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: 2
24
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ravenshadow13
Criminals shouldn't have guns. /end.
Anyone else, besides kids, I really don't care.


Keep in mind WHO defines "criminality", and WHO gets to say who is a "criminal".

Jaywalkers are "criminals", take away their guns for it? Parking violators are "criminals". Take away their guns for it?

What about when they decide to take away other "rights" from "criminals". Are you all for that too?

nenothtu out




posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


those were the 2 big states i was talking about- forgot about ny tho even if they only have small manufacturers. personally i don't care what state my fave remington or s&w or colt etc is made in. my point is these companies pay alot of taxes and employ alot of people- hard enough to find a job the way things are so why don't we just push for more unemployment? sooner or later someone is going to crack- just hope it's not from the faction i am for(pro gun in case noone figured that out)



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfoot1212
 


I'm ashamed to admit it but I'm from CT. When the Clinton AWB was passed a lot of jobs were lost at the Colt plant. A whole lot.

Last Summer when CT was toying with the idea of passing some garbage micro-stamping law representatives from many of the states manufacturers were there saying should such a law pass they would abandon the state.

I dont think any of those companies have been CT loyalists for quite a while now. In fact, I'm pretty sure they just need a back-breaking straw to justify bailing.

The state legislature from what I saw growing up doesnt care one way or the other about keeping people employed unless it's a state job. They also dont care that their state is in the hole for tens of millions. They did it to themselves despite the writing on the wall being 20 feet tall and glow in the dark. I hope the state rots.

They should come to NH. I'd love to work for one of their companies. I'd take a pay cut to go work for a firearms manufacturer.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 06:08 PM
link   
How about this?


Montana Introduces Resolution Asserting State Sovereignty - And Threatening Secession

A Montana Resolution asserting state sovereignty has been introduced by Montana State Rep. Mike More as HJ 26. Montana thus joins the recent wave of fiery state sovereignty resolutions. And as with the New Hampshire Resolution, the Montana resolution borrows heavily from Jefferson's Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, and then lists particular acts that would nullify the Constitution and void the compact by which Montana became a state - that is a threat to secede if the feds step too far. Here is an excerpt:

(21) That any act by the Congress of the United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States, or Judicial Order of the United States that assumes a power not delegated by the federal Constitution and Bill of Rights diminishing the liberty of this state or its citizens constitutes a nullification of the federal Constitution and Bill of Rights by the government of the United States, which would also breach Montana's "Compact With the United States". Acts that would cause a nullification and a breach include but are not limited to:

(a) establishing martial law or a state of emergency within a state without the consent of the legislature of that state;

(b) requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service other than a draft during a declared war or pursuant to or as an alternative to incarceration after due process of law;

(c) requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under the age of 18 other than pursuant to or as an alternative to incarceration after due process of law;

(d) surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government;

(e) any act regarding religion, further limitations on freedom of political speech, or further limitations on freedom of the press; or

(f) any act regarding the right to keep and bear arms or further limitations on the right to bear arms, including any restrictions on the type or number of firearms or the amount or type of ammunition any law-abiding citizen may purchase, own, or possess.

(22) That if any act of Congress becomes law or if an Executive Order or Judicial Order is put into force related to the reservations expressed in this resolution, Montana's "Compact With the United States" is breached and all powers previously delegated to the United States by the federal Constitution and Bill of Rights revert to the states individually.

stewart-rhodes.blogspot.com...



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


yeah i remember back under billary that colt was actually talking about just closing and going overseas- esp after them and s&w and remington and thompson etc. were being sued by the gov't.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
How about this?


Montana Introduces Resolution Asserting State Sovereignty - And Threatening Secession

A Montana Resolution asserting state sovereignty has been introduced by Montana State Rep. Mike More as HJ 26. Montana thus joins the recent wave of fiery state sovereignty resolutions. And as with the New Hampshire Resolution, the Montana resolution borrows heavily from Jefferson's Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, and then lists particular acts that would nullify the Constitution and void the compact by which Montana became a state - that is a threat to secede if the feds step too far. Here is an excerpt:



Outstanding find. Almost like its starting to set up, Pro Gun states vs. Anti Gun states. I would hate to see our Union fracture, but this certainly could be how it goes down.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by salchanra
 


I am glad I am right in the middle. I'll keep my guns thankyou....



