Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Federal government responds to Montana Firearms Freedom Act
Cleveland gun Rights Examiner ^ | January 22, 2010 | Daniel White

Posted on 01/22/2010 6:59:46 AM PST by Still Thinking

The United States government has filed a Motion to Dismiss the lawsuit filed by the Montana Shooting Sports Association and the Second Amendment Foundation. The suit was filed the support the Montana Firearms Freedom Act which declares that any firearms made and retained in-state are beyond the authority of Congress under its constitutional power to regulate commerce among the states.

The argument is that the Federal government has overstepped its authority in attempting to regulate and tax firearms that never cross a state border. The Feds counter that it is a valid exercise of commerse power because even sales of firearms that don't cross state lines have an effect on interstate commerce.

This Motion to Dismiss is the first response in what is expected to be a long hard fight by both sides and is just one battle in a larger struggle for increased State's Rights. Alabama, Alaska, Arizona Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming have all introduced similar bills and nearly a dozen states have movements underway to follow.

(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; Government
KEYWORDS: 10a; 2a; banglist; commerceclause; donttreadonme; examiner; ffa; firearmsfreedomact; liberalfascism; lping; montana; mt; secondamendment; shallnotbeinfringed; statesrights; tenthamendment; tyranny
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-131 next last

1 posted on 01/22/2010 6:59:47 AM PST by Still Thinking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking

Thanks for posting. I wondered what was happening with the movement...


2 posted on 01/22/2010 7:01:05 AM PST by aMorePerfectUnion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking

Let’s wake up the 10th Amendment!


3 posted on 01/22/2010 7:01:42 AM PST by Loud Mime (Liberalism is a Socialist Disease)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion
There's an entire website dedicated to it at FirearmsFreedomAct.com, which is where the author that that status map.
4 posted on 01/22/2010 7:03:03 AM PST by Still Thinking (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Loud Mime

I’m proud that AZ has finally moved from the “intending” to “introduced” column. I’ll have to check to see if they’ve included a provision like the New Hampshire bill criminalizing attempts by employees or agents of the fed to enforce the laws being repudiated.


5 posted on 01/22/2010 7:05:06 AM PST by Still Thinking (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking

” a valid exercise of commerse(sic) power”

Bull! They use that excuse far too often.


6 posted on 01/22/2010 7:06:24 AM PST by Dr. Bogus Pachysandra ( Ya can't pick up a turd by the clean end!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Bogus Pachysandra

Maybe they should spend more time in spelling class and less time in our business.


7 posted on 01/22/2010 7:07:13 AM PST by Still Thinking (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking
The Feds counter that it is a valid exercise of commerse power because even sales of firearms that don't cross state lines have an effect on interstate commerce.

Yet another bad idea that came out of the FDR administration that has previously been supported by the courts.

Just because it has an effect on interstate commerce, it is not interstate commerce. That is equivalent to saying that the US government can regulate trade between the Middle East and China, as it could affect interstate commerce.

8 posted on 01/22/2010 7:07:48 AM PST by kosciusko51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Loud Mime

The time is now...this peach is ripe and ready for pickin’... States rights must be strictly enforced by the people.


9 posted on 01/22/2010 7:08:15 AM PST by cbkaty (I may not always post...but I am always here......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: bamahead; ForGod'sSake

Finger in the feds’ eye ping!


10 posted on 01/22/2010 7:08:54 AM PST by Still Thinking (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kosciusko51
For those who don't know the case precedent:

Wickard v. Filburn

11 posted on 01/22/2010 7:12:55 AM PST by thecabal (Destroy Progressivism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: thecabal

You ARE just posting that for background and not to say this movement is out-of-line, right? If not, see Dred Scott and Barron.


12 posted on 01/22/2010 7:14:33 AM PST by Still Thinking (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking
Finger in the feds’ eye ping!

SCOTUS just ruled that corporations are people and their money is speech. Let's see if they'll revisit the definitions of interstate commerce as a result of this case.

