Little-Acorn

Apparently this bill has been passed by the Montana state House, and is on its way to the state Senate.

Most Federal gun control laws say they apply to guns used or transported in interstate commerce. Montana is proposing to exempt guns made in Montana that never leave the state, thus avoiding that jurisdiction. In addition, the 1995 Supreme Court case US v. Lopez established limits to Federal abuse of the Commerce Clause, wherein the Fed tried to regulate things only vaguely related to interstate commerce. Might that have an effect here?

It raises an interesting question. If the Feds fight it on grounds that Federal law supersedes state laws, then it looks like Montanans will reply, "How about the Federal law in the Constitution, which says the RKBA (right to keep and bear arms) cannot be infringed (2nd Amendment)? And the part that says the states can have any power not specifically assigned to the Fed (10th amendment)? And how about the 1889 approval of the Montana Constitution by the U.S. Congress, which says the same thing about the RKBA?"

------------------------------

The Bozeman Daily Chronicle

Anti-federal bills move forward in House

by WALT WILLIAMS
Chronicle Staff Writer
Feb. 1, 2007

HELENA -- Lawmakers in the Montana House of Representatives collectively thumbed their noses at the federal government Monday by approving two bills exempting guns from federal regulations and driver's licenses from national standardization requirements.

The bills by Reps. Diane Rice, R-Harrison, and Roger Koopman, R-Bozeman, do different things but are driven by the same concern: the erosion of personal liberties by the federal government.

Koopman said Monday his gun bill, House Bill 366, would inspire a home-grown industry of gun-makers who produce firearms to be sold in Montana. It also sends a message reaffirming states' rights. "In that regard, this bill really has positive consequences, I believe, beyond the firearms industry itself," he said.

NATIONAL STANDARDS FOR DRIVERS LICENSES

Rice is sponsoring HB 304, which would prevent the state from cooperating with the federal government in establishing nationwide standards for noncommercial driver's licenses.

Federal standards, she said, amount to a national ID card. Critics fear that such standards will lead to the government tracking its citizens.

There was virtually no debate about the bill before lawmakers voted 94-6 to pass it, with a third and final vote expected today.

It also makes it illegal to issue driver's licenses to illegal aliens, which currently isn't prohibited under state law.

FEDERAL GUN CONTROL LAWS

Koopman's HB 366 would exempt guns made in Montana from federal regulation under the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution, as long as the guns remain inside the state.

Rep. Tim Dowell, D-Kalispell, criticized it as aiding terrorism. He noted that law enforcement officers used gun regulations to link the Washington D.C.-area sniper shootings.

Terrorists "can come to Montana, they can buy one of these weapons, go on a reign of terror, and there would be no way to track them down," he said.

He also questioned the logic of the state exempting itself from federal law.

"That's pretty cool, maybe we should say we aren't subject to the income tax," he said.

Dowell's complaints were dismissed as "crazy emotionalism" by Rep. Ed Butcher, R-Winifred. In the end, 73 lawmakers voted to move the bill forward, and afterward there was scattered applause on the House floor.

A third and final vote is expect today. If both bills pass their third vote, then they will move on to the Senate.

(Full text of the article can be read at the above URL)

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Text of the firearms bill in the Montana legislature:

2007 Montana Legislature

HOUSE BILL NO. 420

INTRODUCED BY R. KOOPMAN


A BILL FOR AN ACT ENTITLED: "AN ACT EXEMPTING FROM REGULATION UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES A FIREARM, A FIREARM ACCESSORY, OR AMMUNITION MANUFACTURED AND RETAINED IN MONTANA."

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MONTANA:

NEW SECTION. Section 1. Short title. [Sections 1 through 6] may be cited as the "Montana Firearms Freedom Act".

NEW SECTION. Section 2. Legislative declarations of authority. The legislature declares that the authority for [sections 1 through 6] is the following:

(1) The 10th amendment to the United States constitution guarantees to the states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in the constitution and reserves to the state and people of Montana certain powers as they were understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889. The guarantee of those powers is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.

