Twin Cities Carry Forum Archive
http://twincitiescarry.com/forum/

Montana working on a BATF endrun
http://twincitiescarry.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=11908
Page 1 of 3

Author:  DeanC [ Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:09 pm ]
Post subject:  Montana working on a BATF endrun

Quote:
Montana Lawmakers Approve Bill to Skip Firearms Reporting Transactions

February 23, 2009

HELENA, Mont. — The Associated Press reports that Montana lawmakers letting some Montana gun owners and dealers skip reporting their transactions to the federal government.

Under House Bill 246, firearms made in Montana and used in Montana would be exempt from federal regulation. The same would be true for firearm accessories and ammunition made and sold in the state.

The House voted 64-36 for the bill. If it clears a final vote, the measure will go to the Senate.

“What we need here is for Montana to be able to handle Montana’s business and affairs,” Republican Rep. Joel Boniek told fellow lawmakers Saturday.

Boniek’s measure aims to circumvent federal authority over interstate commerce, which is the legal basis for most gun regulation in the United States.

The bill potentially could release Montanans from both federal gun registration requirements and dealership licensing rules. Since the state has no background-check laws on its own books, the legislation also could free gun purchasers from that requirement.

“Firearms are inextricably linked to the history and culture of Montana, and I’d like to support that,” Boniek said. “But I want to point out that the issue here is not about firearms. It’s about state rights.”

Author:  Mosin [ Tue Feb 24, 2009 2:32 pm ]
Post subject: 

Gotta love all the talk about states rights.

The bill text looks like it is basically preempting any future federal firearms registration program. I was more excited at first when I thought they were giving the middle finger to the NICS and GCA of 68.

I get all warm and fuzzy when I see bills referencing the 9th and 10th amendments.

Full text
http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2009/billhtml/HB0246.htm

Author:  Lawyer_in_Training [ Tue Feb 24, 2009 9:58 pm ]
Post subject: 

So who makes guns or loads (factory) ammo in MT?
And does so without bringing in any out-of-state components?
(brass? powder?)

Author:  Sietch [ Tue Feb 24, 2009 11:03 pm ]
Post subject: 

Lawyer_in_Training wrote:
So who makes guns or loads (factory) ammo in MT?


Good question. And it begs another.

Think about all the brass and steel the east Asian heavyweights have bought out of the market in the last two years. Is that so they can cash in on the war mark up?

A lot of manufacturers nationwide are sucking it because they can't collect the spent brass off the military ranges at home anymore.

Makes one wonder what kind of position that leaves a potential Montana start up in.

Author:  DeanC [ Wed Feb 25, 2009 9:32 am ]
Post subject: 

Lawyer_in_Training wrote:
So who makes guns or loads (factory) ammo in MT?

There's a couple, but imagine if MN did that. We already have DPMS and Federal Cartridge.

Author:  PocketProtector642 [ Mon May 04, 2009 9:32 am ]
Post subject: 

Looks like UT may be going down this path too.

Quote:
Utah legislators eye Montana gun law
May 4th, 2009 @ 8:05am
By Andrew Adams
story link

SALT LAKE CITY -- Utah lawmakers are considering following Montana's lead and claiming state's rights in the war over gun control.

The Montana legislature passed and its governor signed into law a measure making guns that are made and kept within state boundaries exempt from federal regulations. That means they're exempt from things like background checks, licensing and registration.

Several Utah lawmakers want to do the same thing here. They say President Barack Obama and the Congress are anti-gun and will infringe on states' rights.

Rep. Carl Wimmer, R-Herriman, tells the Salt Lake Tribune he or another Utah lawmaker will introduce a similar measure next year.

Rep. Ken Sumsion, R-American Fork, told the Tribune he wishes he'd thought of it and would support such a measure "in a heartbeat."

But some legislators, like Rep. Rebecca Chavez-Houck, D-Salt Lake City, have reservations. They say Montana's law is expected to face legal challenges and they don't want the same thing to happen in Utah.

Author:  mrokern [ Mon May 04, 2009 9:36 am ]
Post subject: 

DeanC wrote:
Lawyer_in_Training wrote:
So who makes guns or loads (factory) ammo in MT?

There's a couple, but imagine if MN did that. We already have DPMS and Federal Cartridge.


I think DPMS should try this route.

Full-auto, here we come!

-Mark

Author:  PocketProtector642 [ Mon May 04, 2009 10:45 am ]
Post subject: 

PocketProtector642 wrote:
Looks like UT may be going down this path too.


Of course, add Texas to the list too.

Quote:
Lawmaker aims at making Texas firearms exempt from federal regulation
By ANNA M. TINSLEY
full story

A Texas lawmaker wants to further push state sovereignty from the federal government.

Rep. Leo Berman, a former Arlington mayor pro tem, has filed a bill to make guns, ammunition and gun parts that are made, sold and kept in Texas free from federal regulation.

Author:  Andrew Rothman [ Mon May 04, 2009 2:03 pm ]
Post subject: 

Sounds like time for a Constitutional amendment to properly, explicitly restrict the Commerce Clause.

Author:  plblark [ Mon May 04, 2009 2:28 pm ]
Post subject: 

Andrew Rothman wrote:
Sounds like time for a Constitutional amendment to properly, explicitly restrict the Commerce Clause.


BINGO!

Author:  Traveler [ Mon May 04, 2009 2:33 pm ]
Post subject: 

Andrew Rothman wrote:
Sounds like time for a Constitutional amendment to properly, explicitly restrict the Commerce Clause.


I agree wholeheartedly, but unfortunately Congress drove a coach and horses through the Commerce Clause in the 1930's, and since that time the Federal Government has far exceeded it's Constitutional authority. I would like to think differently, but I suspect that the genie is so far out the bottle that it would be an impossible task to make things right again.

Possibly when our present <s>communist, marxist, leninist regime</s> administration begins to refer to States as "colonies" might we experience another colonial uprising. :roll:

Author:  mrokern [ Mon May 04, 2009 2:35 pm ]
Post subject: 

Traveler wrote:
Andrew Rothman wrote:
Sounds like time for a Constitutional amendment to properly, explicitly restrict the Commerce Clause.


I agree wholeheartedly, but unfortunately Congress drove a coach and horses through the Commerce Clause in the 1930's, and since that time the Federal Government has far exceeded it's Constitutional authority. I would like to think differently, but I suspect that the genie is so far out the bottle that it would be an impossible task to make things right again.

Possibly when our present <s>communist, marxist, leninist regime</s> administration begins to refer to States as "colonies" might we experience another colonial uprising. :roll:


We'll get the uprising just as soon as everybody throws both parties out and brings in Ron Paul.

I keep voting for him, too bad enough other folks don't.

-Mark

Author:  12smile [ Tue May 05, 2009 4:10 am ]
Post subject: 

We have one handgun manfacturer in Fridley, Magnum Research.

Any clue as to a MN version of this law?

Author:  joelr [ Tue May 05, 2009 4:45 am ]
Post subject: 

12smile wrote:
We have one handgun manfacturer in Fridley, Magnum Research.

Any clue as to a MN version of this law?
No chance. You need a lege that wants to take on the Feds.

Author:  princewally [ Tue May 05, 2009 7:40 am ]
Post subject: 

This will still leave the dealers and manufacturers in violation of federal law. The state won't have a problem, but the feds will. MT residents will buy guns in MT, be legal by MT law and get stomped on by the feds. Does the new law provide funds for the legal defense of MT residents in violation of federal law under the new MT law? That's a test case I'm not anxious to see.

Page 1 of 3 All times are UTC - 6 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/