13 posted on 01/22/2010 7:16:45 AM PST by Tonytitan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking
Of course I don't agree with Wickard v. Filburn. It's a lousy piece of crap that came out of FDR's stacked court. Just stating what the current Federales are using as their excuse to trample our rights.
14 posted on 01/22/2010 7:17:49 AM PST by thecabal (Destroy Progressivism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: cbkaty
John Paul Stevens' dissent in the recent case shows the disconnet between the liberals and any application of law or liberty that endangers their march toward socialism.

These people are after power, and will define any law in ways that they can get it. They will fight against State powers every step of the way.

15 posted on 01/22/2010 7:18:17 AM PST by Loud Mime (Liberalism is a Socialist Disease)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking

I thought states rights/laws trumpet federal law unless it’s unconstitutional?


16 posted on 01/22/2010 7:20:48 AM PST by MsLady (If you died tonight, where would you go? Salvation, don't leave earth without it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking

I predict Montana loses this round.


17 posted on 01/22/2010 7:23:02 AM PST by mad_as_he$$ (usff.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thecabal

Oh, good. I didn’t mean to be overly suspicious, but I’ve actually seen Freepers say that Wickard is the law of the land and we can’t do anything that would run afoul of it.


18 posted on 01/22/2010 7:24:12 AM PST by Still Thinking (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: thecabal

Great Page! thanks!


19 posted on 01/22/2010 7:24:41 AM PST by Loud Mime (Liberalism is a Socialist Disease)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: harpseal; TexasCowboy; nunya bidness; AAABEST; Travis McGee; Squantos; Shooter 2.5; wku man; SLB; ..
Click the Gadsden flag for pro-gun resources!
20 posted on 01/22/2010 7:26:40 AM PST by Joe Brower (Sheep have three speeds: "graze", "stampede" and "cower".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mad_as_he$$

It might be a Pyrrhic victory for the feds. They get the ruling they want, but it just pisses off freedom lovers and state legislatures even more.

Besides, there’s the never-addressed conflict of interest issue. How many states are going to view as illegitimate the ruling of a branch of the federal government, in favor of the federal government? Perhaps state vs. fed issues should be decided by a panel of jurists from other states.


21 posted on 01/22/2010 7:28:42 AM PST by Still Thinking (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Loud Mime

Your link doesn’t work for me.


22 posted on 01/22/2010 7:29:39 AM PST by Still Thinking (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: thecabal
For those who don't know the case precedent:

Of course, the whole idea of the SCOTUS using case law as precedent is contrary to The Constitution's intent. Then again, the statists don't recognize The Constitution, anyway...

23 posted on 01/22/2010 7:34:46 AM PST by wysiwyg (What parts of "right of the people" and "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Bogus Pachysandra
” a valid exercise of commerce(sic) power”

Unfortunately, we cannot count on Justice Scalia to uphold the Constitution on this. He voted correctly in the Lopez decision, but then, the War on some Drugs got the best of him and the Constitution with the Raich decision, where he voted that the Commerce clause included virtually everything.

Here is an article about it:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=916965

24 posted on 01/22/2010 7:36:23 AM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking

McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance was once law of the land also.... This could get VERY interesting, and if OBAMA and CO. doesn’t stop inhaling and back off his assault on our nation, it may happen sooner rather than later and make this week look like the beginning of an avalanche come to bury them. So be it! Hope there are many more unConstitutional messes brought before the Supremes. We still have the majority on our side. (5-4 still wins, thank God!)


25 posted on 01/22/2010 7:40:17 AM PST by JLLH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Bogus Pachysandra

They do use that argument far to often... but I don’t think they’ve figured out that their use of it is a double edge sword. It will come back to haunt them sooner than they realize.


26 posted on 01/22/2010 7:43:08 AM PST by BCR #226 (07/02 SOT www.extremefirepower.com...The BS stops when the hammer drops.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Good article. Succinct.