(2) The ninth amendment to the United States constitution guarantees to the people rights not granted in the constitution and reserves to the people of Montana certain rights as they were understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889. The guarantee of those rights is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.

(3) The regulation of intrastate commerce is vested in the states under the 9th and 10th amendments to the United States constitution, particularly if not expressly preempted by federal law. Congress has not expressly preempted state regulation of intrastate commerce pertaining to the manufacture on an intrastate basis of firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition.

(4) The second amendment to the United States constitution reserves to the people the right to keep and bear arms as that right was understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889, and the guarantee of the right is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.

(5) Article II, section 12, of the Montana constitution clearly secures to Montana citizens, and prohibits government interference with, the right of individual Montana citizens to keep and bear arms. This constitutional protection is unchanged from the 1889 Montana constitution, which was approved by congress and the people of Montana, and the right exists as it was understood at the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.

NEW SECTION. Section 3. Definitions. As used in [sections 1 through 6], the following definitions apply:

(1) "Borders of Montana" means the boundaries of Montana described in Article I, section 1, of the 1889 Montana constitution.

(2) "Firearms accessories" means items that are used in conjunction with or mounted upon a firearm but are not essential to the basic function of a firearm, including but not limited to telescopic or laser sights, magazines, flash or sound suppressors, folding or aftermarket stocks and grips, speedloaders, ammunition carriers, and lights for target illumination.

(3) "Generic and insignificant parts" includes but is not limited to springs, screws, nuts, and pins.

(4) "Manufactured" means creating a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition from basic materials for functional usefulness, including but not limited to forging, casting, machining, or other processes for working materials.

NEW SECTION. Section 4. Prohibition. A personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in Montana and that remains within the borders of Montana is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce. It is declared by the legislature that those items have not traveled in interstate commerce. This section applies to a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured in Montana from basic materials and that can be manufactured without the inclusion of any significant parts imported from another state. Generic and insignificant parts that have other manufacturing or consumer product applications are not firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition, and their importation into Montana and incorporation into a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured in Montana does not subject the firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition to federal regulation. It is declared by the legislature that basic materials, such as unmachined steel and unshaped wood, are not firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition and are not subject to congressional authority to regulate firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition under interstate commerce as if they were actually firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition. The authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce in basic materials does not include authority to regulate firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition made in Montana from those materials. Firearms accessories that are imported into Montana from another state and that are subject to federal regulation as being in interstate commerce do not subject a firearm to federal regulation under interstate commerce because they are attached to or used in conjunction with a firearm in Montana.

NEW SECTION. Section 5. Exceptions. [Section 4] does not apply to:

(1) a firearm that cannot be carried and used by one person;

(2) a firearm that has a bore diameter greater than 1 1/2 inches and that uses smokeless powder, not black powder, as a propellant;

(3) ammunition with a projectile that explodes using an explosion of chemical energy after the projectile leaves the firearm; or

(4) a firearm that discharges two or more projectiles with one activation of the trigger or other firing device.

NEW SECTION. Section 6. Marking of firearms. A firearm manufactured or sold in Montana under [sections 1 through 6] must have the words "Made in Montana" clearly stamped on a central metallic part, such as the receiver or frame.

NEW SECTION. Section 7. Codification instruction. [Sections 1 through 6] are intended to be codified as an integral part of Title 30, and the provisions of Title 30 apply to [sections 1 through 6].

- END -

Goobieman

The Federal Government, through the ICC as interpreted by the SCotUS has the power to force you to sell your private property, regardless of any market loss you might incurr.

Being able to do that means the Fed Gvmnt can use the ICC to force you to do pretty much anything.

__________________
Haven't you noticed? We've been sharing our culture with you all morning.
-- King Leonidas

danarhea

But you are talking about interstate commerce here. If the guns are made in Montana, and sold only to Montanans, then the Federal government has no Constitutional jurisdiction.

__________________
Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2012

Goobieman

-I- would agree.

But in the specific case I mentiioned, some poor Ohio wheat farmer was forced to sell the wheat he grew on his property and kept in storage for his own use (to eat and to plant), because, the couurt said, that him keeping that wheat off the national market artifically created a scarcity of wheat, and therefore nedlessly drove up the price of wheat across the nation.

