Federal government responds to Montana Firearms Freedom Act

Cleveland gun Rights Examiner ^ | January 22, 2010 | Daniel White

[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.

[LibertyRocks]

Thanks. I thought I had heard something about this, but wasn’t sure on the details. Obama can’t come out and declare it’s bad law because then he would have to admit the Constitution actually means something... So, instead he’ll pay lip service to the voters in those states without actually DOING anything. Hmm... Seems to be a pattern there! LOL

[Don Joe]

---

Idahoans have most of our State forest under { Federal control} which makes up most of our State.

[...]

If Idaho had control of OUR land[s]- do you really think that the cost of lumber would be so high? Not to mention - The Federal agencies and their lovely Wolf experiment and our Elk populations..

---

So? Take it via eminent domain. I believe the Supreme Court had decreed that it's okeydoke IF you can show that it will be transferred to developers who will generate positive tax revenue over the current owners.

Give it out to homesteaders who will promise to develop it and pay property taxes.

I don't think it'd be too hard to find people willing to accept 40 acres to clear and farm. Or build towns, shopping centers, factories, airports, etc.

[Idabilly]

So? Take it via eminent domain. I believe the Supreme Court had decreed that it's okeydoke IF you can show that it will be transferred to developers who will generate positive tax revenue over the current owners.
Give it out to homesteaders who will promise to develop it and pay property taxes.

I don't think it'd be too hard to find people willing to accept 40 acres to clear and farm. Or build towns, shopping centers, factories, airports, etc.”

That is a wonderful Idea.

I'd rather not turn our hunting land into airports..L.O.L

Anyhow:
States that pay out the most welfare checks, with government assistance:
1. California
2. Maine
3. Tennessee
4. Massachusetts
5. Vermont
6. District of Columbia
7. New York
8. Minnesota
9. Washington
10. Indiana
11. New Mexico
12, Rhode Island
13. Michigan
14. Pennsylvania
15. Oregon

[cbkaty]

A corporation's rights come from Uncle Sam.

Apparently your allegience is to government...mine is to freedom.....everytime and all the time.

[marktwain]

“Whew... That is unbelievable. That 1942 court upheld the Department of Agriculture directive which authorized the government to set production quotas for wheat. Farmer Filburn wanted to grow extra wheat on his own farm for his own use and was prohibited by the government! The communists were active even back then.”

Yes. The left in this country treat Wickard as hallowed ground. They probably rever it more than Roe v Wade. It is the foundation that an enormous amount of federal power rests on. It looked as though we were on the right course when the SC decided Lopez in 1995, but it was never followed up. The shining star in all this is Justice Thomas, who has never waivered. Majorities in the court have upheld what I would say are clearly unconstitutional expansions of federal power under the commerce clause for both the war on drugs and the EPA.

[Wpin]

now that is a blockbuster of a lawsuit! Imagine the impact if the patriots win! God bless the patriots in our nation working to restore America.

[greeneyes]

I agree Insurance should not be regulated across state lines. When I was an agent, all I had to do was pay a licensing fee to be able to sell Insurance in another state.

Many Insurance companies have offices in the majority of states. Each agency operates as an independent office under that company-such as Prudential, Equitable, and others to numerous to mention.

Each agent in that Office starts from sctratch and builds their own business. They are considered indpendent contractors. It is up to them to decide which states they are going to service.

[M Kehoe]

Good morning.

As an aside, the SCOTUS has overturned precedent before. The clash between the 10th amendment, and the Commerce Clause as interpreted by the Feds, will determine how free we really are as a people.

5.56mm

[Styria]

A corporation is a government created entity. All of the rights that it has were given to it by government.

A corporation is a government-registered entity. It was created by someone else, and had rights as an entrepreneur's business, whether or not he had to get funding or assistance from others to start it. It is a right of association. The owners should not lose their rights just because they incorporated.

[wjcsux]

If you don’t like a certain Corporation, you DON’T have to buy their products.

[Who is John Galt?]

The shining star in all this is Justice Thomas, who has never waivered.

From his dissent:

Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything–and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.

http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZD1.html

One of George W. Bush's lost opportunities was his failure to nominate Mr. Thomas to be Chief Justice...

[bamahead]

Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
View past Libertarian pings here

[ChrisInAR]

Let’s wake up the 10th Amendment!

It's never veen asleep, it's just been ignored & spat upon. Very few people are willing to bring up this topic. Congress hates it, & the American people have forgotten about it, thanks to our wonderful education system & the MSM.

