Gun group testing new state law in court (MT)

[davepc]

http://www.helenair.com/articles/2009/08/25/top/75lo_090825_gun.txt

A prominent Montana gun-rights group has partnered with a national organization to test federal authority over a new class of firearms: guns manufactured and used solely in the state of Montana.

The Montana Shooting Sports Association, headquartered in Missoula, and the Second Amendment Foundation, of Bellevue, Wash., announced Friday they intend to file a federal lawsuit Oct. 1 to prevent federal gun control laws from being enforced in Montana for guns made and used within the state boundaries.

“If a gun is made in Montana and stays in Montana, it isn’t engaging in interstate commerce,” said Alan Gottlieb, of the Second Amendment Foundation. “The federal government really should butt out.”

At issue is the Montana Firearms Freedom Act, which passed the 2009 Legislature and was signed into law by Gov. Brian Schweitzer. That law states that guns, ammunition and certain gun parts manufactured and used in Montana are not subject to federal gun laws.

The law goes into effect Oct. 1. Several other states are considering identical legislation, although so far only Tennessee has passed a similar law.

Currently, individuals and businesses that sell or manufacture most guns must have a federal license.

...

[slackmaster]

1. Wickard v. Filburn is pretty much settled law, I believe

You can't even get away with growing wheat for local consumption.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

[brendan120678]

2. Yep, you're probably correct....

As much as I believe Wickard v. Filburn and other subsequent cases to be incorrect, the precedence is still pretty much well-established.

Can't have people trumping the federal government's authority to regulate everything and anything they please, you know.

[Statistical]

3. I agree it is an uphill battle.

The case is very strong precedent but still if they have the time and money let em fight it.

That is the only way precedent gets changes. Then again I realistically think their changes are slim.

A more confrontation scenario is where the Montana legislature using their state Police prohibit federal agents from enforcing federal laws. Maybe even going so far as having Montana State Police arresting BATFE agents and driving them to the state border and the threat of prosecution in State court if they stop.

Not sure how much teeth Montana wants to put into this bill they passed but if there ever was a state to try something like that it would be Montana.

[chibajoe]

6. I would imagine that they won't have a valid case

until someone gets arrested by the ATF for a firearms violation, because until then, they have no cause for standing.

[X_Digger]

5. Much as I wish it weren't..

That bit of constitutional interpretation has been beat about the head and shoulders for 50 years.

[JonQ]

4. Interstate commerce is meaningless at this point

the supreme court decided that entirely local production of any item still falls under this clause because it affects interstate commerce.

In the sense that if you grow your own food and eat it, you have not crossed state lines, but you are affecting interstate commerce because you have *not* bought food from another state, so the feds can regulate your activities.

Doesn't really sound like the original intent of the law does it? Nope.

[jody]

7. If the 10th Amendment is moot, then why isn't the 2nd automatically incorporated in the 14th? That

goes for the 7th also.

"In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."

I object to binding arbitration in sales contracts, health care, etc. that SCOTUS said are legal when it said the 7th is not incorporated against the states.

See Minneapolis & St. Louis R. Co. v. Bombolis, 241 U.S. 211 (1916).