Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1 Montana fires a warning shot over states' rights 
    HR Corporate Scum patriot45's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Plant City, Florida
    Posts
    10,892
    Oboy more challenges to the Feds, keep em coming!

    Movin' to Montana soon
    Gonna be a mennil-toss flykune!


    Montana is trying to trigger a battle over gun control — and perhaps make a larger point about what many folks in this ruggedly independent state regard as a meddlesome federal government.

    In a bill passed by the Legislature earlier this month, the state is asserting that guns manufactured in Montana and sold in Montana to people who intend to keep their weapons in Montana are exempt from federal gun registration, background check and dealer-licensing rules because no state lines are crossed.

    That notion is all but certain to be tested in court.

    : “Grow your own dope. Plant a liberal.”
    ” Obummercare, 20 percent of the time it works everytime.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Redondo Beach, CA
    Posts
    1,003
    Quote Originally Posted by patriot45 View Post
    Oboy more challenges to the Feds, keep em coming!

    Movin' to Montana soon
    Gonna be a mennil-toss flykune!
    I agree with this in principle, however, how would Montana deal with one 'their guns' being used to commit a crime in say Wyoming, Idaho, or North Dakota? Is Montana going to foot the bill for the investigation, prosecution, and jailing of gun felonies committed across state lines?

    I understand that the 2nd amendment doesn't specifically mention background checks and assault weapons, however, the 1st amendment doesn't mention child pornography.

    My question: To what extent does public safety play into a logical, realistic interpretation of the 2nd amendment?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    HR Corporate Scum patriot45's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Plant City, Florida
    Posts
    10,892
    Its a start to getting some of the states rights back.

    Supporters of the measure say the main purpose is not extending gun freedoms, but curbing what they regard as an oppressive interpretation of the interstate commerce clause and federal overreach into such things as livestock management and education.

    "Firearms are inextricably linked to the history and culture of Montana, and I'd like to support that," said Montana state Rep. Joel Boniek, the bill's sponsor. "But I want to point out that the issue here is not about firearms. It's about state rights."

    : “Grow your own dope. Plant a liberal.”
    ” Obummercare, 20 percent of the time it works everytime.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Power CUer noonwitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Warren, MI
    Posts
    12,573
    Guns made in Montana are american-made. As a union member, I support policies that encourage people to buy american made products.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Quote Originally Posted by hazlnut View Post
    My question: To what extent does public safety play into a logical, realistic interpretation of the 2nd amendment?
    When criminals begin to abide by gun control laws.

    Let's face it: most laws designed to prevent violence against others are primarily useful in sentencing and civil litigation matters. Normal people don't run through an elaborate legal calculus to decide when and if they should blow their MIL or dope connection into the next county.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by hazlnut View Post
    I agree with this in principle, however, how would Montana deal with one 'their guns' being used to commit a crime in say Wyoming, Idaho, or North Dakota? Is Montana going to foot the bill for the investigation, prosecution, and jailing of gun felonies committed across state lines?
    Why would they have to? Are guns crossing state lines from Montana and commiting felonies? And are there not police in Wyoming, Idaho and North Dakota who have jurisdiction in those states?

    But, let's put it another way: What constitutional authority does the federal government have over any product that is created, sold, distributed and used solely within one of the states?

    Quote Originally Posted by hazlnut View Post
    I understand that the 2nd amendment doesn't specifically mention background checks and assault weapons, however, the 1st amendment doesn't mention child pornography.
    Child pornography isn't speech or expression, it's documentation of a crime, the sexual exploitation of children, which makes it evidence, not erotica.

    Quote Originally Posted by hazlnut View Post
    My question: To what extent does public safety play into a logical, realistic interpretation of the 2nd amendment?
    At the federal level, none. Public safety is a state and local issue. The feds have no business engaging in public safety at the local or state level unless civil authority breaks down and martial law is declared, and that occurs either at the request of the governor or in the event of a catastrophe that renders the civil authorities unable to function. The whole point of the Posse Comitatus Act was not simply to bar federal troops from enforcing civil law, but to prevent the entire federal government from usurping state and local law enforcement authority. The assumption that the federal government can regulate our possessions, to include the tools of our trades and the weapons that we use to protect ourselves is not founded in any precedent in our nation's history.

    The purpose of the Second Amendment and its language are derived from two major sources, respectively. The formerwas the British Crown's proclivity for disarming otherwise law-abiding citizens in order to be able to enforce its agenda. Remember that the mission of the British forces at Lexington and Concord was confiscation of the militia's weapons. The founders believed that a well-armed population, which could form a militia (which was defined as every able-bodied male between the ages of 16 and 60) was a critical check on the power of government at all levels. The latter is because of the powers of congress as defined in the Constitution. The Constitution authorizes congress to regulate the militia. The concern of the anti-Federalists was that this authority could be used as a means to disarm the people, and that an unscrupulous congress might be tempted to do so in order to perpetuate or expand its power. Consequently, the Second Amendment cites congress' authority to regulate the militia, even as it bars congress from infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Senior Member Rebel Yell's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    South GA
    Posts
    5,181
    In the long run the election of Obama (with this sitting congress) may be a blessing in disquise. If we had elected McCain, it would have been more ofthe same. Bush and the repubs have been slowly seizing more and more power from the people (states) for the benefit of the fed. Obama (with Reid and Pelosi) have shifted the power grab into high gear. Maybe to the point that the people push back.


