I think this maybe something that more states will follow.
Texas firearm freedom law tiptoeing through Texas Legislature
Montana lawmakers did it first with the Montana Firearms Freedom Act which was recently signed into law. Here are the guts of the Montana law:
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.
Leo Berman of the Texas House of Representatives has introduced one in Texas, and H.B. No. 1863 is creeping along. Here's a link for the text, and here's the key part:
Sec. 2003.003. NOT SUBJECT TO FEDERAL REGULATION. (a) A firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured in this state and remains in this state is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of the United States Congress to regulate interstate commerce.
A cursory look suggests that the entire bill is very similar to the Montana law as both laws exclude guns too big for one person to carry, a gun with a barrel bore larger then 1.5 inch, exploding bullets, and fully automatic weapons. Lawmakers in both states must be concerned about keeping down the noise as sound suppressors are included in the definition of "firearm accessory." (Would that be silencers?)
The Montana law passed muster with legal scholars, but no one can safely predict what the U.S. Supreme Court would do with it especially with the upcoming change in personnel.
In any event, H.B. No. 1863 may be one to watch.
I LIIIIIKE IT!!
With one exception, the automatic firearms part. I wouldn't exclude those. I only hope that Kansas will adopt a law like this
shhhhhhhhh ( be vewy vewy quiet) Frank.. there not called "silencers" anymore..
They are called "suppressors" 8)
I like it too.. ALOT.. but.....
This is what I got today after reading this article . This was sent to a friend of mine ( who sent it to me) from a guy that I have never met.. But I will post on here what his e-mail said.
This is hardly revolutionary. It is simply Montana legislators stating one (well-known) side of the Second Amendment legal controversy. There is another side. I take no position here as to which side is correct, because it doesn't matter. What matters is enforceability, and Montana has none. Because a state declares that it is "right" about these points has zero binding effect on the federal government or their courts. Also, Montana's state courts are ultimately under the authority of the United States Supreme Court on federal questions (which this obviously is).
This administration will do exactly what the Bush, and every other, administration did: enforce federal law, even if it conflicts with state law. The federal laws that this Montana law attempts to circumvent were IN FULL FORCE during the Bush years, and FULLY ENFORCED by the Bush Department of Justice. this has nothing to do with Democrat vs. Republican politics. It's about federal vs. state law, and the Constitution declares that Federal, not state, law is the supreme law of the land (check the second paragraph of Article VI if you don't believe it). Montana, and every other state, RATIFIED that Constitution, and thereby agreed to Article VI and everything else in the Constitution, before being admitted to statehood.
What will happen is exactly nothing. Montana courts will do what they have always done, which is to enforce their own gun laws as they see fit. The federal authorities don't really care what Montana courts do, or what the Montana legislature says. Federal courts will continue to enforce their gun laws as they see fit, and they will continue to convict people in Montana, and anywhere else, for violating federal gun laws.
At some point, a criminal defense lawyer defending some guy who was prosecuted by the federal government in a federal court for violating a federal gun law in Montana will try to reverse that conviction by going to a higher federal court. He will claim that this Montana state law has something to do with federal gun law. In about half a second, that federal court will say, "no it doesn't," and the defendant will stay in prison. The state of Montana can do nothing, and will do nothing about it.
All this amounts to is a bunch of Montanans saying "Hooray for us, and to hell with you." I suppose that makes them feel good, but it doesn't amount to a hill of beans in the real world.
Sorry to throw cold water on the exciting news, but this kind of thing happens all the time and always goes nowhere. Legally, these moves are simply inoperative as to the federal government. As just one example, for years and years and years, Southern states loudly passed many, many state laws restricting the right to vote, in an effort to keep Black people from being effectively represented. The federal government yawned, and continued enforcing federal laws throughout those states (although it took some time) and sending people to prison for violating that federal right to vote.
If you want the WHOLE TRUTH to be known, please consider passing this around with the above announcement.
Here endeth the lesson.
Didn't write it.. just repeated it... :)
Doesn't change my mind one whit. Americans still have the right to own and bear arms and it ain't nobody's business but mine what I have.
I...have...to...agree...with...wilma...on...this...one (holy crap, that hurt to say)
Well you all know where I stand on this issue.......
I just thought what he wrote was interesting.. and I have to agree on part of it.. it probably doesn't matter what the states want.. The federal system is going to do what it wants...
But I'm willing to stand on the line if Kansas wants to go for it! ;D
You wouldn't be alone teresa.
So I guess it is my turn to agree with Billy again.
I think the states should have that control too, or even smaller units like counties or cities. I know Billy would never believe me, but I've never been for gun control because it doesn't work. But then there should be huge fines or prison time for the responsible adult if a juvenile gets hold of a weapon and something terrible happens.
A juvenile being ???? what age?