So, the court forced him to sell it.

Its not hard to see how that will apply to the law noted by the OP.

Little-Acorn

Yes, indeed. And that is a prime case of the abuse of the Commerce Clause that Congress has been guilty of, for decades now.

The Commerce Clause simply says that Congress has the power to regulate commerce between the several states. It was put in to the Const because, before that document was written, the central government (under the Articles of Confederations) did NOT have the power to regulate interstate commerce... and the result was a huge snarl of contradictory and every-shfting tariffs, trade restrictions, etc. between each state and its neighbor. So the power to regulate that commerce was assigned to the Fed Govt by the Constitution, and thus taken away from the states.

It was meant to make trade better and smoother, not to obstruct it. But in the 1930s, the Fed govt under FDR wanted to start regulating everything under the sun. That was mostly unconstitutional, so they started adding the words "that are transported or used in interstate commerce" to each thing they wanted to regulate, to pretend that the Framers meant them to regulate anything and everything. And then they would simply start busting everybody who did anything with the regulated item, even if the particular one they were looking at hadn't been involved in interstate commerce at all. And they would also claim that even explicit language in the COnstitution that prohibited regulation of certain items, was now superseded by this newly-discovered commerce-clause regulation. Guns were one of those items.

Check out the case US v. Lopez, from 1995. It is the first significant USSC case where the justices finally said, "Hey, wait a minute, the connection to interstate commerce is just too remote and speculative for the Feds to be able to claim the power to regulate it."

US v. Lopez was a case over the Federal law that banned guns within 1,000 feet of a school. As I recall, this law didn't even say "guns transported in interstate commerce" the way other mealymouthed gun-control laws did. The government lawyers used the following rationale:

1.) Guns in or near schools, created an atmosphere of fear and danger.
2.) That affected the kids' study habits, and that made them less likely to do well in school.
3.) That made them less likely to get good jobs and become productive citizens.
4.) That meant the the companies they eventually joined wouldn't make as good or as many products.
5.) That meant that they wouldn't do as much selling as they might have, including selling across state lines.
6.) And THAT meant that guns in schools affected interstate commerce!!!

At least, that was the argument the lawyers used, in front of the Supreme Court in US v. Lopez. With straight faces, even. The conservative justices literally laughed at them. Chief Justice Rehnquist asked one of the lawyers, if he could name one item in all of existence, that such an argument could NOT be used to justify Federal control over. They lawyer couldn't name one.

It was a stunning case in which common sense actually prevailed over the agenda of unlimited government expansion and control. The gun-free school zones law was stricken. (It was re-written later, omitting the commerce part, and using some other excuse.)

It's similar to the wheat-farmer case, where someone was trying to pretend that items not in interstate commerce, were still subject to Federal control for the very reason that they were NOT, and affected commerce by their absence. It's a bizarre twist, that can be applied to every item on the planet: everything is either involved or not involved! That's how screwy the arguments are getting, in the government-uber-alles people's desperate attempts to expand Federal control over everything they can see.

RightinNYC

This will get overturned in about 13.3 seconds. The fact that they say it's not traveling interstate doesn't mean a thing (in terms of the current interpretation of the law, most recently Gonzales v. Raich, 2005.)

A federal appeals court concluded use of medical marijuana was non-commercial, and therefore not subject to congressional oversight of "economic enterprise."
(As a side note, its worth acknowledging that the 3 Justices who voted against this travesty of a decision were O'Conner, Rehnquist, and Thomas.)

The gun law will be overturned immediately, as will the ID law on grounds of national security.

And this is just a side note, but here when you said:

The Constitution isn't just federal law, it's binding on state and local governments as well.

__________________
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

Ikari

SCOTUS used it to get rid of California's medical marijuana. Just more expansion of power by a bloated federal government. In any regards, Montana should be applauded for attempting to regain State power and telling the Federal government no. As for the driver's license, there are a few states already passing legislation which would prohibit the state from engaging in a national ID program. That too should be applauded.

__________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH