I lived in NY when they passed one of those smoking laws, then they passed it here. It started out as OK, I didn't enjoy going into a bar and leaving smelling like smoke. Then the push continued, no smoking within x amount of feet of a building entrance, no smoking in a car with a child in it. Then this summer, no smoking in state parks. Those kind of laws will be on the way in the next few years for you.
Back to the guns, God bless Montana for getting this movement going. The guns are just a tiny part of the big picture, that's what people need to wake up to, this is about reversing the push of federal control by leaning on the commerce clause.
From that article LoneCowboy mentioned:
In a statement the SAF said, "The primary purpose of the MFFA is to set up a legal challenge to federal power under the commerce clause."
The lawsuit seeks a "declaratory judgment" and is "brought for the purpose of determining a question of actual controversy between the parties."
"Passage of the MFFA was an express exercise by the State of Montana of powers reserved to the states and to the people under the 10th Amendment of the United States Constitution," the lawsuit said.
"The MFFA is also authorized under the conditions of the compact with the United States that Montana entered upon admission to the union. The United States Congress therefore has no authority, under the limited powers granted to it by the United States Constitution, to preempt the MFFA."
The arguments continued, "Under the 10th Amendment, all regulatory authority of all such activities within Montana's political borders is left in the sole discretion of Montana. Federal law therefore does not preempt the MFFA and cannot be invoked to regulate or prosecute Montana citizens acting in compliance with the MFFA, so long as they do so solely within the political borders of Montana.