PDA

View Full Version : Bill exempts Montana guns from federal regulations



unipax
04-07-2009, 12:03 AM
another item from prisonplanet forum

(btw, tptb have yesterday attacked Alex Jones. Presumably because he produced the video "The Obama Deception" which names names and kicks ass, they have yesterday tied him to the Pittsburgh cop killer. Word is that tptb are out to program cops to believe that 'truthers' and conspiracy theorists are potential cop killers.)

Here's the item, and it relates to the current states' sovereignty move to defeat the NWO by enforcing the constitution:

Bill exempts Montana guns from federal regulations


I did not see this posted yet. While the once great State of Texas (some of my family fought with TX in 1861-65) is getting ready to okay warrant less check points on Texas roads. What is the world coming to!!... Montana is working in many ways to assert our sovereignty. You Texans need to think about heading north to re-enforce us here. You could adapt to the cold, and we have great fishing. Wink We actually have a lot of people moving in here from TX the last few years, the border war is the reason many say that chased them north.

Anyway.............
Here is the article in the local paper. http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2009/04/06/news/local/news05.txt

HELENA - Montana-made guns may form the basis for a court showdown over states' rights if the governor signs a bill to release some firearms in the state from federal regulation.

The proposed law aims to exempt firearms, weapons components and ammunition made in Montana and kept in Montana from federal gun laws. Since the state has few gun laws of its own, the legislation would allow some gun owners and sellers in the state to skirt registration, licensing requirements and background checks entirely.

“We'd like to just be able to make our own guns here in Montana and have the feds stay out of it,” said Gary Marbut of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, which helped draft the bill.

The real target, though, is the U.S. Supreme Court. And Marbut and others believe they can hit that mark with a simple Montana-made youth-model single-shot bolt-action .22 rifle.

In particular, they plan to find a “squeaky clean” Montanan who wants to send a note to the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives threatening to build and sell about 20 such rifles without federal dealership licensing. If the ATF tells them it's illegal, they will then file a lawsuit in federal court - with any luck triggering a legal battle that lands in the nation's highest court.

House Bill 246 sailed through the Montana Legislature, but Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer has not yet offered a position on the measure, which awaits his action.

The federal enforcement agency for gun laws has also not taken a firm stand.

“ATF is not going to take a position on this because we don't make any of the laws, we just enforce the laws that Congress makes,” said Carrie DiPirro, spokeswoman for the Denver field division, which oversees Montana.

Through the Constitution, Congress has authority to regulate interstate commerce, which serves as the legal basis for gun regulation in the United States.

Efforts to bypass that authority have been heard before by the U.S. Supreme Court. In 2005, the court upheld federal regulation of marijuana in California, even if its use is limited to noncommercial purposes - such as medical reasons - and it is grown and used within a state's borders.

However, Randy Barnett, the lawyer and constitutional scholar who represented the plaintiff in the California case, said the introduction of a Made in Montana stamp - and stay in Montana guideline - might give some mettle to Montana's latest pitch for sovereignty.

In the Gonzalez v. Raich case argued by Barnett, the court said that because marijuana produced within and outside of California is essentially indistinguishable, the government must regulate both to enforce national drug laws. Montana, though, could potentially argue that its guns are sufficiently unique and segregated as to lie outside of overarching federal regulatory schemes, Barnett said.

The Montana effort follows fears here and elsewhere that the election of Barack Obama as president would trigger more gun regulation, sparking a rush to stock up on firearms in the months following the inauguration.

But supporters insist House Bill 246 has been tailored to hit a different bull's eye than gun freedoms.

“Firearms are inextricably linked to the history and culture of Montana, and I'd like to support that,” said bill sponsor Rep. Joel Boniek, R-Livingston, during its House debate. “But I want to point out that the issue here is not about firearms. It's about state rights.”

Heretic
04-08-2009, 12:50 PM
this may have something to do with it:

A letter sent by Montana’s Secretary of State to the Washington Times:



The U.S. Supreme Court will soon decide D.C. v. Heller, the first case in more than 60 years in which the court will confront the meaning of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Although Heller is about the constitutionality of the D.C. handgun ban, the court’s decision will have an impact far beyond the District (“Promises breached,” Op-Ed, Thursday).

The court must decide in Heller whether the Second Amendment secures a right for individuals to keep and bear arms or merely grants states the power to arm their militias, the National Guard. This latter view is called the “collective rights” theory.

