Made in Montana: New Montana Law Makes Certain Guns and Ammo Exempt From Federal Regulation
Certain exceptions apply, one of which seems to delete shotguns from coverage under this new legislation. Although probably aimed at fully-automatic guns (a.k.a. machine guns), the wording "a firearm that discharges two or more projectiles with one activation of the trigger or other firing device" could easily define a shotgun using shotshells (rather than slugs), which discharges many projectiles with each pull of the trigger.
This Montana bill became law on "income tax day," April 15, 2009. It seems ironic that this move towards freedom from Federal oppression became official on a date that so many freedom-minded Americans loathe. At this time, similar legislation is in the works in other states, including Texas and Alaska.
Montana residents may wish to consult this list of Montana Firearms Manufacturers and Gunsmiths.
The Federal government has long regulated firearms via authority granted to it in the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, on the premise that any gun or related device is automatically subject to Federal regulation because it may be involved in interstate commerce. These new laws would negate that, by protecting guns and related goods which do not cross state lines.
By making exempt from such regulation any eligible gun or related device manufactured within its borders and which stays within those borders, these states are in essence denying the Federal government an apparently fictional authority which it has long asserted. More importantly, the states are creating law-based protection against the very-real threat of a Federal gun registration/confiscation scheme.
I purposely used "registration" and "confiscation" in combination above, because the former historically leads to the latter, with the inevitable result being government by those in government, not by the people.
Many predict that this new movement will lead to an epic legal battle over the Tenth Amendment ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"). If so, an Obama-weighted Supreme Court may end up deciding the issue.
These laws rely on the exempted goods never crossing state lines, which seems pretty tough to control, especially if we wish to remain free from such things as inspection (read: vehicle search) stations where highways cross state lines, which I don't doubt the Fed would wish to implement, Fourth Amendment to the Constitution notwithstanding.
Some are eager for a test case, hoping that some brave soul in Montana will notify the Feds that he or she is going to begin manufacture and sale of "Made in Montana" guns under this new law and without Federal oversight. The expectation is of immediate Federal prosecution of that individual, with the resulting court decision possibly being a major deciding factor in the feasibility and future of such laws.
It seems worthwhile for us to urge our state legislators to consider similar legislation. Anything that preserves civil rights while taking some power out of the hands of the Federal government has got to be a good thing. Better wording than Montana used for any section that omits fully-automatic guns from the law would be a good idea for any such law, though - there's no reason shotguns shouldn't also be covered by the protection these laws provide.
These laws could easily create opportunities for enterprising folks to open new businesses building guns, accessories, and ammunition for sale and use within their home states. In a time when the US economy is in dire straits, when we're also facing severe ammunition shortages, and when gun sales are skyrocketing due to very high demand, this seems like a very good move. Increased supply to help satisfy demand, providing a living for the folks making the guns and goods, who are then more likely to spend some of that dough.
Economic stimulus, freedom style.
- Russ Chastain
Comments
Would Montana’s legal position be reinforced by legislation prohibiting those items marked Made In Montana from crossing state lines ?
Interesting question… and I don’t know the answer.
Their new law clearly states that the federal law does not apply to goods manufactured in Montana that stay in Montana, if exported from the state it would fall under the feds rules and or the state it was exported to. I don’t think they need any further clarification. Montana has done what they needed to protect their own, only wish more states were smart enough to protect themself’s from obama…
Thanks for the input… sure can’t disagree with you.
The Fed’s ability to legislate laws controlling firearms is based on the “Interstate Commerce” portion of the Constitution (Unlike the falsely claimed “seperation of church and state” argument, that does NOT occur anywhere in the Constitution). The interstate commerce issue IS both valid and important, since we are a confederation of (mostly) contiguous states. Without that portion of the Constitution, we would spend most of our time levying, and fighting, irrational interstate tarriffs on each other (although, with the unreasonable amount of legislative and financial control that a few states – like NY, NJ, MA, CA, IL – exert over the rest of us “fly-over states”; maybe our ability to fight back with interstate commerce tarriffs would be a reasonable, balancing factor).
All that said, the genius in this legislation is that it specifically applies to firearms and ammo manufactured and maintained within Montana’s borders. If you sell, or transport, a firearm over state lines (into or out from) MT, then it is exempt from this law (and Federal Laws apply).
I BELIEVE (although this may need to be adjuducated seperately), if a person (gunsmith, FFL, individual) LEGALLY obtains PARTS – that individual may LEGALLY assemble it into a working firearm – for possession or sale (under whatever state regulations MT may impose). In other words, If you want a Remington 700 rifle in MT, that is exempt – you merely have to purchase the parts and assemble them (again – note the “Made in …” portion of the law.
There is precedence supporting this, as the states, fed & courts have long-since defined “source of … ” issues, as they apply not only to interstate commerce, but to international commerce as well. That is how you can have Toyotas that XX% of the parts are not only manufactured, but assembled in factories in Japan, but final assembly is in Tennessee – and these are all marked “Made in America”.
Beautiful! Wow- I hope this spurs some manufacturing. In this day of instant communication, I could see a small gun maker publicizing themselves on the internet as building guns in Montana for Montana residents or shooters, and doing this relatively cheaply. The word of mouth factor here would be huge.
I disagree on the idea for the need of a quick test case however- i think ti is a better idea for people to simply begin operating under the law in their state and establish this as the norm, and then let the test case come.
About time. Suppressors are safety devices. Why on earth should you be expected to ruin your family’s hearing if you have to deal with a violent intruder in your home?
Also, unlike the movies, a suppressed 9mm does not sound like the “thp” sound effect Hollywood uses, it sounds like a book being dropped onto a table. Loud, but not enough to damage your hearing or those of your children. What’s wrong with that?
I have just dispatched an email containing this article to both Delegate Rosalyn R. Dance and Senator Henry L. Marsh of Virginia. I simply told them that I fully intend to start a petition that would urge people to support something like this in Virginia.
This is great for the people of Montana. unfortunately, I live in Oregon where our governor is such a wennie this would never happen without a patition from the people.
Well, you can always start a petition!