Cool quote from todays patriot Post

The Second and Tenth Amendments
In what amounts to a serious Second and Tenth Amendment challenge to federal authority, the Montana Legislature passed and its Democrat governor signed a law which specifies that guns which are produced, sold and maintained within the state are exempt from federal regulations.

Essentially, Montana is setting up a Tenth Amendment challenge -- as soon as the first arrest is made for purchasing a gun without the user submitting to federal mandates such as background checks, licensing and registration, the state will assert its Tenth Amendment rights under our Constitution.

Other states are preparing similar legislation, but I would suggest one of them take the Tenth Amendment challenge a major step forward.

Let's see a state pass a law requiring that any and all federal authorities who wish to carry a firearm within the boundary of said state, must be in possession of a "right to carry" permit issued and authorized by that state's governor.

And speaking of "right to carry," in my home state of Tennessee, legislators are considering a bill to allow duly authorized carry permit holders to keep their weapons on their person in restaurants which serve alcohol (not to be confused with bars), similar to surrounding states.

The statists are protesting that doing so will undoubtedly lead to tragedy. However, one would be hard pressed to find any incident in any year when an authorized holder of a carry permit committed a felony with their weapon. By contrast, in the latest year of record, there were 13,470 fatalities involving alcohol-impaired drivers.

Now that is a tragedy. Perhaps they should not allow alcohol in bars...

Of course, this whole debate on federal versus state gun regulations and concealed carry permits is a straw man. Personally, my right-to-carry permit is the Second Amendment...

More from here
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=97265

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."

last paragraph from the WND story

"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.


Uhm by that reasoning, the same applies to SBRs, SBSs, and


















MACHINE GUNS











This part of it is really, really important. When/if the Montanna laws makes it to the Supreme Court it might bring the NFA laws into play.

Between this, all the stuff CA is doing, the law suites filed against Chicago and San Fran, I am almost thinking we might be in for some change that we all can appreciate.

Good article.

Some more info

http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Feature-Article.htm?Info=0056132

there seems to be a bunch of political chicken getting played these days

I hope Montana doesn't blink on this one and some other states get in the game

Too bad WA is totally screwed politically...

Hopefully this type of legislation hits the books soon, and our guns and ammo pricing returns to something close to normal. I'd really like to pick up some new pieces, but not at these prices!

OK, forget the MG coment. They are specifically called out as exempt from the law. But not the other NFA items.

I know that Idaho and Alaska also had/have similar bills in the works. Would be nice to get a couple more doing the same. Even if its only 10 or so it would really make a strong statement.

OK, forget the MG coment. They are specifically called out as exempt from the law. But not the other NFA items.

I know that Idaho and Alaska also had/have similar bills in the works. Would be nice to get a couple more doing the same. Even if its only 10 or so it would really make a strong statement.

Quite so.

What do you guys think about no backround checks?

What do you guys think about no backround checks?

I think background checks are a waste of time, money and government resources...

What do you guys think about no backround checks?

I'm kinda young (27) but I think I can remember when background checks first came out. It may have just been some change in the system though. Regardless, I would like to know if there is any data that shows a decrease in gun violence since the start of background checks. And I don't mean the number of felons who have been stopped from buying a gun either.

OK, forget the MG coment. They are specifically called out as exempt from the law. But not the other NFA items.

I know that Idaho and Alaska also had/have similar bills in the works. Would be nice to get a couple more doing the same. Even if its only 10 or so it would really make a strong statement.

Alaska's version, IIRC, does not contain the "this doesn't apply to MG's" clause. In fact, Alaska's didn't have any exemptions at all that I remember; I think it defined "firearm" as being carry-able by one person, but past that, if it is signed into law (has it already been?), it spits on all Federal gun control.

Between this, all the stuff CA is doing, the law suites filed against Chicago and San Fran, I am almost thinking we might be in for some change that we all can appreciate.

Much agreed, Pete. They can't turn EVERYTHING down. Something's gotta give.

I'm curious, philosophically, about a what-if situation, though.

Say, for a moment, that I live in Montana. While living there, I purchase a silencer, an SBR, some ammunition, and a plain-basic rifle. No tax stamps, because they're not required; as a resident of Montana, I can have these things as long as I purchase them from Montana manufacturers.

Now say I want, for whatever reason, to move. Not to a gun-unfriendly place, necessarily, hell, let's say I want to move to Alaska (and we'll assume for the moment that Alaska's version of this bill is also in effect). Do I have to sell my Montana goodies and buy new when I get to Alaska? If my stuff isn't involved in interstate commerce (is my own moving from state to state, interstate commerce?) does the fed have any jurisdiction anyway?

