djeepp wrote:
Let's go back to the basics real quick.
There should never have been federal laws regarding guns in any other context than interstate commerce in the first place.
All, or nearly all, federal gun laws are "interstate commerce" laws.
There are very few limits on what Congress can call "interstate commerce" thanks to various U.S. Supreme Court decisions under FDR. (ie.
Wickard v. Filburn ) One exception is
U.S. v. Lopez but that case was about "carrying a gun" not "making and selling" guns.
I highly doubt that any guns made and sold (commerce) in Montana are exempt from any of the typical federal regulations, regardless of what the Montana law says. If anyone wants to be a test case I'll start making the popcorn.
Justice Thomas spoke at the U of MN Law School a week or two ago. Someone in the audience asked him about this very topic. His response was, "Have you read our commerce clause jurisprudence? Good luck!" This from the Justice who would probably be one of the more sympathetic Justices on this issue.
The "State Legislators Are Playing With Fire" not because they're undoing overreaching federal gun regulations (the states can't undo federal law) but because they're going to put their citizens in a position where they think their "Made in Montana" weapon is exempt from federal law when it is not! bkrafft was half-right, you could end up in "club-fed" for taking a "Made in Montana" weapon out of the state AND for having one in Montana if the owner is violating federal law.