And you open up a whole kettle of fish there............
This exception seems to me could also be construed to exclude shotguns from protection under the law.. The shot pellets are multiple projectiles fired by one activation of the trigger: (You know the anti-gun lawyers will do whatever they can to destroy this bill.) I would rewrite that section. Do Texans not use shotguns anymore? ???
Sec. 2003.004. EXCEPTIONS
(4) a firearm that discharges two or more projectiles
with one activation of the trigger or other firing device.
As to the overall law it is the same argument used by the Marijuana lobby to get Medical Marijuana laws passed in California. The Feds are still raiding pot smokers. Medical marijuana clubs, etc.
I applaud Texas and Montana for trying to keep our Second Amendment Rights intact. I thought I read on here that Kansas was trying to pass a similar bill.Is that true?
Maybe one day we won't have to fight for our Second Amendment rights, but I am not holding my breath until that day to arrives.
That reminds me I need to renew my NRA membership.
David
Teresa, I mean less than 18 without parent or guardian permission and/or unsupervised.
Quote from: Diane Amberg on May 07, 2009, 07:31:17 AM
But then there should be huge fines or prison time for the responsible adult if a juvenile gets hold of a weapon and something terrible happens.
Uhm ??? why? IF a juvenile takes a weapon and commits a crime then make the juvenile take responsibility. All of my kids had their own gun at around 7 years old. They got to use it under supervision until 12 years old where at that age they were allowed to go out with their gun/s and target practice or hunt without me being there. I have never locked up a gun unless it was being stored or a collectors weapon, all guns that we used were loaded and ready to use at any time and easily accessible.
What parents got to do is teach kids responsibility not hide every danger from them.
So parents aren't responsible for their kids' behavior. HA! If some 8 year old gets on a bus and shoots someone to get even for something, the responsible adult skates? So the school doesn't even call the parents /or guardian in? The kids just goes to detention for a couple of days? What about the victims family? Do they get no satisfaction or justice? If parents know they will be held liable and accountable they'll do better parenting, like you did. It's not the same as taking the cost of a broken window out of a kid's allowance. Substiute any weapon in place of a gun and I feel the same.
Okay... let me start with the fact that society has determined ...after seeing enough homes and apartment complexes burn to the ground because little Johnny was playing with matches... that it cannot be left to parents alone to teach children not to play with matches.
Society has determined ....after seeing enough children experience the horrible victimization of sexual abuse.... that it cannot be left to parents alone to teach children what to do if they are touched inappropriately.
Society has determined....after seeing enough children on the sides of milk cartons and WalMart bulletin boards.... that it cannot be left to parents alone to teach children what to do if a stranger attempts to lure them into their car.
Society has even determined (well, at least our President did when he was an Illinois State Senator ::) ) that kindergartners ( ::) ) need to be given sex education.
I simply cannot understand why a society that has decided that parents cannot be trusted to provide the "proper" education on issues like fire safety, sexual abuse, abduction, and even sexually transmitted diseases, is perfectly comfortable leaving the issue of gun accident prevention up to parents.
The NRA has been promoting a safety program for children in grades K-3 since 1998. The Eddie Eagle GunSafe Program tells those youngsters to "Stop! Don't Touch! Leave The Area! Tell An Adult!" if they find a gun.
Now..having said that.. Less than 18 yrs of age?
18?? I will argue that til the cows come home.
Come on...Our boys go to war sometimes earlier than that ( or they used to)
And most children & accidents with guns are that. Accidents! They happen.
There are way to many variables to put a one size fits all on this one.
Would have to be looked at individually , but to take an already grieving parent who will have to live with what happened for the rest of their life.. and put him or her in jail over something that happened by accident....?
Nope.. Have to disagree on that one.
I guess if a 10 yr old sticks a fork in the electrical socket.. and it kills him.. The parent should be held accountable?
I can go on and on with examples....
I go back to.....................EDUCATION.
No matter if the household has guns..the parents don't like guns...whatever....
Everyone needs to be educated on the dangers and proper handling of firearms.
If a kid comes to school on a bus or in a car ready to do harm to someone then what does someone do? Shrug it off? Rarely are the shootings around here accidents. I would feel same as you if that was the problem. It's even the young ones now who have gotten access to guns and try to be mini tough guys. Teens, I agree, ya screw up you take responsibility for it. I don't know why gun education is sometimes left up to parents alone. It's not here. Our kids do have that "no touch" training for guns that are found if they are out playing. The drug dealers are good for tossing their guns out the car window and kids do find them. It happened near here recently. A child found a gun at the foot of his backyard and got the parents, who called the police who then found several more in the brush nearby. Our young people who go to war are thoroughly trained over and over and over again.They have officers over them and are trained to follow orders.
