• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Nat'l anti-gun group asks Montana to throw out Mt. gun law

Faster horses

Well-known member
From the Billings Gazette:

HELENA — One of the biggest names in gun control is asking a federal judge in Montana to invalidate the state’s pioneering gun law which exempts Montana-made firearms from national gun laws.

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence on Tuesday filed a friend of the court document in an ongoing suit over the law, asking the federal judge to invalidate the Montana Firearms Freedom Act, which was passed by the 2009 Legislature and went into effect last October.

Montana’s law holds that any firearm made in Montana is exempt from national gun-control laws, including background checks, federal gun registration and federal licensure of gun dealers. The law only covers Montana-made guns used in Montana.

“It simply defies the constitution for a state to say it can unilaterally exempt itself from federal law,” said Dennis Henigan, vice-president for law and policy at the Washington, D.C.-based Brady Center. “This was the (same) claim made by the Southern states in the Jim Crow era. That type of radical states’ rights position has been consistently rejected by the courts.”

The Montana Shooting Sports Association, one of the law’s strongest supporters, filed a lawsuit last October against U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, asking the judge to stop federal agencies from enforcing their laws in Montana.

The Brady Center joined with the Montana Human Rights Network and a long list of other groups in asking the judge to throw out the law.

In defense of the law, Montana Attorney General Steve Bullock has intervened on the case, writing that Montana’s law is constitutional. Attorneys general in Utah, Alabama, Idaho, South Carolina, South Carolina, South Dakota, Wyoming and West Virginia have also weighed in defending the Montana Firearms Freedom Act.

The bill was not particularly controversial in the 2009 Legislature. An overwhelming 85 representatives from both parties voted in favor of it when it passed the 100-member House. In the Senate, it passed with a strong 29-21 majority, with only Democrats opposing the measure.

Montana’s law was the first of its kind to pass. Since then, however, similar laws have passed in Tennessee, Utah, Wyoming, South Dakota, Idaho and Arizona. Other versions of the law have been introduced in more than 20 other state legislatures, including Alaska, where the bill is awaiting signature by the Alaska governor.

The law deals with the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution, which holds that Congress may regulate the sale of products that cross state lines. By manufacturing and keeping the firearms within the state, such Montana-made, Montana-owned guns ought to be exempt from the commerce clause, supporters argue.

Gary Marbut of the Montana Shooting Sports Association said the law is not only sound legally, but also is gaining support among many other states, which shows a kind of “emerging consensus” nationwide.

Marbut also said the fact that the Brady Center took notice of the Montana law is a good thing and shows that the issue should be decided by a judge, not thrown out, as the Brady Center argues.

“It seems to have sufficient merit to have caught their interest,” he said.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This was part of the discussion that followed:

The consequences of this case are far larger than just a determination of gun rights. If Montana has the right to control its intrastate commerce under the 9th and 10th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, it will reaffirm the limits upon Congressional power established by United States v. Lopez 514 U.S. 549 (1995). In U.S. v. Lopez, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Congress had no power to enact federal legislation to establish gun-free zones around local schools.

This case isn't about racism or about guns, it's about limiting the power of the federal government to its enumerated powers. Ever since Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), when the U.S. Supreme Court mistakenly held that wheat grown for private purposes could be regulated by the federal government because that wheat might find its way into interstate commerce, our federal government has been on a trajectory of ever-increasing power. This ever-increasing federal power conflicts with the vision of the Founding Fathers to maintain governmental stability by divisions of power and checks and balances held by state and federal governments. Here, the Court can either reaffirm individual freedom and local control by States, or it can erode those rights and cede all control to a centralized government without any checks and balances.

It's interesting that modern Liberals seek to use the coercive power of ever-larger government to force others to comply to their wishes. It's a dangerous political philosophy that could spawn Dictatorship and the end of individual liberty and freedom.

It's commonly stated that States can't declare themselves to be free from federal regulation. However, the U.S. Constitution imposes reals limits upon the exercise of federal power. The federal government simply should not be able to regulate intrastate commerce unless it is proven to have a significant impact upon interstate commerce.
 

Steve

Well-known member
. However, the U.S. Constitution imposes reals limits upon the exercise of federal power.

and it is time for the States to stand up and limit the fed power before it is to late..
 

Liveoak

Well-known member
Thanks for posting that piece FH! Some very valid points made. Hope Montana sticks to the decision to protect their liberties.
 
Top