Or, alternately, I want to move to Colorado, which has no such protections in place. Can I register my stuff (it already exists, and I'm not a manufacturer) in order to take it with, or do I have to sell it in Montana and start over anyway? I can't technically do a Form 1 for something that's already built, as I understand it, nor can I do a Form 4 to transfer from me to me... or can I?

:confused:

Montana's move is being called nothing less that revolutionary.And a revolution it shall be...

I'm curious,
:confused:

It's my interpretation after reading a couple different stories on this that goods produced in MT stay in MT, period. And that once they cross the state lines for any reason they become subject to thd Feds rules. But I'm know lawyer, that's just the way I read it.

I'm kinda young (27) but I think I can remember when background checks first came out.

i know bound books, and no mail order to your house was 1968.
Not sure about back ground checks. Did they start with brady or...?

I know this is gonna sound dumb, but what do the following mean? "SBR", "SBS", "EBR"? Evil Black Rifle?

I know this is gonna sound dumb, but what do the following mean? "SBR", "SBS", "EBR"? Evil Black Rifle?

Common acronym-ized fun stuff:
Short Barreled Rifle
Short Barreled Shotgun
Evil Black Rifle
Machine Gun
Any Other Weapon
Destructive Device
National Firearms Act

I knew this was going to get interesting to watch about 4 seconds after the election was over.

Now I'm seeing it unfold. Who is next? Tenn had something in the works about serialized ammo recently. NC is too busy cutting state workers pay to continue to feed the pork to pay any attention. As long as the federal money comes in, it appears they are gonna do whatever the fed asks. :shaking:

I'm curious, philosophically, about a what-if situation, though.

Say, for a moment, that I live in Montana. While living there, I purchase a silencer, an SBR, some ammunition, and a plain-basic rifle. No tax stamps, because they're not required; as a resident of Montana, I can have these things as long as I purchase them from Montana manufacturers.

Now say I want, for whatever reason, to move. Not to a gun-unfriendly place, necessarily, hell, let's say I want to move to Alaska (and we'll assume for the moment that Alaska's version of this bill is also in effect). Do I have to sell my Montana goodies and buy new when I get to Alaska? If my stuff isn't involved in interstate commerce (is my own moving from state to state, interstate commerce?) does the fed have any jurisdiction anyway?

Or, alternately, I want to move to Colorado, which has no such protections in place. Can I register my stuff (it already exists, and I'm not a manufacturer) in order to take it with, or do I have to sell it in Montana and start over anyway? I can't technically do a Form 1 for something that's already built, as I understand it, nor can I do a Form 4 to transfer from me to me... or can I?

:confused:

MT to AK could be doable. Technically it would be international not interstate commerce. Since you could leave MT enroute to AK and not touch another piece of the US.



It's my interpretation after reading a couple different stories on this that goods produced in MT stay in MT, period. And that once they cross the state lines for any reason they become subject to thd Feds rules. But I'm know lawyer, that's just the way I read it.

Where the Fed will hamstring this is. back in the 30's or 40's thee was a law that clarified interstate commerce. It also said if you produce something and do not allow it to enter the interstate commerce system. You fall under the jurisdiction of the ICC because you depriving the GPD of that product.

I paraphrased a lot of that.

Wow the alaska version is ballsy. No caliber exemptions or full auto exemptions. Passed the house too
http://www.legis.state.ak.us/basis/get_bill_text.asp?hsid=HB0186D&session=26

I'm curious, philosophically, about a what-if situation, though.

Say, for a moment, that I live in Montana. While living there, I purchase a silencer, an SBR, some ammunition, and a plain-basic rifle. No tax stamps, because they're not required; as a resident of Montana, I can have these things as long as I purchase them from Montana manufacturers.

Now say I want, for whatever reason, to move. Not to a gun-unfriendly place, necessarily, hell, let's say I want to move to Alaska (and we'll assume for the moment that Alaska's version of this bill is also in effect). Do I have to sell my Montana goodies and buy new when I get to Alaska? If my stuff isn't involved in interstate commerce (is my own moving from state to state, interstate commerce?) does the fed have any jurisdiction anyway?

Or, alternately, I want to move to Colorado, which has no such protections in place. Can I register my stuff (it already exists, and I'm not a manufacturer) in order to take it with, or do I have to sell it in Montana and start over anyway? I can't technically do a Form 1 for something that's already built, as I understand it, nor can I do a Form 4 to transfer from me to me... or can I?

:confused:

I've been pondering this quite a bit.