“he Commerce clause included virtually everything.”

That’s the major problem.


27 posted on 01/22/2010 7:46:56 AM PST by Dr. Bogus Pachysandra ( Ya can't pick up a turd by the clean end!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: thecabal

Long over due for over turning that one. Too much judicial idiocy has been meted out as “justice” because of it.


28 posted on 01/22/2010 7:57:16 AM PST by Dead Corpse (III, Oathkeeper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: mad_as_he$$
I predict Montana loses this round.

More like the feds will proclaim that Montana loses. Whether or not they actually do depends on the people and State officials of Montana. If the State of Montana is willing to actually defend the rights of the people they will tell the feds "NO, WE REALLY MEAN IT" and any agents sent to enforce their federal proclamation will be jailed.

Tenth Amendment and all that… We will see if Montana is serious about this.

29 posted on 01/22/2010 8:05:30 AM PST by TLI ( ITINERIS IMPENDEO VALHALLA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Bogus Pachysandra
"he Commerce clause included virtually everything.” That’s the major problem. "
and this point is why I am against opening up health insurance across state lines. Insurance is commerce, and once it is sold across state lines, it becomes interstate commerce, subject to regulations by the fed.....backdoor national health insurance will be the result..
30 posted on 01/22/2010 8:05:34 AM PST by joe fonebone (A third party does need the majority to control the house...they only need 10%)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Loud Mime
These people are after power, and will define any law in ways that they can get it.

John Paul Stevens full well understands the original intent of the Constituion...yet he choses to ignore it.... Why...he is beyond its reach...don't ya know.

31 posted on 01/22/2010 8:06:05 AM PST by cbkaty (I may not always post...but I am always here......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: TLI
If the State of Montana is willing to actually defend the rights of the people they will tell the feds "NO, WE REALLY MEAN IT" and any agents sent to enforce their federal proclamation will be jailed.

Montana's bill doesn't explicitly criminalize continued federal efforts to enforce their laws (the bill New Hampshire is considering does!), but they might still be able to do so based on violating civil rights under color of authority or something like that.

32 posted on 01/22/2010 8:14:46 AM PST by Still Thinking (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: joe fonebone

Very good point. But somehow, the feds must be reined in! Over-regulation must stop.


33 posted on 01/22/2010 8:19:00 AM PST by Dr. Bogus Pachysandra ( Ya can't pick up a turd by the clean end!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking

It’s the New York dont-waste-your-Times


34 posted on 01/22/2010 8:19:14 AM PST by Loud Mime (Liberalism is a Socialist Disease)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Tonytitan

“SCOTUS just ruled that corporations are people and their money is speech.”

And they were wrong. A corporation is not speaking for all the people just a select few and their huge war chests can swat a true member of WE THE PEOPLE like a bug.

Just another 5-4 100% political decision based on the “Constitution is a living document” crappola.


35 posted on 01/22/2010 8:19:44 AM PST by Wurlitzer (Welcome to the new USSA (United Socialist States of Amerika))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking
criminalize continued federal efforts

This is the only real solution...defang by making any federal enforcement official criminally liable in any case where a state's constution or the civil rights of its citizens are violated.

I mean arrested on the spot and given a speedy trial....then and only then will they drop the "I'm a federal agent and I can do anything attitude...".

36 posted on 01/22/2010 8:22:01 AM PST by cbkaty (I may not always post...but I am always here......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking

Southwest Airlines began offering unregulated fares in Texas in the 70s based on that principle. They won when challenged.


37 posted on 01/22/2010 8:26:31 AM PST by qwertypie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wurlitzer
Corporations are owned by the people.....If one does not like a company's position you are free to divest.

When a Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reidsky, or Obamy can deal a company a death-blow (dictate winners and losers), why should it be barred from defending itself?

38 posted on 01/22/2010 8:26:39 AM PST by cbkaty (I may not always post...but I am always here......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: cbkaty

The best defense is to develop and train a large enough jury pool to thwart prosecutors through nullification on gun issues.


