http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=6367553
Yesterday, the Montana governor signed a very important piece of legislation. Montana just gave the feds the finger.
Basically, the premise is this. All federal gun control laws are dubiously constitutional. They are only justified through the Interstate Commerce Clause. Since guns are made in one place, and then sold in another state, that means that the government can regulate them with all sorts of pointless idiocy, like background checks (which don’t work), registration (which don’t work), and bans (which don’t work).
Montana’s new law says that if the gun doesn’t ever leave the state after creation isn’t their business. By doing this, Montana has said any gun that is built in Montana, sold in Montana, and stays in Montana, never enters Interstate Commerce, and is therefore not under the fed’s perview.
This is huge. There might not be a lot of guns that fall into this category, but there will be more now. The important thing isn’t the quantity, it is the act of standing up.
And even better, Utah and Texas are trying to do the same thing. This is brilliant. Absolutely brilliant.
It is just one small thing, but it is about a few independantly minded states asserting that they are not slaves to the whims of bureacrats in Washington. People in most of the free states do not want gun control. They despise gun control. Gun control laws are shoved down our throats by the political denizens of innercity cesspools.
If you live in Utah or Texas, contact your state legislators and tell them to support this.
Personally, I’m really excited about this one. I remember when I first moved to Utah, back when Bill Clinton was president. At the time, Utah was absolutely contrary at every opportunity. (we were rewarded with having our billions of dollars of coal reserves declared a “national monument” ) Then George Bush got in, and over eight years it seemed like Utah lost that independant streak, and our legislature (mostly) was willing to go along with whatever. Now with BHO in office, it seems like we might be getting back to the contrarian roots I love so much.
Thanks, Montana. You rock.
TN has a bill in the works on this matter too. Just heard about it yesterday.
It’s a nice idea and all, but after Raich I don’t see the court siding with the states on this matter.
NON SERVIAM!
Glen beck just talked about it. He said though that the Texas bill says the state will defend you, which is really the only way to do it, since a case like this has such high stakes, and the fight will cost so much. Can anyone confirm?
Yes, the original language of the bill as filed required the state to pay for the legal expenses of defending a Texas citizen against the Feds.
And do I have to mention that STI is located In Texas?
Mr Fixit
I can garrantee that the fedgov position will be to invoke the commerce clause if there is material used in the production of that gun that didn’t originat in the state of Montana.
if there is material used in the production of that gun that didn’t originat in the state of Montana.
Oh, after Raich they wouldn’t even need to require that. According to the current court the simple fact that the item could possibly be sold over state lines is enough for them to lord over it.
Hell, Lopez was a nice win but during Justice Robert’s confirmation hearing he all but told Feinstein flat out that if they re-wrote the law just to mention that the gun had to be related to interstate commerce they would have upheld the law.
The material question would mean that the fed gov can regulate anything in any form since any part or component can cross state lines. I think that view might last until it is questioned, as Montana is likely to do.
When asked, I think it is possible that the court might take a larger view. I think it possible that they might (long shot) let the law stand, but impose severe penalties on any “in state” parts found outside that state. Severe confiscation of property and instant fed. felony charge.
I actually think it’s got a chance.
Mr Fixit