Like Montana..Texas firearm freedom law tiptoeing through Legislature

[frawin]

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.

[Varmit]

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

[Teresa]

shhhhhhhhh ( be vewy vewy quiet)  Frank.. there not called "silencers" anymore..

They are called "suppressors"   

[Teresa]

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...

[Wilma]

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.

[Varmit]

I...have...to...agree...with...wilma...on...this...one (holy crap, that hurt to say)

[Teresa]

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! 

[Varmit]

You wouldn't be alone teresa.

[Wilma]

So I guess it is my turn to agree with Billy again.

[Diane Amberg]

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.