39 posted on 01/22/2010 8:28:25 AM PST by qwertypie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: cbkaty

With the government fingers (and money) in so many large corporations, I have to admit I am concerned about corporate money being used to elect politicians who will give them my money. Worse yet would be use of my money they already got to participate politically in the election of corporate welfare proponents.


40 posted on 01/22/2010 8:29:35 AM PST by Still Thinking (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: qwertypie
The best defense is to develop and train a large enough jury pool to thwart prosecutors through nullification on gun issues.

How would you go about that? Prosecutors and judges try to use voir dire to eliminate any jurors who are aware of their right to nullify, so unless you educate 99% of the population, enough to make it impossible to impanel a jury without them, you'll have trouble if your idea is that they do this openly. If you educate 10%, and they keep their mouth shut, and don't reveal what they're doing even during deliberations, it might work. But then, they might get thrown out and replaced with the alternate for "refusing to deliberate".

41 posted on 01/22/2010 8:33:28 AM PST by Still Thinking (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking
With the government fingers (and money) in so many large corporations,

Excellent point....yet, it is my opinion that this bumbling el presidente and his socialist minions have taught many Americans a lesson in gubment in economics... It don't work!

My concern is that the big lesson is ahead. It's like watching a head-on car crash in slow motion....

The good news is the companies supposedly saved by Obamy and buddies deserve the Jonestown Juice.

42 posted on 01/22/2010 8:38:46 AM PST by cbkaty (I may not always post...but I am always here......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking

Could be the spark needed for CW II.


43 posted on 01/22/2010 8:53:09 AM PST by Renegade (You go tell my buddies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cbkaty

I am thinking that the feds are terrified of the idea that hundreds of small businesses could spring forth ..... and all of them would be in-state firearm manufacturers. I love the idea!


44 posted on 01/22/2010 9:03:41 AM PST by B4Ranch ( "Where's the birth certificate?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: cbkaty
Corporations are owned by the people.....If one does not like a company's position you are free to divest.

Corporations are not owned by the people. Corporations are owned by some people. Most stock that is bought and sold isn't voting stock.

The biggest problem I have with corporatism is that corporations are given the same rights that people are. That cheapens the rights that we have. The people's rights come from God. A corporations rights don't. So no matter how wonderful the corporation, my rights trump theirs. Sadly, this is not reflected in law.

It also confuses some otherwise clear thinking elected officials. They gave corporations the rights they have, so they can take them away. Sometimes they get confused and think that means they can take rights away from the people too.

45 posted on 01/22/2010 9:03:59 AM PST by Knitebane (Happily Microsoft free since 1999.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking
The Feds counter that it is a valid exercise of commerse power because even sales of firearms that don't cross state lines have an effect on interstate commerce.

Replace "firearms" with any other product and you see that they can claim they control EVERYTHING.

46 posted on 01/22/2010 9:07:58 AM PST by Oatka ("A society of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves." –Bertrand de Jouvenel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch
I am thinking that the feds are terrified of the idea that hundreds of small businesses could spring forth ..... and all of them would be in-state firearm manufacturers. I love the idea!

I am interested......

47 posted on 01/22/2010 9:10:34 AM PST by cbkaty (I may not always post...but I am always here......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Knitebane
Corporations are not owned by the people.

You know what I mean't... I will always err on the side of freedom...and limited government....NO EXCEPTIONS...exceptions are the termites that eat away freedom slowly.

48 posted on 01/22/2010 9:15:13 AM PST by cbkaty (I may not always post...but I am always here......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion

hmmm, there’s that ‘don’t have standing’ phrase again....


49 posted on 01/22/2010 9:27:26 AM PST by Freddd (CNN is not credible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking

Interesting idea.


50 posted on 01/22/2010 9:27:40 AM PST by mad_as_he$$ (usff.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-131 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson