# Way to go Governor Brian Schweitzer (D), Montana



## Bonz 54 (Apr 17, 2005)

I copied this from another board, but thought it was worthy to add here. 
Governor Brian Schweitzer (D), signs revolutionary new gun law in Montana


From Hot Air website:
May 6, 2009

The state of Montana has signed into power a revolutionary gun law. The State of Montana has defied the federal government and their gun laws. This will prompt a showdown between the federal government and the State of Montana. The federal government fears citizens owning guns. They try to curtail what types of guns they can own. The gun control laws all have one common goal, confiscation of privately owned firearms.


Montana has gone beyond drawing a line in the sand. They have challenged the Federal Government. The fed now either takes them on and risks them saying the federal agents have no right to violate their state gun laws and arrest the federal agents that try to enforce the federal firearms acts. This will be a world-class event to watch. Montana could go to voting for secession from the union, which is really throwing the gauntlet in Obamas face. If the federal government does nothing they lose face.



If guns and ammunition are manufactured inside the State of Montana for sale and use inside that state then the federal firearms laws have no applicability since the federal government only has the power to control commerce across state lines. Montana has the law on their side. Since when did the USA start following their own laws especially the constitution of the USA, the very document that empowers the USA.

Silencers made in Montana and sold in Montana would be fully legal and not registered. As a note silencers were first used before the 007 movies as a device to enable one to hunt without disturbing neighbors and scaring game. They were also useful as devices to control noise when practicing so as to not disturb the neighbors.. There would be no firearm registration, serial numbers, criminal records check, waiting periods or paperwork required. So in a short period of time there would be millions and millions of unregistered untraceable guns in Montana. Way to go Montana !

Let us see what Obama does. If he hits Montana hard they could probably vote to secede from the USA. The governor of Texas has already been refusing Federal money because he does not want to agree to the conditions that go with it and he has been saying secession is a right they have as sort of a threat. Things are no longer the same with the USA. Do not be deceived by Obama acting as if all is the same, it is not.

Governor Schweitzer is very popular with Montanans, and this is an example of how he has built his popularity. Its a breath of fresh air to see a politician run on a platform of promises, and back up those promises with action. Governor Schweitzer promised to protect the 2nd amendment rights of the citizens. With the signing of this bill, he has lived up to the billing. 

Now, if we could only get a Michigan Governor to stand up on their hind legs, we might have something... My opinion ofcourse. FRANK
__________________
GOD BLESS AMERICA !


----------



## k9wernet (Oct 15, 2007)

Ok folks, copy into Word, and do a "Find/Replace" substituting "Michigan" for Montana. Then pass it along to your legislator!
[/COLOR] 
HOUSE BILL NO. 246
INTRODUCED BY J. BONIEK, BENNETT, BUTCHER, CURTISS, RANDALL, WARBURTON
AN ACT EXEMPTING FROM FEDERAL REGULATION UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES A FIREARM, A FIREARM ACCESSORY, OR AMMUNITION MANUFACTURED AND RETAINED IN MONTANA ; AND PROVIDING AN APPLICABILITY DATE.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MONTANA :

Section 1. Short title. [Sections 1 through 6] may be cited as the "Montana Firearms Freedom Act".
Section 2. Legislative declarations of authority. The legislature declares that the authority for [sections 1 through 6] is the following:

(1) The 10th amendment to the United States constitution guarantees to the states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in the constitution and reserves to the state and people of Montana certain powers as they were understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889. The guaranty of those powers is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.

(2) The ninth amendment to the United States constitution guarantees to the people rights not granted in the constitution and reserves to the people of Montana certain rights, as they were understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889. The guaranty of those rights is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.

(3) The regulation of intrastate commerce is vested in the states under the 9th and 10th amendments to the United States constitution, particularly if not expressly preempted by federal law. Congress has not expressly preempted state regulation of intrastate commerce pertaining to the manufacture on an intrastate basis of firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition.

(4) The second amendment to the United States constitution reserves to the people the right to keep and bear arms as that right was understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889, and the guaranty of the right is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.

(5) Article II, section 12, of the Montana constitution clearly secures to Montana citizens, and prohibits government interference with, the right of individual Montana citizens to keep and bear arms. This constitutional protection is unchanged from the 1889 Montana constitution, which was approved by congress and the people of Montana , and the right exists, as it was understood at the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.

Section 3. Definitions. As used in [sections 1 through 6], the following definitions apply:

(1) "Borders of Montana " means the boundaries of Montana described in Article I, section 1, of the 1889 Montana constitution.

(2) "Firearms accessories" means items that are used in conjunction with or mounted upon a firearm but are not essential to the basic function of a firearm, including but not limited to telescopic or laser sights, magazines, flash or sound suppressors, folding or aftermarket stocks and grips, speedloaders, ammunition carriers, and lights for target illumination.

(3) "Generic and insignificant parts" includes but is not limited to springs, screws, nuts, and pins.

(4) "Manufactured" means that a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition has been created from basic materials for functional usefulness, including but not limited to forging, casting, machining, or other processes for working materials.

Section 4. Prohibitions. A personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in Montana and that remains within the borders of Montana is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce. It is declared by the legislature that those items have not traveled in interstate commerce. This section applies to a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured in Montana from basic materials and that can be manufactured without the inclusion of any significant parts imported from another state. Generic and insignificant parts that have other manufacturing or consumer product applications are not firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition, and their importation into Montana and incorporation into a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured in Montana does not subject the firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition to federal regulation. It is declared by the legislature that basic materials, such as unmachined steel and unshaped wood, are not firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition and are not subject to congressional authority to regulate firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition under interstate commerce as if they were actually firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition. The authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce in basic materials does not include authority to regulate firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition made in Montana from those materials. Firearms accessories that are imported into Montana from another state and that are subject to federal regulation as being in interstate commerce do not subject a firearm to federal regulation under interstate commerce because they are attached to or used in conjunction with a firearm in Montana ...

Section 5. Exceptions. [Section 4] does not apply to:
(1) A firearm that cannot be carried and used by one person;
(2) A firearm that has a bore diameter greater than 1 1/2 inches and that uses smokeless powder, not black powder, as a propellant;
(3) ammunition with a projectile that explodes using an explosion of chemical energy after the projectile leaves the firearm; or
(4) a firearm that discharges two or more projectiles with one activation of the trigger or other firing device.

Section 6. Marketing of firearms. A firearm manufactured or sold in Montana under [sections 1 through 6] must have the words "Made in Montana " clearly stamped on a central metallic part, such as the receiver or frame.

Section 7. Codification instruction. [Sections 1 through 6] are intended to be codified as an integral part of Title 30, and the provisions of Title 30 apply to [sections 1 through 6].

Section 8. Applicability. [This act] applies to firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition that are manufactured, as defined in [section 3], and retained in Montana after October 1, 2009.


----------



## Masterblaster1 (Sep 28, 2004)

I smell a new case for the US Supreme Court......


----------



## Mags (Apr 10, 2002)

Good for Gov. Schweitzer, and good for Montana!! Here's at least one politician that backs up his words with action...........wish lots more had his balls!!!!!!!!


----------



## 3fingervic (Jan 28, 2009)

I have said it before on other threads. The only people that are effected by gun laws are law biding citizens. Gun control rarely if ever stops a criminal from getting what he wants gun wise. Politicians and most voters just don't get that.


----------



## k9wernet (Oct 15, 2007)

Did you read the law Vic? Apparently the politicians in Montana definitely get it. The whole point is they are protecting the gun owners of Montana from federal gun restrictions.

KW


----------



## 3fingervic (Jan 28, 2009)

I'm down with the gov. from Montana. I was speaking about others who are pushing gun control.


----------



## RedM2 (Dec 19, 2007)

k9wernet-

You're crazy if you think all guns should be sold without a background check. Montana would become a central hub for drug trafficking, gun tracfficking, and the whole nine. To go along with that, don't think because the citizens are armed they could control the violence to go along with this type of activity. They would stand a chance against organized crime.

I love my handguns and guns in general, but the paranoia that's on display is nuts. Obama hasn't done or said anything to cause this. The problem is the fear mongering from the right...


----------



## bucko12pt (Dec 9, 2004)

Anyone know which gun manufacturers currently produce firearms or ammo in Montana? 

I understand the intent of what they are doing, but manufacturers can't build a manufacturing complex in every state just for the sales in that state??

Good idea though and good to see someone with the guts to stand up to the Feds.


