anyway. Think about how many firearms manufacturers are in Ct and MA. At least a dozen between the two states. Both states hate guns as a matter of course. Both states have been overtaxing their populations while simultaneously floating on an ocean of debt for something like 25 years now.

Let the manufacturers leave. Win/win. They get to operate in a gun-friendly environment and CT and MA get that much closer to disappearing from the face of the nation.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by vor78
reply to post by emsed1
 


The problem is, those states fighting for their 10th amendment rights lost the Civil War. The Federal government hasn't given a damn about States rights for almost 150 years now. They've been overstepping on gun control for years. Its not like states could selectively decide to ignore the '94 assault weapons ban, for example. There were plenty of states that would've ignored that one otherwise.

Don't get me wrong, I am 100% in support of the state of Montana, but they have an uphill battle on their hands with the Federal courts and government if it passes, depending upon how far-reaching the bill is.


OHH! You were talking about 'real life' and not our made-up fantasy world where the government actually does what it's supposed to.

Heh heh... I have to agree with you there, just because they aren't supposed to doesn't mean they won't.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 02:22 PM
link   
The constitution does not give the Federal Goverment power to over turn this. ATF, FDA, Dept. of Education and many goverment programs are not Speciffically autherised by the constitution.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by vor78
That is outstanding news, but unfortunately, Federal law supercedes State law in all cases. The Federal courts will not allow it to stand.



Yeah
That's what they want you to believe. However, there's this clever little stop-gap against federal tyranny wrapped up in something called the Tenth Ammendment. Unfortunately the federal government has held states for ransom by withholding federal funds unless or until they comply with federal statute. The Seat Belt Law being one good example; where they withheld highway funding until the state complied with the law.

Did you know that that tactic is also unconstitutional? What you are witnessing is the states reasserting their rights under the Constitution. If those jack*sses in Congress don't get a clue, REAL soon, they will be "redressing grievances" that they had wished they had left alone.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 03:00 PM
link   
Criminals shouldn't have guns. /end.
Anyone else, besides kids, I really don't care.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 04:40 PM
link   
Another example of where it's been ruled the feds can overrule states in matters like this is medical marijuana, even though california made that legal, the DEA carried on raiding, and when it went to court it was ruled acceptable. I expect the same will happen in Montana.



Most recently, the Commerce Clause was cited in the 2005 decision Gonzales v. Raich. In this case, a California woman sued the Drug Enforcement Administration after her medical marijuana crop was seized and destroyed by Federal agents. Medical marijuana was explicitly made legal under California state law by Proposition 215; however, marijuana is prohibited at the federal level by the Controlled Substances Act. Even though the woman grew the marijuana strictly for her own consumption and never sold any, the Supreme Court stated that growing one's own marijuana affects the interstate market of marijuana, citing the Wickard v. Filburn decision. The theory was that the marijuana could enter the stream of interstate commerce, even if it clearly wasn't grown for that purpose and it was unlikely ever to happen. It therefore ruled that this practice may be regulated by the federal government under the authority of the Commerce Clause.


en.wikipedia.org...

As guns sales are a commerical business, I think this is the feds loophole.

[edit on 17/2/2009 by RubberBaron]



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 04:46 PM
link   
Great points made on all sides.

But in regards to the continual trashing of state rights by the federal goons, with the way things are going with the financial raping and pillaging being made POSSIBLE by our federal reps, I wonder if enough states are going to take a stand and secede, or resist through any means necessary to change this business-as-usual trampling of the constitution?

We are seeing an increasing number of individual states hinting that this may well be the future movement...

[edit on 17-2-2009 by DimensionalDetective]



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by salchanra
As soon as the federal government tries to impose mandatory serial numbers on ammo watch people like Federal, Remington, Winchester flock to Montana. Great law, will not only improve the corporate base in the state but tells Washington the same thing that the New Hampshire resolution did. "Your laws are fine, but we will abide by the Constitution, so dont tread on us."


I might just follow them.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 05:11 PM
link   
We have th 2nd to protect all the rest. That nullifies any loopholes the fed has should people decide to exercise that right.

The question is, how far will the states go. What if these states that are standing up for themselves recall all their national guard? I don't know if they have the power to recall those which are on active duty, but it could get ugly if the fed doesn't back off a little.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join