Technically, the Fed's right to Intersate Commerce doesn't apply. You're not selling this, thus the "commerce" aspect of their rights. It's purely a state's issue...

I have a call into my attorney on this. Very, very curious.

What do you guys think about no backround checks?

Does the 2nd Amendment have extra restriction clauses in your version of the Constitution? Because they sure aren't in mine.

What do you guys think about no backround checks?

I like the idea that someone who might have a restraining order or felony would be disqualified. I think that gun owners should be the most upstanding citizens that have chosen to live a life on the right side of the law. I also think that a check to see if someone has been treated/arrested for mental illness is justified, too

Sounds idealistic, but its how I feel, and is the only restriction I see that is reasonable. It serves to isolate gun owners and insulate us from litigation, "It was a madman with a gun",

mouthbreathers: "We should bun guns",

Voice of reason: "Well, thats not a solution cuz the gun was stolen, no way he could just go and buy one. Stolen guns are the responsibility of the owner and the police. Legal gun sales had nothing to do with it"

Former Mouthbreathers: "OH, WOW, I see the light, what an air-tight arguement. I feel myself becoming pro-gun!"

something like that...:D:laughing::laughing::laughing::smokin:

Going to throw my .02 in.

I think that there ARE certain folks who should NOT be allowed to own firearms.

Having said that in a situation where someone that right now isn't legally allowed to own a firearm, is prevented from getting one, but really wants to kill someone, do you think that not having a firearm is going to prevent it?
I believe that last time I looked more people are murdered via blunt force then via shooting.

I don't have an issue with minimum age restrictions.

A felon that has served their time and is now leading a 'good' life, well I don't see any issues with that.

I know someone who at like 19 or 20 made some poor desicions, got caught breaking into cars. Was convicted with a felony. That person cleaned up his life, yet is for ever prevented from voting or owning a firearm.

I know someone else that was in a similar situation, had a better lawyer and only got a misdomeaner.

One of the questions I asked the ATF agent that conducted my FFL interview was am I required to sell a firearm. We were talking about straw purchases and stuff, but I was thinking what if I just don't like the way the persons acting or looks. She told me that there is no legal requirement that forces me to sell to someone..... as long as I am running a business I still have the right to refuse to sell to someone.

I wonder how many back ground checks have prevented a crime? I know that ever single on of my rejections so far have been for some silly thing, like unpaid traffic tickets. Folks get it straightened out and then get approved.

Its illegal to kill someone. The fact that the laws are such that its more illegal to do so with a gun just doesn't make sense to me.
So maybe back ground checks are pointless. I just don't know what the correct answer.

SWMBO thinks that all firearm sales should go on a 4473, including between private individuals "It means more money for you".... I don't agree.

What do you guys think about no backround checks?

Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes
them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible
for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding
citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws
that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted --
and you create a nation of law-breakers -- and then you cash in on guilt.

I think, in the public's demand for harsher punishments for minor crime, we've turned so many minor crimes into felonies, and piddly misdeeds into "serious" or "enhanced sentencing" misdemeanors, that we've lost sight of what "should" matter in criminal justice.

I think, in the public's demand for harsher punishments for minor crime, we've turned so many minor crimes into felonies, and piddly misdeeds into "serious" or "enhanced sentencing" misdemeanors, that we've lost sight of what "should" matter in criminal justice.

I think we have gone the wrong direction in that regard. I know a few guys that have done some time in the Pen.(2-3 yrs) neither of them will be going back. None were violent offenders. all lead a good productive life. I feel that anything over 5 years institutionalizes the prisoner and they will just keep coming back. I also think some good old fashioned public beatings would cut down on our repeat offenders. Anyone with 3 strikes should be liquefied and used as fertilizer.:D

I just got an email from a work aquaintence, who follows this stuff closely, it looks as if TX may have plagerized (sp) MT's law and is currently running it through......no confirmation on this though

I just got an email from a work aquaintence, who follows this stuff closely, it looks as if TX may have plagerized (sp) MT's law and is currently running it through......no confirmation on this though

And no complaints, either! :wink:

Machine guns aren't really any more dangerous than semi-automatics. Montana needs to add in a MG clause or something.

I think, in the public's demand for harsher punishments for minor crime, we've turned so many minor crimes into felonies, and piddly misdeeds into "serious" or "enhanced sentencing" misdemeanors, that we've lost sight of what "should" matter in criminal justice.

who thinks that there should even be a felony without a victim?? Pretty hard to justify to me.

before Brady, there were no background checks...life was good.




if the 85FA ban was lifted, the ATF would make millions in FA taxes, they just don't care.