A collective rights decision by the court would violate the contract by which Montana entered into statehood, called the Compact With the United States and archived at Article I of the Montana Constitution. When Montana and the United States entered into this bilateral contract in 1889, the U.S. approved the right to bear arms in the Montana Constitution, guaranteeing the right of “any person” to bear arms, clearly an individual right.

There was no assertion in 1889 that the Second Amendment was susceptible to a collective rights interpretation, and the parties to the contract understood the Second Amendment to be consistent with the declared Montana constitutional right of “any person” to bear arms.

As a bedrock principle of law, a contract must be honored so as to give effect to the intent of the contracting parties. A collective rights decision by the court in Heller would invoke an era of unilaterally revisable contracts by violating the statehood contract between the United States and Montana, and many other states.

Numerous Montana lawmakers have concurred in a resolution raising this contract-violation issue. It’s posted at progunleaders.org. The United States would do well to keep its contractual promise to the states that the Second Amendment secures an individual right now as it did upon execution of the statehood contract.

BRAD JOHNSON
Montana secretary of state
Helena, Mont.
so basically...

Montana threatened to Secede from the USA if the supreme court ruled against individual gun rights.

unipax
04-08-2009, 04:41 PM
so basically...

Montana threatened to Secede from the USA if the supreme court ruled against individual gun rights.

Not necessarily I think.

JT Coyote would disagree. That is his username at prisonplanet forum. He is a leader in the current movement to enforce the sovereignty of states by asserting the 10th amendment.
I've learned some from him.
He says the NWO can be defeated if the constitution is enforced by states affirming their 10th amendment powers.
The states created the fed govt and they can uncreate it. It has become infested and is now controlled by 'foreign' elements.
He cautions against construing this as secession which he says is counterproductive and the wrong way to go.

I think 20 some states so far have passed resolutions affirming their 10th amendment rights, and it takes 30 some to reach the tipping point where certain or maybe all federal laws infringing on states rights can be subject to review and rejection.



Our 10th Amendment Sovereignty Resolve, Will Defeat the New World Order!
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=4199.0

THE LAW IS CLEAR, THE FEDS ARE IN BREACH OF CONTRACT

The law is quite clear...

[Article 9 of the Bill of Rights]

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

[Article 10 of the Bill of Rights]

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

I don't believe that it gets much more concise than that.


For years now the point that I've attempted to drive home on this as well as other forums, is that we need to get a ground-swell of people POUNDING the Constitutional facts INTO Congress. An overwhelming call, from the people with special emphasis on the 9th and 10th Amendments of the Bill of Rights... as well as Article 4 Section 4 "MANDATE" in the Constitution, that the federal government control the border, during times of INVASION! This popular ground-swell would force the feds to stop the "bankrupting of the states". The cost of this war on terror, and the influx of illegal aliens, and the threat of a North American Union... are all De-Facto UNCONSTITUTIONAL "UNFUNDED" FEDERAL MANDATES!!!

[Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution]

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."

We all know the logistics of border enforcement and even deportation is well within our means. The problem is getting the politicians off of their dead posteriors! The real enemy are not those poor Latinos and Mexicans... at least not completely... though a few well timed altercations could turn this into a horrible mess which is exactly what the big boys are hoping will happen! Then they could dispense with the Constitution all together and we would really be in the soup! NO, the REAL enemy is in Washington, Ottawa, Mexico City, and the Globalist UNITED NATIONS in New York... fueled by the lust for power of their masters in London and the Banking capitols of Europe...

We must stay COOL and use the tools that the Founders Fathers gave us with resolve... we must remain vigilant... Remember, The WAR on TERROR, the Illegal Alien Problem, the SPP/NAU, and so on, are ALL DE-FACTO UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNFUNDED FEDERAL MANDATES THAT ARE BEING FOISTED UPON THE PEOPLE AND THE STATES! Y'all got that, right?

We... have laws in 1/3 of the states through the adoption of a re-affirming Resolution that demands the accountability of the feds by Constitutional chapter and verse for any federal mandate! In the cases spelled out above, the feds cannot show anything but that they are in unconstitutional BREACH of CONTRACT!