[wastedyears]

Nobody did anything when the government passed the National Firearms Act. They weren’t going to do anything when farmers were told to produce only a certain amount of a crop.

We’ve certainly failed the Founders.

[wastedyears]

Is that list in order of who pays out the most?

[Myrddin]

Hillary is lining up to obligate the U.S. to the IANSA treaty. That violates the 2nd Amendment and puts internationally specified controls on our right to keep and bear arms. The fascists in that organization are licking the chops in anticipation of disarming us. The two biggest monetary contributors to this fascist cause are Britain and Japan.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

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.

Those are the statist "FReepers" who get uptight that anyone in the country might be toking on one for an "illegal smile" and want to use that leftist FDR power grab for their own purpose of bogarting those "evil" joints. ANTONIN SCALIA comes to mind. These are the unholy alliances that make these things hard to get rid of and protecting any freedom much harder. Same thing with looking the other way on illegal immigration for cheap labor on the right and votes on the left.

[Idabilly]

Yes, The States that pay the most in ‘welfare’ and other entitlement programs.

[Still Thinking]

I know. I don’t care much for drugs and wouldn’t particularly care if they were illegal on the merits, but a breach in the wall of liberty is still a breach.

If for some reason there actually need to be restrictions on what a person may ingest or on what substances they may burn and inhale the smoke of, that would be a state issue and none of the feds’ business.

I expect better from Scalia but often don’t get it. He’d probably say I was an anarchist.

[Don Joe]

Me:

---

So? Take it via eminent domain. I believe the Supreme Court had decreed that it's okeydoke IF you can show that it will be transferred to developers who will generate positive tax revenue over the current owners. Give it out to homesteaders who will promise to develop it and pay property taxes. I don't think it'd be too hard to find people willing to accept 40 acres to clear and farm. Or build towns, shopping centers, factories, airports, etc.”

---

You:

---

That is a wonderful Idea. I'd rather not turn our hunting land into airports..L.O.L

---

Wow...

I'm just blown away by this TEXTBOOK illustration you've provided.

There are SO many appropriate responses to that. For example, "Well, we now know your price!" or, "The perfect slave thinks he's free" and on and on and on... (And let's not forget W.C. Fields' quip as to "we have already established what you are... now we're merely dickering over the price.")

But instead, I think I'll merely pass along Mr. Adams' suggestion to those readily sated with the graces proffered by the state: "Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you..."

And to any others who might be thinking your "Montana Compromise [or, Idaho, if I parse your moniker correctly]" (to coin a phrase) sounds at ALL reasonable, I will merely ask how satisfied you'll remain once your rulers inform you that the brutal, retrograde, violent, dangerous-for-children, unfit for a progressive age (etc. etc. etc.) act of hunting is no longer to be ALLOWED on "federal lands."

I'd also muse that a reasonable man might consider that it's not an all-or-nothing proposition. I do not recall having suggested that the state be paved from border to border. In fact, during the earlier homesteading expansion, there was plenty of land remaining for hunting.

But why even bother mentioning any of this?

If the hardcore conservative faction is readily reined in by fear of loss of hunting on government-owned lands ("We take your land, and then we let you hunt on it, so long as it pleases us to allow this"), then it's truly hopeless.

"Creeping socialism" appears to have crept entirely under the tent. If conservatives are unwilling to trade off private ownership of land in their state, simply because the government for the time being allows them to hunt on said land, then what can we expect of "the great middle" -- those satisfied with MUCH cheaper "bread and circuses"?

America, we hardly knew ye.

Kinda sad to see what's become of the last best hope for freedom -- the last best hope for humanity.

If this is truly typical of what we have become, then we truly have become a nation of sheep -- and our sole remaining hope is that our masters will show some consideration as they shear us -- and, that they continue to find us worthy providers WORTH shearing, because once we no longer provide enough wool, we'll find that sheep are dual-purpose livestock.

Can anyone tell me what these states hope to accomplish by passing this pointless feel-good legislation, since when push comes to shove, their citizens will freely prefer being owned by the government?

For a few, their personal price is the "right" to hunt on government lands. For many more, the price will be the continued "gift" of food stamps, welfare payments, and so forth. Who is left with NO price? Perhaps a few scoundrels living outside the law. Hardly the sort I'd want to cast MY lot with.

Oh, well, let's look on the brighter side -- I notice that the lawmakers of my own state are working on a similar piece of legislation. At least I won't have to fear losing my monthly disability stipend from the government, since I have no doubt that the bold legislators in the state capitol will fold like a cheap suit when the time comes.