----------



## DANIEL MARK ZAPOLSKI (Sep 23, 2002)

Montana could go to voting for secession from the union, which is really throwing the gauntlet in Obamas face. If the federal government does nothing they lose face.
last i heard secession is treason against the U.S.A. and oh yes the last time they tried it we had this little thing called a CIVIL WAR. you guys are riding on the tails of the fear mongrols.he said, she said, they said, someone else said,


----------



## motoman (Apr 11, 2006)

redM2 I don't want to start an argument in anyway but do you recieve any legislation info/news from the NRA if not you might want to check it out there is some reason for concern. Also just because Montana is passing this law there crime will be no worse than it is now. Trafficking laws, etc will still stand (break the law, do the time just like anywhere else)


----------



## steelsetter (Dec 14, 2003)

RedM2 said:


> k9wernet-
> 
> You're crazy if you think all guns should be sold without a background check. Montana would become a central hub for drug trafficking, gun tracfficking, and the whole nine. To go along with that, don't think because the citizens are armed they could control the violence to go along with this type of activity. They would stand a chance against organized crime.
> 
> I love my handguns and guns in general, but the paranoia that's on display is nuts. Obama hasn't done or said anything to cause this. The problem is the fear mongering from the right...


C'mon poster.....

Obama and his gang of gun grabbers are just waiting for the right time.

They have voted it, proposed it, talked about it and you can dam well bet it is coming.

I am really glad to see a State stand up to the idiocy of gun control.

To bad our "Canadian Princess" is to busy kissing Obama's *** instead of being a leader like this Governor.


----------



## RedM2 (Dec 19, 2007)

motoman said:


> Trafficking laws, etc will still stand (break the law, do the time just like anywhere else)


They already break the law, so why do they care. It will just make it that much easier to do the things they do.

As for the NRA, remember, they have an agenda and their support primarily comes from one political party...republican. In general, I like the NRA _a lot_. But just like anything, they're not perfect by any measure of the word.

I think it's important to always put things into perspective and try to keep balance in your thinking.


----------



## QuackerWhacker (Oct 9, 2007)

God bless Montana is all I can say.


----------



## RedM2 (Dec 19, 2007)

steelsetter said:


> C'mon poster.....
> 
> Obama and his gang of gun grabbers are just waiting for the right time.
> 
> ...


What legitimate reason do you have to believe "they" are waiting for the right time?

Who, what, where, when was WHAT voted on?

The idiocy of gun control...really, so should any idiot off the street be able to go into a store and buy a gun? I should be able to own a nuke, tank, rocket launcher, or whatever else?


----------



## motoman (Apr 11, 2006)

Does the NRA have a hidden agenda/scheme I should know about? I do know they are one of the few out there that are trying hard to protect the 2nd amendment.


----------



## Chuck (Sep 24, 2000)

If you dont think Obama is tring to move forward to grab your guns then check out this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgUaNi58-PU&feature=related

CIFTA is attrety written by the Clinton admin that will put powers for gun control in other nations.

Weather this new admin succeeds or not is up to the American people

Check out the Second Amendment march the link is in my sig

I dont consider myself parnoid about but aware at what could happen.


----------



## Deadcenter (May 17, 2008)

Section 5. Exceptions. [Section 4 said:


> does not apply to:
> (1) A firearm that cannot be carried and used by one person;
> (2) A firearm that has a bore diameter greater than 1 1/2 inches and that uses smokeless powder, not black powder, as a propellant;
> (3) ammunition with a projectile that explodes using an explosion of chemical energy after the projectile leaves the firearm; or
> ...


I love the restrictions. Carried by one person, bore dia of 1.5.

Awesome!

The way I see it, Montana is just saying to the feds, go ahead and pass whatever you want. It will not apply here!

"Going to Montana soon, Gonna be a dental floss tycoon". ( I had to  )


----------



## DANIEL MARK ZAPOLSKI (Sep 23, 2002)

I dont consider myself parnoid about but aware at what could happen
we could also be going to war against china soon too, that could happen


----------



## kristie (Apr 23, 2003)

RedM2 said:


> They already break the law, so why do they care. It will just make it that much easier to do the things they do.
> 
> As for the NRA, remember, they have an agenda and their support primarily comes from one political party...republican. In general, I like the NRA _a lot_. But just like anything, they're not perfect by any measure of the word.
> 
> I think it's important to always put things into perspective and try to keep balance in your thinking.