The power against this rests in the states, and with We the People... a majority of states put the feds on notice between 1994-1996 with...
"The 10th Amendment Sovereignty Resolution!" It stated, if mandates didn't pass Constitutional Muster, chapter and verse, which included adequate funding... there would be FIRINGS in Washington... The resolution states, with all certainty, that WE THE PEOPLE of THE UNITED STATES understand what the Constitution and specifically 10th Amendment means, and exactly what it says![/b]

...to be continued.''

--Oldyoti

unipax
04-08-2009, 04:55 PM
not 20 some states
more like 15, (as of February it was 15)



What most folks don't understand, is that just because a state "introduces" the 10th amendment state sovereignty resolution doesn't mean that it has declared sovereignty... it must be passed by a majority in both houses of their legislature first, to be adopted.

You folks who live in the states listed below, do not have to go through this process because the 10th amendment state sovereignty resolution has already been passed by both houses of your legislature... and has been languishing from disuse in your state law books or almost 15 years.

These resolutions were passed in these states, between April of 1994, and September of 1995. I am searching my old files for the bill numbers from that time, when I was in the Colorado State House working to get this resolution passed in all the states. As I find them I will post them here next to the state to which they pertain.

The reason this is important as a time saver. These resolutions do not sunset which is to say they do not go out of date. Since they have been passed and adopted in these states, these states have already declared and reaffirmed their state sovereignty under the 10th amendment. So all you have to do is get you and your friends to call your State House with the bill number and tell them to dust it off and use it.

We don't have much time, and if your state has already passed this thing then that is one state we don't have to concentrate on... I don't know how else I can impress upon you the urgency of the situation given the facts in the news and the horrible strides the globalists are making in brainwashing the people under this new messianic President.

These states have already adopted the 10th Amendment State Sovereignty Resolution in both houses of their legislature and the measure is adopted and on the books.

Colorado HJR-94-1035 Hawaii Missouri
California SJR-44 (1994) Pennsylvania HCR-272 Michigan
Montana SJR-3 (1995) Arkansas Idaho
Indiana Alaska SJR-7 (1995) Kansas
Alabama Nevada SJR-1 (1995) Maine

JTCoyoté

unipax
04-08-2009, 05:09 PM
sorry, that list pasted in a jumble:

Colorado HJR-94-1035
Hawaii
Missouri
California SJR-44 (1994)
Pennsylvania HCR-272
Michigan
Montana SJR-3 (1995)
Arkansas
Idaho
Indiana
Alaska SJR-7 (1995)
Kansas
Alabama
Nevada SJR-1 (1995)
Maine

unipax
04-08-2009, 05:13 PM
oops


...................................

Heretic
04-08-2009, 06:21 PM
Not necessarily I think.

well I read your post, as well as having knowledge of the State Sovereignty bills hitting many states (although I didn't know why - does this JT Coyote check out, is he a legit source?) and that alone has perplexed me and many theories flourish on it, did I miss the accepted explanation?

and I am still not sure I understand why Montana has been singled out as exempt

any ideas?

unipax
04-08-2009, 08:23 PM
I think JT Coyote is a sincere and informed peaceful patriot. He is in Colorado. He sells antique rifles.

His thread:
Our 10th Amendment Sovereignty Resolve, Will Defeat the New World Order!
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=4199.0


audio of him on the subject:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=Alex+jones+JT+Coyote+10th+amendment&aq=f

unipax
04-09-2009, 05:02 PM
well I read your post, as well as having knowledge of the State Sovereignty bills hitting many states (although I didn't know why - does this JT Coyote check out, is he a legit source?) and that alone has perplexed me and many theories flourish on it, did I miss the accepted explanation?

and I am still not sure I understand why

any ideas?

I dont know that Montana has been singled out as exempt.

I understood it to say that the people involved decided to manufacture 20 or so rifles for sale only in Montana, (not interstate) intending to go to court and challenge some illegal federal action.


“We'd like to just be able to make our own guns here in Montana and have the feds stay out of it,” said Gary Marbut of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, which helped draft the bill.

The real target, though, is the U.S. Supreme Court. And Marbut and others believe they can hit that mark with a simple Montana-made youth-model single-shot bolt-action .22 rifle.

In particular, they plan to find a “squeaky clean” Montanan who wants to send a note to the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives threatening to build and sell about 20 such rifles without federal dealership licensing. If the ATF tells them it's illegal, they will then file a lawsuit in federal court - with any luck triggering a legal battle that lands in the nation's highest court.