It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 10:39 PM
Why are the state governments doing this now? Why didn't they do it years ago? Are they just playing lip service to their constituents (as politicians routinely do)? Have they finally had enough? Or are they acting to destabilize the USA? A divided USA would be much easier to subdue - especially in the states that rely heavily on other states for necessities like food and energy.

posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 10:41 PM
Don't get me wrong - taken at face value, I really like what the states are doing.

posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 10:42 PM
reply to post by vor78

you are wrong. state law supercedes federal law,if the state has the backbone to stand up to the fed gov.
the 10th ammendmentt ensures this.
this is what the sovereignty issue is about. the federal gov has been blackmailing the states for years.
they take our money and give it back to us with stings attatched.
if 35 states do this ,the federal gov will be fired and a new one will be built,under constitutional law.
doesn't matter what the fed says,the states are really in charge.

i guess the real question is how far are all of us willing to go to insure that our children are free?
i will not incriminate myself by proceding any furthwer with this post-----get it?

[edit on 17-2-2009 by Spectre0o0]

posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 11:46 PM

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.

Unfortunately we've already petitioned for a redress of grievances.... twice. They have failed to respond and the Supreme Court has decided not to determine the meaning of that part of the First Amendment.

We The People

It touches on the subject on that page but I'm sure digging into the site a bit more would also better inform you.

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?

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 03:38 AM
I always wanted to move out to Montana, you-know, to become a dental-floss
tycoon; but this is a much better reason!
Flag & Stars, and stripes too!

Fed can't regulate home-made things real well... potato cannons are vewy vewy dangewous...fwooomp!

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 05:51 AM
I don't care what any states do! Nobody can stop the Illuminati and the New world order! They are going to turn us into the divided states of america on purpose to begin taking control! I will protect my rights to own guns and will die trying! Be prepared! They are going to unleash a terrible disease upon us to start population control in this terrible economy! You better buy some MMS to keep your good health! I pledge allegiance to my guns!!!

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 08:49 AM
This is how revolutions start.

The government imposes regulations that millions regard as unfair and unjust, with firearms you can add into the mix that people seriously believe that by depriving them of their rights to own and carry guns, you are endangering both them and their families safety.

When the Dear Leader goes after guns, and trust me he will, he may be making the biggest political miscalculation of his entire presidential career.

This could split the country.

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 08:52 AM

Originally posted by LambCheops
Why are the state governments doing this now? Why didn't they do it years ago? Are they just playing lip service to their constituents (as politicians routinely do)? Have they finally had enough? Or are they acting to destabilize the USA? A divided USA would be much easier to subdue - especially in the states that rely heavily on other states for necessities like food and energy.

Most states are a true reflection of it's people. The people do not like, and have had enough. Yes, they have had enough. Most people are waking up to the fact that all the "World Banker" conspiracy nuts are right.
Not only are they drawing a line in the sand, they are backing up to remove Fed power in their states.
For the most part, unlike some states, with enough calls, emails, letters, rallies, etc, to show support for you state Reps. They will still listen to the people.
New Hampshire was a bad example. Great that a few "got it", but there was more support from a national level than local. If the people of NH would have spoken up in mass, then it would have passed.

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 10:14 AM
reply to post by interested-one

I to will follow. maybe with those new plants opening up i will be able to find a job.

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 10:28 AM
reply to post by Spectre0o0

You're right, this is something that should be covered in the 10th amendment, but the Federal government doesn't see it that way and until the states grow a spine, Federal laws will trump state laws in the real world. I'm not saying that's the way it should be or that its the way the Constitution outlines it. It isn't. I'm saying that the Feds, backed by the courts, don't give a damn about the 10th amendment and for the last century plus, the states have let the Feds run right over them.

Again, that's how things like the '94 AWB apply to every state, even though many of the states themselves would prefer to ignore it. It happens on many other issues as well. As I said before, I fully support the state of Montana and I hope that other states join them in standing up for their Constitutional rights.

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 10:49 AM
reply to post by vor78

Speaking of the '94 assault weapons ban, it's interesting how the federal gubmint is fine with states like Kalifornia continuing, and even expanding the ban. They recognize the state's authority in that situation, of course.

Misspellings intentional.

<< 1  2   >>

log in