I'm not one to pick parties....in fact I don't claim one...but here's the problem I have with this line of thinking.....if we're pointing fingers at parties here....why is a DEMOCRATIC governor taking the lead on what you consider a republican agenda????










I think this whole matter comes down to more of a constitutionalism issue, if you as me....


----------



## Zarathustra (Oct 5, 2005)

Munsterlndr said:


> Tell that to Jefferson Davis. :lol:


No kidding. To his dying day, Jefferson Davis' contention was that secession was a right and that the civil war was about the right for states to seceed, not slavery.


----------



## Buckeye Dan (Apr 17, 2008)

Following Montanas lead, the Lone Star State has introduced a bill in the legislature challenging federal authority to regulate guns under the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. Under the proposed legislation, firearms and ammunition produced in Texas for use in the state would be exempt from federal laws and regulation. The bills sponsors say it is more about defending states rights and sovereignty from an over-reaching federal government than about guns. "I think states have got to stand up or else most of their rights are going to be buffaloed by the administration and by Congress," said Republican Texas state Rep. Leo Berman, one of the bills chief sponsors. "It deals with firearms and ammunition, which raises eyebrows, but it's more of a 10th Amendment bill than a Second Amendment bill," added Andy Kuchera, his legislative director. "Sovereignty is a big issue right now."
The proposed law would do two things according to Berman: "It tests our sovereignty in relationship to the federal government, and it would attract new small gun manufacturers to the state to manufacture certain types of weapons and ammunition that are only used in intrastate commerce." He also noted that his bill is aimed at helping mom and pop businesses that deal with firearms, ammunition or accessories.
The text of the proposed legislation is very similar to the law passed in Montana, which takes effect October 1 of this year. The bill cites the U.S. Constitution's Ninth and 10th Amendments, which state that the enumeration of certain rights in the Constitution do not deny others retained by the people, and that those powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved by the states or the people. According to the bill: "The guaranty of those rights is a matter of contract between the state and people of Texas and the United States dating from the time Texas became a state." The bill also references the Second Amendment and the Texas Constitution which "clearly secures to Texas citizens the right to keep and bear arms."
If passed, the law is almost certain to end up tested in court. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Californias medical marijuana in 2005 claiming that since it was indistinguishable from other marijuana, the feds have the power to enforce anti-drug laws in the state. This case, however, could be different. Firearms that would fall under the proposed bill must be stamped with the words Made in Texas, making them easily distinguishable from other guns. Another case that has been cited as relevant to the bill is _Wickard v. Filburn_, where the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against a farmer who was fined for growing too much wheat. The argument was that wheat he grew and consumed himself would lead to decreased wheat sales in other states, so it falls under federal jurisdiction because of the interstate commerce clause.
Under the proposed bill, as soon as somebody notifies the Texas Attorney General that he intends to manufacture or sell guns without a federal permit, he is required to seek a ruling from a federal court making sure it is legal. However, Montanas law is likely to be tested before the Texas bill, which is still in the legislature. The legal battles will be waged by the Montana Shooting Sports Association, which drafted the original bill. The National Rifle Association has also expressed support for the state legislative measures, and gun supporters and champions of states rights have applauded the efforts across America.
Other states are also considering similar bills of their own. Tennessee, South Carolina, and Alaska have all introduced similar legislation. The House in Alaska has already given the thumbs up. Utah may do so at the next legislative session. "It is part of the populist state-sovereignty movement, the sense there is so much power in Washington," says Stephen P. Halbrook, the Virginia lawyer who successfully argued against the D.C. gun ban before the Supreme Court. "It is a grass-roots thing."
Texas has always been a fiercely independent state. Controversy erupted recently when Republican Gov. Rick Perry used the word "secession." A bill in the states legislature called on the federal government to cease and desist in imposing unconstitutional regulations on Texas citizens. Right now the bill is pending in the House Committee on Public Safety. And though the bill may not make it to a vote in this legislative session as it winds down, it has found wide support.
No matter what happens in court, these state legislatures are taking important steps to fulfill their responsibilities. States must protect the rights of their citizens  especially when the federal government refuses to do so. The interstate commerce clause has been taken to extremes by a federal government that refuses to acknowledge limits on its power despite the clearly worded contract known as the Constitution. When a party to a contract refuses to live up to its end of the deal, the other party must take steps to ensure that the contract is upheld.


Source: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/1122


----------

