State prepares to challenge U.S. gun laws

[DavidofColorado]

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=107996

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
Supporters of a first-of-a-kind law in Montana that declared weapons or ammunition made and kept in the state were exempt from federal rules are preparing for a court challenge to the federal government's insistence it will regulate those items.
The Montana Shooting Sports Association and the Second Amendment Foundation (http://www.saf.org/) have formed a strategic alliance with plans to litigate over the Montana Firearms Freedom Act.
The bill was passed by the 2009 Montana Legislature and signed into law by Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer.


(It looks like the original plan to have someone arrest for this and then fight it was a bad idea. They are just being proactive and fighting it first. I report you decide. But go Montana I thought you were sleeping. Why don't we have the same law here in Colorado? Why, because our fearless leader is to busy adding fee's to license plate stickers and jacking up the price of cigarettes. IMO)

[chanke4252]

Given that not all areas of the country are the same, and that the individual states are undoubtedly closer than washington to all of the issues that need to be addressed in their individual areas, I am all for states imposing their own regulation on this sort of thing and challenging the blanket regulations imposed by the federal govt that aren't appropriate for all of the different areas of the country.

Plus, Big Sky is in montana, so they get some cool points by default.

However, from a law enforcement perspective when weapons are involved in crimes, the whole "serial number/registration" issue might be a sticky topic, especially considering many of these weapons will undoubtedly migrate over the montana borders.

[Sleev]

forgive my ignorance on the topic, but basically is the idea that a company can start making Kalashnikovs (for example) in Montana and only sell them in Montana and be legal?

[#1Townie]

yeah the deal is that when montana joined the union in their "contract" it says they had the right to arms and blah blah. now it has gone far enough that they feel the government should not have say in fire arms made for by and sold only to and then not alowed to leave the state. the firearms that they speak of will have a diffrent stamp big and clear.

its very intersting to see how this goes. i have read things that say they will brake away from the union if they are not alowed to do these things. might be moving soon. it would be nice to be able to own any gun i wanted.

[DavidofColorado]

Given that not all areas of the country are the same, and that the individual states are undoubtedly closer than washington to all of the issues that need to be addressed in their individual areas, I am all for states imposing their own regulation on this sort of thing and challenging the blanket regulations imposed by the federal govt that aren't appropriate for all of the different areas of the country.

Plus, Big Sky is in montana, so they get some cool points by default.

However, from a law enforcement perspective when weapons are involved in crimes, the whole "serial number/registration" issue might be a sticky topic, especially considering many of these weapons will undoubtedly migrate over the montana borders.

Yes its a big sky but its not falling. So the point of the revolutionary idea here is that just because they get away with it in places like Kalifornia doesn't mean that they want the same BS in Montana. There are similar laws going thru in other states like Tenn. Texas and a few others. Its a freedom loving thing that responsible gun owners like to enjoy.


forgive my ignorance on the topic, but basically is the idea that a company can start making Kalashnikovs (for example) in Montana and only sell them in Montana and be legal?
The idea that all Federal gun laws are based loosely on the interstate comerce clause is what they are fighting. So if something is regulated by the Feds its because it crossed state lines. And if something was made in Montana and stays in Montana the feds have no power over it, because states regulate intrastate commerce so to rephrase a speach by the antigun president a BS law in the currupt cites of New York or Chicago have no place in a state like Wyoming where they can count and 1% of the population shouldn't ruin it for 99% that doesn't mess up. Yes you can build an AK in Montana (or Colorado for that matter) but it must be semi auto only not automatic. But any law that the Feds come up with like no bayonet lug or threaded barrel that would hold a flash hider wouldn't matter in Montana if that rifle was made there and stayed there. If it left the state I'm sure you would have to modifiy it or pay the tax on it like they are proposing with Silencers. Which by the way is all legal anyway just extremely tedious so its discouraging to most people. So that is what the law is trying to say. It like if free speach was as regulated as the right to keep and bear arms. Sooner or later people that liked to talk would try and fight the regulations. Everyone talks but not everyone likes guns. And anything they know about them they learned from TV. Its not the best way to learn about anything if you ask me but there it is.:scramble: