Skip to comments.Federal government responds to Montana Firearms Freedom Act
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 ...
Thanks for posting. I wondered what was happening with the movement...
Let’s wake up the 10th Amendment!
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.
” a valid exercise of commerse(sic) power”
Bull! They use that excuse far too often.
Maybe they should spend more time in spelling class and less time in our business.
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.
The time is now...this peach is ripe and ready for pickin’... States rights must be strictly enforced by the people.
Finger in the feds’ eye ping!
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.
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.
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.
I thought states rights/laws trumpet federal law unless it’s unconstitutional?
I predict Montana loses this round.
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.
Great Page! thanks!
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.