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by vor78
 


No FEDERAL LAW does NOT trump state law in every case. The opposite is true.

The feds are only given powers specifically enumerated in the constitution, all others are given to the states.

The federal government only has the right to prevent the states from infringing upon the right to bear arms, they DEFINITELY don't have the right to infringe upon them themself.

Jaden



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 07:14 PM
link   
I hope Washington State will pass something like this as well. With Olympic Arms, we'll still be waist deep in black rifles no matter what!!!

Two lines!!



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 07:32 PM
link   
Did you ever wonder why federal gun laws are inforced by the Treasury Dept?

It's because they're not gun laws, they're interstate commerce laws.

The constitution does not grant the federal government the authority to regulate possession or manufacture of firearms or ammo. BUT - It does allow the federal government to regulate interstate commerce, and that's been the loop-hole they've always used to get around the second amendment.

They can't ban ownership of automatic weapons (for example) but they CAN ban interstate commerce in automatic weapons, and once they do that, THEN they can prosecute you for possession because possession demonstrates that you violated the ban on interstate commerce.

Since no INTERSTATE commerce is involved when a firearm is sold in the same state as it was manufactured, Montana looks pretty much 'home free' on this one, at least on paper. Absent interstate commerce the federal government really has NO authority over the manufacture, sale, or possession of firearms or ammo -- of any type.

The democrats' reaction should be a hoot.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ravenshadow13
Criminals shouldn't have guns. /end.
Anyone else, besides kids, I really don't care.


Define Criminal? If you ask Obama's Chief of Staff that means the 7 year old kids that are on the TSA's No Fly List will have their rights pre-negated. Which is a violation of all due process guidelines laid out in the Constitution let alone the second Amendment. I agree that certain crimes should bar you from having the ability to do it again. But that is what a responsible definition of what characterizes a true "criminal" is for. Does the kid who gets busted for pot at age 18 constitute a criminal? How about someone who tags a wall? Should they have their rights nullified?

Theres alot more than these questions to be asked and to be regarded before we can define what a criminal is. Blanket definitions of criminality such as "If you've ever been arrested" can mean jail for a parking ticket not paid. Which happens often. Is that a criminal activity or an honest oversight? And should his right be curtailed by this arrest? How about those arrested and NOT convicted? Where do their right go then?

Criminal is not a simple term.

[edit on 17-2-2009 by projectvxn]

[edit on 17-2-2009 by projectvxn]



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 07:57 PM
link   
Montana better be careful or it might get more then it bargained for.
If they were to actually pass this bill, the Fed's would be almost forced to put up border stations on all roads crossing the state lines into and out of Montana just to prevent a flood of guns and ammo leaving Montana and going into the rest of the USA. Manned border stations with ATF officials running them and checking every car cross the state lines would not be a good thing, but it would be the Fed's only option to prevent the flow of guns in to other states. That would end up being like the USSR was during the cold war. You would be stopped and searched whenever you tried to cross state lines.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 08:00 PM
link   
all this talk of secession by states and states enacting laws (or trying to) that circumvent federal laws has got me thinking about history, mainly the USSR. a quick glance through the web lead to some interesting things..
see if you can spot the similarities.



the advent of reform-minded Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in 1985 signaled the trend toward greater liberalization. During the mid 1980s, a younger generation of Soviet apparatchiks, led by Gorbachev, began advocating fundamental reform in order to reverse years of Brezhnev stagnation. The Soviet Union was facing a period of severe economic decline and needed Western technology and credits to make up for its increasing backwardness. The costs of maintaining its so-called "empire" — the military, KGB, subsidies to foreign client states — further strained the moribund Soviet economy. (side note: same thing happened to Rome)

The first signs of major reform came in 1986 when Gorbachev launched a policy of glasnost (openness) in the Soviet Union, and emphasized the need for perestroika (economic restructuring).


kinda like this..???


