posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 02:08 AM
I regret to say that, unlike thisguyrighthere, who appears to be originally from CT and is now in NH, I am originally from LA, then CO, then
NH, but have the current misfortune to be living in CT, a very anti-gun state compared to most others despite the fact that a large number of firearms
and ammunition manufacturers like Colt, Marlin, Ruger, Winchester, etc. are/were based here (talk about a state hating its own heritage and
manufacturing/tax base! The state only tried to save the Winchester plant in New Haven to save jobs and tax revenue, not for any love of Winchester
firearms).
The main problem with an argument about the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution is that over the years it has become so raped by a Federal
government determined to impose its will upon the states, and become so broadly interpreted, that now almost any excuse can be conjured up to
circumvent it. For example, regarding this proposed Montana law, the Feds could simply insert into HR45 something like "all sales of regulated
firearms must be registered with the BATF to ensure compliance with interstate commerce provisions of this bill" and with the current state of
affairs, would likely be found to be in compliance with the Constitution if taken to the Supreme Court. Please note that a Federally imposed national
maximum speed limit of 55 and a national drinking age of 21 (once matters left to the states) were and are still considered legitimate Federal
territory (remember that the lifting of the speed restriction was only by the gracious permission of the Feds).
It cannot be denied that there are a lot of unhappy people and nervous gun owners out there. Guns and ammo have been flying off the shelves ever since
the election. Obama claims to believe in the 2nd amendment (HA!) and that gun control is not on his list of priorities (HA!). I suppose we'll see,
won't we?