Gun battle in Montana
Montana recently passed a law stating that guns made in and kept in the state are not subject to federal gun laws. This was done to create legal challenges. The AP has a look:
Still, much bigger prey lies in Montana’s sights: a legal showdown over how far the federal government’s regulatory authority extends.
[…]
Under the new law, guns intended only for Montana would be stamped “Made in Montana.” The drafters of the law hope to set off a legal battle with a simple Montana-made youth-model single-shot, bolt-action .22 rifle [otherwise known to the press an an “assault weapon” – ed]. They plan to find a “squeaky clean” Montanan who wants to send a note to the ATF threatening to build and sell about 20 such rifles without federal dealership licensing.
If the ATF tells them it’s illegal, they will sue and take the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, if they can.
May 11th, 2009 at 11:03 am
Texas is looking to pass a similar law, btw. It’s just a proposed bill at this point.
May 11th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
Tennessee has a similar bill:
HB 1783 by *West, Fincher. (*SB 1644 by *Beavers.)
It’s a very important assertion of the 10th Amendment by the States and that the Federal Government only had jurisdiction over “interstate commerce”.
Republican and Democratic Administrations need to be reined in. The States created the Federal Government to which it delegated powers. The creator is always greater than the creature and the greater delegates to the lesser.
May 11th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Go Montana!!
May 11th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Go Montana indeed! And any other states following in their footsteps.
If this does go to the SC and the feds lose, maybe it would weaken the precedent from Wickard v. Filburn…
May 11th, 2009 at 8:39 pm
I was talking to a gun toting lawyer friend the other day and he is of the opinion Montana cannot possibly expect to win. There are just too many decades and dozens (hundreds? thousands?) of prior cases that would have to be overthrown. It’s still greatly amusing, but that’s the extent of it. It’s sort of like a mouse walking onto the cat’s head and taking a crap. It’s pretty funny but there is no question who is going to win when they actually do battle.
He brought up Wickard v. Filburn too. That’s just not going away.
May 12th, 2009 at 11:51 am
They’ll need to make 50 to meet ATF’s definition of a manufacturer. This will be interesting to watch.