United States President Barack Obama announced today that his administration will roll back the secrecy that has ruled during the Bush Administration and implement a new era of government openness and transparency.


blog.wired.com...


This week will be a pivotal one for President Barack Obama and the U.S. economy, as interlocking parts of his economic rescue effort are set to be signed, sealed or delivered



Gorbachev's reforms had failed to improve the economy, with the old Soviet command structure completely breaking down. One by one, the constituent republics created their own economic systems and voted to subordinate Soviet laws to local laws



Dissolution of the USSR

The constituent republics began to assert their national sovereignty over Moscow and started a "war of laws" with the central government, wherein the governments of the constituent republics repudiated union-wide legislation where it conflicted with local laws, asserting control over their local economies and refusing to pay tax revenue to the central Moscow government.


en.wikipedia.org...(1985-1991)#Dissolution_of_the_USSR


i'm one of those idiots who think you can learn alot from history.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by turbokid
 


Eerily similar no? I had made this comparison before and was laughed at. Enough time is passing now and this crisis is starting to become more real to people, which makes these parallels far more stark.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 08:37 PM
link   
It is quite easy for the FED to supercede state laws and rights regardless of the constitutiuon.
It's called the purse strings. i.e. you do what we say or there will be no federal highway funds, etc.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by texas thinker
 


Yeah, but at some point those federal highway funds don't add up to the costs dumped on the people. Sometimes enough is just enough and turning our backs on the Federal Government is all we can do.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 



Turning our backs on the FED gov is what we absolutely must do when they find any way to circumvent the great constitution of this nation.
Unfortunately most Americans don't know when this is being done, or mostly even what the constitution says. They do understand when big brother isn't going to cough up something they are "entitled to".
It must stop at some point if we are to remain a free people as our founders intended. An earlier poster made a great point citing the assault weapons ban from several years ago. No one stepped up then. Or the brady bill. So on and so on. And if the FED signs in this new HR 45 bill and they want Montana to play ball then it will be so I am afraid for it will take more than just Montana to shut down the tyranny. It will take a great portion of the other 49 and the biggest is bankrupt and looking for FED bailout money, as are many others getting there.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 09:28 PM
link   
Fantastic! Cheers to Montana. I love to visit your state, and I respect the hell out of what you are doing.


Regarding the glasnost thing, that is quite the interesting set of parallels. What a joy it would be to be free of the (un)federal behemoth, but I doubt it is possible. Latvians are not Georgians, for example, but Americans are Americans. Where would you draw the lines?

Regarding the budget issues, however, my state would be much better off without the U.S. government. We not only run a surplus and have a substantial rainy day fund, we do so while suffering a large net outflow of taxes to the feds. Furthermore, the programs that may cost us our surplus during this recession are those which are essentially unfunded or underfunded mandates from Washington. On our own we would be just fine.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by texas thinker
 



It took me a minute to find this. They certainly don't make this easy like with all the other bills.

This is a PDF file: HR 45
HR 45


[edit on 17-2-2009 by projectvxn]



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 10:23 PM
link   
I would urge everyone to listen to the last three hours of the Coast to Coast AM show from February 16. Many state congresses are reasserting state sovereignty regarding the sweeping powers that we have seen implemented and the contigency plans implemented under Bush and now Obama.

The show was PHENOMENAL. I have seen the talk on ATS about Noory being soft and not having Alex Jones on lately. Well, the show on the 16th was a killer.

Many state governments, including PENNSYLVANIA (the second state out of the original 13 colonies), are introducing resolutions to curb FEDERAL power grabs regarding GUN LAW and OUTLAWED HOME SCHOOLING (something the Nazis did...) and MANDATORY VACCINATIONS, FEMA, LACK OF POSSE COMMITATUS, etc. etc.

Strange Days indeed.


[edit on 17-2-2009 by 2nd Hand Thoughts]



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join