    If McCain had won, we would still be on the same path, just not fast enough to alert the average citizen to what's going on. If this Supreme Court case goes the way I hope, this past election will have been a high point in modern American history.

    The Supreme Court will be reviewing WICKARD v. FILBURN, 317 U.S. 111 (1942). A farmer was growing wheat strictly for the feeding of his cattle and for his wfe to make bread.
    Filburn argued that since the excess wheat he produced was intended solely for home consumption it could not be regulated through the interstate Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, reasoning that if Filburn had not used home-grown wheat he would have had to buy wheat on the open market. This effect on interstate commerce, the Court reasoned, may not be substantial from the actions of Filburn alone but through the cumulative actions of thousands of other farmers just like Filburn its effect would certainly become substantial. Therefore Congress could regulate wholly intrastate, non-commercial activity if such activity, viewed in the aggregate, would have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, even if the individual effects are trivial.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
    The Supreme Court will be deciding the meaning of the term "regulate" as it was defined in the constitution. The term, as written by the founding fathers means "to make regular", in other words "make available", not "tax and restrict". If this 50 year old case is overturned, it will effectively undo the federal governments power grad all the way back to FDR. The question is, how will the fed fight this once overturned?
    Last edited by Rebel Yell; 05-11-2009 at 12:01 PM.
    I feel that once a black fella has referred to white foks as "honky paleface devil white-trash cracker redneck Caspers," he's abdicated the right to get upset about the "N" word. But that's just me. -- Jim Goad
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Redondo Beach, CA
    Posts
    1,003
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    Why would they have to? Are guns crossing state lines from Montana and commiting felonies? And are there not police in Wyoming, Idaho and North Dakota who have jurisdiction in those states?

    But, let's put it another way: What constitutional authority does the federal government have over any product that is created, sold, distributed and used solely within one of the states?
    Like I said, I agree with you 100% in principle. What goes on in a state is that state's business and responsibility. That being said, to what extent will Montana take responsibility for crimes committed outside of its boarders with guns purchased inside its boarders?


    Child pornography isn't speech or expression, it's documentation of a crime, the sexual exploitation of children, which makes it evidence, not erotica.
    I think you understood the analogy that the literal meaning of the law is as important as the intent or purpose of the law.

    Was it the founding father's intent to have people buying guns at gun shows, then returning to their state and selling them on the black market? Of course not. To what extent does the federal government have responsibility to protect public safety.

    At the federal level, none. Public safety is a state and local issue. The feds have no business engaging in public safety at the local or state level unless civil authority breaks down and martial law is declared, and that occurs either at the request of the governor or in the event of a catastrophe that renders the civil authorities unable to function.
    What I'm talking about is interstate commerce or people making purchases then crossing state lines. I'm not trying to challenge you, I'm trying to get better informed on this.

    The whole point of the Posse Comitatus Act was not simply to bar federal troops from enforcing civil law, but to prevent the entire federal government from usurping state and local law enforcement authority. The assumption that the federal government can regulate our possessions, to include the tools of our trades and the weapons that we use to protect ourselves is not founded in any precedent in our nation's history.
    Again, I agree with all that in principle, but the possessions we're talking about do always stay in their state of origin. What companies are currently manufacturing assault rifles? In what states are their plants located?

    The purpose of the Second Amendment and its language are derived from two major sources, respectively. The formerwas the British Crown's proclivity for disarming otherwise law-abiding citizens in order to be able to enforce its agenda. Remember that the mission of the British forces at Lexington and Concord was confiscation of the militia's weapons. The founders believed that a well-armed population, which could form a militia (which was defined as every able-bodied male between the ages of 16 and 60) was a critical check on the power of government at all levels. The latter is because of the powers of congress as defined in the Constitution. The Constitution authorizes congress to regulate the militia. The concern of the anti-Federalists was that this authority could be used as a means to disarm the people, and that an unscrupulous congress might be tempted to do so in order to perpetuate or expand its power. Consequently, the Second Amendment cites congress' authority to regulate the militia, even as it bars congress from infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
    I know and understand all that. What I can never get a clear answer on is how do we address the issue that illegal firearms or guns used in the commission of crime were all once considered legal firearms--at birth, for lack of better word. How do we keep people safe w/o tamping the 2nd amendment?

    If Montana wants to tag every gun purchased in Montana, then be responsible for every misuse of that firearm in and out of the state, then fine. The Fed can stay out of it.

    Look, in Wyoming, I'm not sure they even need gun laws. But in New York City or Los Angeles, even the most conservative citizens are for draconian gun control.

    Currently in Los Angeles, you have to give a fingerprint to purchase ammunition. Is it like that elsewhere?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    Senior Member AlmostThere's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    A Great Red State
    Posts
    1,920
    Quote Originally Posted by hazlnut;135588[quote
    Look, in Wyoming, I'm not sure they even need gun laws. But in New York City or Los Angeles, even the most conservative citizens are for draconian gun control.
    I don't think so. If the ultimate draconian laws were enacted, such as destruction of the weapon, life imprisonment of the person caught with a weapon and no guns manufactured in the U.S., we'd still have gun violence on the streets of America. That genie is out and is never going back. As such, criminals would be the only ones with guns.

    Currently in Los Angeles, you have to give a fingerprint to purchase ammunition. Is it like that elsewhere?
    Probably only in those places that have a real problem with people killing each other. Doesn't look like that fingerprint is doing a whole lot. I buy on-line. :D
    Better to die on your feet than live on your knees.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •