Montana poised to buck federal gun control

[custosnox]

nowhere in the article does it say that there isn't a small manufacturer in Montana, it says that they want to find one that will be willing to fight the issue all the way to the Supreme Court.  And compairing a small, local manufacturer to selling moonshine to an 8 year old is a pretty far stretch.  So is trying to place a manufactured rifle or handgun in the catagory of a zip gun (what you would end up with making one in your garage).  It still comes down to states rights.

[Chicken Little]

And compairing a small, local manufacturer to selling moonshine to an 8 year old is a pretty far stretch.

It's not a stretch at all if the REAL issue is state's rights.  In fact, it's the EXACT same issue.

You've argued that this is state's rights, i.e., that a state has dominion over intrastate produce.  If Montana decided to start selling Montana-made moonshine to Montanan eight years olds in Montana school cafeterias tomorrow, would you respect their sovereign right abuse their kids?  If Montanans molded locally produced plastic explosives into attractive dining room table centerpieces (complete with backwards ticking clock) and sold them, would you respect their sovereign right to blow up their neighborhoods?  Would you send in the ATF to save them?

This is about guns.  It's the same tactic that NORML uses.  It's not about state sovereignty or medicinal uses of marijuana, it's about getting high.  You know it.  I know it.  Everybody knows it.  So, I can't not ask.  If Montanans decided to grow and sell their own pot to each other, then that's fine by you, right?  Me?  I don't do drugs and happen to have a gun but I'm not all "jazzed" about it.  But if others are into that, then that's pretty much their business, with the caveat that I do expect EVERYBODY to act responsibly as citizens, parents, friends, etc.  Just trying to figure out who is more the libertarian.   

[nathanm]

Would you send in the ATF to save them?

Not unless someone could make a cogent argument on what the constitutional basis for doing so was that didn't rest on specious logic of the "people in Montana pay federal income tax, so if they die, they are affecting interstate commerce" variety.

[cannon_fodder]

Firearm/ammo companies based in Montana that Google found in 2 minutes:

www.altiusguns.com (specializes in biathlon guns)

F.S.G., Inc. Toll Free: 866-243-1934 (ammo)

Half Moon Rifle Shop, 406-892-4409   (custom made .22 to .404)

www.customprojectile.com (ammo)


Chicken Little, this is how you challenge Federal Law.  It's how the states (citizens) push back.  I agree that it is a ploy and I understand that it is about firearms in this instance.  My arguing was ignoring the gun issue entirely (to avoid ye' ole' circular discussion, for the time being).

I'm happy to see a state actively challenging the Federal Government authority using the proper system.  They are not skirting the issue, they are passing a law exactly contrary to it and taking it up in the courts.  Which is the proper course of action.

On the second amendment issue I somewhat disagree (limited to one paragraph in an attempt to keep focus on Montana).  I do think they are eroding gun rights in baby steps, a full frontal assault on gun rights won't work.  But as soon as citizens no longer have enough fire power to be able to threaten the government the point of the 2nd Amendment is totally moot.  Never forget that the founding fathers used their firearms to overthrow their government and anticipated a need for future generations to do the same (I don't realistically anticipate such a need and admit to being under prepared in such an event, just sayin').   

[Chicken Little]

Chicken Little, this is how you challenge Federal Law. 

I understand.  And as long as we agree that it is a ploy, i.e., that it's really an attempted end run on federal gun registration and that sovereignty or even the public will has little to do with it, then there's little disagreement between us.

How is our right to bear arms going to stop an armored column?  There nine other ways to protect our freedom in the Bill of Rights and each is important.

[cannon_fodder]

We will disagree to the extent I believe it is a valid argument, by popular demand in Montana, and an issue of sovereignty.  But ignoring those issues, I still think it is a valid as an attempt to challenge Federal law.

I also agree that the weapons we the people are currently allowed to possess by our government would make it very difficult to effect an armed revolution.  Certainly our gun control is more effective than that of the King of England.  However, as we have seen in Iraq and Afghanistan, troops do not live in armored columns and armor is not impenetrable.   Several of our founding fathers noted that the threat of armed rebellion serves to keep a government honest.

What's more, the only freedom in the Bill of Rights that is, in effect, self enforcing is the right to bear arms.   The government can take over the media and squash the freedom of speech, they can force you to quarter troops, they can (and very very often do) perform searches without warrants or cause (I found pot, therefor the search was OK),  they can (and frequently have) imprisoned US citizens without due process, and the Federal Government sure as hell can ignore the 10th Amendment at will.   The First Amendment is the best protection against governmental abuses, but in the event the government actively squashes that right we have a recourse so long as the Second Amendment still stands.  Freedoms guaranteed on paper and upheld by law is the preferred method, but history has shown that method is not fool proof.

Again, I'm not advocating the use of force nor anticipating it (I think our army would sooner initiate a coup than readily and openly infringe the bill of rights against fellow citizens).  But the Second Amendment was written by revolutionaries who used their weapons to overthrow a government.  I don't think they had hunting in mind. 

If we are disclosing firearm ownership I'll just say I help bump up the average.  Even the Oklahoma average.  That and I've never broken a law with a firearm.

[custosnox]

and all I can add to that is +1 Karma

[OpenYourEyesTulsa]

All federal laws regarding guns are illegal and the states should stop enforcing them.  If the federal government wants to continue to make laws that go against the 2nd Ammendment they need to make a new ammendment with those regulations and have it ratified by 2/3rds of the states.  Otherwise the feds should let the states make their own gun laws and abide by the Constitution.