So parents aren't responsible for their kids' behavior. HA! If some 8 year old gets on a bus and shoots someone to get even for something, the responsible adult skates? So the school doesn't even call the parents /or guardian in? The kids just goes to detention for a couple of days? What about the victims family? Do they get no satisfaction or justice? If parents know they will be held liable and accountable they'll do better parenting, like you did. It's not the same as taking the cost of a broken window out of a kid's allowance. Substiute any weapon in place of a gun and I feel the same.
Well, I don't know how the law works in your state, but round her in SoCal if your chile does somethin' nasty, ya know, school fight, graffiti, shot someone, the law says the parents are equally responsible and will pay for the damages, the fines, and face serious jail time for child endangerment or some other charge. They don't just get off. Of course, there is going to be the slapping of hands and remonstrations from the Judge sometimes, but sometimes the Judge can get real nasty.
Larryj
Same around here. Must be much the same on both coasts. If a two year old gets hold of a gun in the home and accidentally kills his brother, the parents can be charged. Sometimes the judges are lenient, but not always. Depends on whether there is a previous history at the home.
WEAPONS OF CHOICE
State exempts guns from federal regs
'No firearm registration, serial numbers, criminal records check'
Posted: May 07, 2009
1:00 am Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
Montana statehouse
The state of Montana has drawn a line in the sand, challenging the federal government to decide whether to follow the U.S. Constitution with a new gun law that exempts from federal regulations any gun, gun accessory or ammunition made in the state and intended for use there.
"What this boils down to is:
"Guns and ammo made, sold and used in Montana do not require any federal forms.
"Silencers made in Montana and sold in Montana would be fully legal and not registered.
"There would be no firearm registration, serial numbers, criminal records check, waiting periods or paperwork required.
"Moving to Montana soon," wrote a blogger called Primevalpapa.
In an era in which the administration of President Barack Obama is replete with anti-gun activists in influential positions, including an attorney general who supported a complete handgun ban in the District of Columbia before it was tossed by the U.S. Supreme Court, Montana's move is being called nothing less that revolutionary.
The legislative plan, signed recently by Gov. Brian Scheitzer, a Democrat, is called, "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."
The plan cites the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that "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," the legislation states.
"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 pre-empted by federal law. Congress has not expressly pre-empted state regulation of intrastate commerce pertaining to the manufacture on an intrastate basis of firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition," it says.
Further, state lawmakers cited the Second Amendment right of the people to "keep and bear arms as that right was understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889."
It specifics that "unshaped wood" and other components are not considered firearms and sets out simple requirements:
"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."
At the FreedomsPhoenix blog, where author Ernest Hancock had a checkbox for visitors asking whether they wanted to be a "gun owner" or a "victim," he described the Montana action as simple defiance of the federal government.
"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," he wrote. "Montana has gone beyond drawing a line in the sand. They have challenged the federal government."
He cited "important points" about the plan:
"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 [its] side," he said.
"Silencers made in Montana and sold in Montana would be fully legal and not registered. ... 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," he said.
Very few people know this, but i can build my own gun and not have serial numbers nor registration nor ballistics done on it. I can buy a gun and all parts associated with it that has not been completed. I then take and cut two notches on the frame so that the slide bar can slide when fired and that completes the gun. Under federal law, it is considered manufactured by me. I don't have to put any serial number on it nor do i need to notify the feds of its existance. I can build a ar15 rifle too in the same manner.
From Gary Marbut:
I have been invited to be on the Glenn Beck Show this Friday to talk about MSSA's Montana-made guns bill. This Tenth Amendment assertion idea is going viral. Clones of our Montana HB 246 have been introduced in Alaska, Texas and Tennessee. I have information that clones are being prepared for introduction in Georgia, Missouri, Oklahoma, Arizona, Wyoming, Utah, Idaho and Washington, and maybe some places I haven't heard about.
Just in case you've been living in a cave, HB 246 declares that any firearms, ammunition and firearm accessories made and retained in Montana are not subject to any federal regulation or control under the power given to Congress in the U.S. Constitution to "regulate commerce ... among the states."
The message I will carry is that since the states created the federal government, it is the states which must get their creature on a leash and enforce the literal terms of the Tenth Amendment, and that state-made and retained guns are a fine vehicle for beginning that Tenth Amendment assertion.
If plans work out as laid, I will be on the Beck Show Friday, 5 to 6PM, Eastern time. I am told that this show is on from 3 to 4 PM in Montana. HB 246 sponsor, Rep. Joel Boniek (R-Livingston) is scheduled to be on the show also.
FYI, I've done interviews with the Associated Press, USA Today and Newsmax about HB 246 and the state-made guns movement. MSSA is definitely in the news!
Also, somebody is building a "Montana Firearms Freedom Act" page on Wikipedia. Way cool!