Montana - House shoots down federal gun controls

[Bannack]

This isn't law yet. Still has to pass the State Senate. On the plus side, the Senate is controlled by the GOP this year, which should be a good thing.

We'll see, but it's still a long way to the Guv-nor's desk.

Ah but me thinks ol Governor Brian Schweitzer even though he is a democrat is a very avid gun lover and loves his guns too. Remember the incident some one tried to raise about the rifle he has hanging behind his desk?

He told them to K.H.B. and told them it stays just where it is.

Also remember what our Governor told the Fed Gov what to do over the REAL ID Act?

Governor Brian Schweitzer has been telling them to buzz off for a long time, so lets just see what happens with this. I sure didn't vote for him, but I sure do love his style

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[Firkin]

....maybe it's time to move to Montana.....

I could not have said it better.

[sharpetop]

Another reason to love Montana! This and the post card scenery!

[bbernard]

I could not have said it better.

Me either

[archer51]

The way I read this is it only applies to guns manufactured and sold in Montana. There in lies the catch. The cost of machinery to manufacture all the components of a gun are going to be cost prohibitive for a market as small as your looking at. If you buy the components from a distributor to assemble them in Montana, you are not manufacturing the weapon in Montana, you are assembling it there. Your sales are restricted to Montana residents only. It is against the law to buy/sale handguns across state lines, unless done through a person with a FFL. Basically as I see it, even if passed and signed into law, it is a dog with no teeth.

[Captain Crunch]

Ah but me thinks ol Governor Brian Schweitzer even though he is a democrat is a very avid gun lover and loves his guns too.

Oh, I'm quite sure the Governor would sign this into law if it lands on his desk, but I'll be completely surprised if it does. This same legislation was introduced in 2005 and 2007 and failed both times.

Archer51's take on this is pretty accurate, I think.

[mlr1m]

The way I read this is it only applies to guns manufactured and sold in Montana. There in lies the catch. The cost of machinery to manufacture all the components of a gun are going to be cost prohibitive for a market as small as your looking at. If you buy the components from a distributor to assemble them in Montana, you are not manufacturing the weapon in Montana, you are assembling it there. Your sales are restricted to Montana residents only. It is against the law to buy/sale handguns across state lines, unless done through a person with a FFL. Basically as I see it, even if passed and signed into law, it is a dog with no teeth.

Actually some of the finest rifles in the worls are being made in Big Timber Montana. The Shiloh Manufacturing Company is located there. They make every part on their rifles the barrels the foundry work and the stocks. I have one of their rifles. It was a two year wait after ordering before I took delivery.

Please look for their website ,you will be impressed. Oh, they make the 1874 Sharps. The one made in quigly down under was made by them. Its an inhouse operation.

Michael

[boricua]

Congratulations Montana!

[DOGOFWAR01]

Actually some of the finest rifles in the worls are being made in Big Timber Montana. The Shiloh Manufacturing Company is located there. They make every part on their rifles the barrels the foundry work and the stocks. I have one of their rifles. It was a two year wait after ordering before I took delivery.

Please look for their website ,you will be impressed. Oh, they make the 1874 Sharps. The one made in quigly down under was made by them. Its an inhouse operation.

Michael

For ALL nay sayers, yes these guns are only to be sold in MONTANA and sold only to MONTANA Citizens. That is what the Bill says and that is what is being proposed and supported by Pro-GUN and Pro-State Rights people, in fact it is more about State Rights than anything.

[DOGOFWAR01]

Oh, I'm quite sure the Governor would sign this into law if it lands on his desk, but I'll be completely surprised if it does. This same legislation was introduced in 2005 and 2007 and failed both times.

Archer51's take on this is pretty accurate, I think.

That's what you said about HB228 SELF DEFENSE and it made it through the House 60 to 40.

Why so negative an attitude ?

Would we have won the American Revolution or any other war with that attitude ?

Go to Helena - E-mail Helena and support MSSA on all Bills.

[Captain Crunch]

That's what you said about HB228 SELF DEFENSE and it made it through the House 60 to 40.

Yes, it did. This time. That's no guarantee that it will make it thru the Senate. But since that august body is GOP controlled this year, I'm hopeful.

Bear in mind that HB228 is opposed by the Montana Sheriff's & Peace Officer's Association and the Yellowstone County prosecutor, so it's gonna be a hard fight.

Why so negative an attitude ?

Would we have won the American Revolution or any other war with that attitude ?

Negative attitude? Nope. I just understand the political climate in Montana. You, DOG, do not.

The time for celebration is when the Governor signs the bill into law, not before.

Go to Helena - E-mail Helena and support MSSA on all Bills.

I've already told you why I can't go to Helena, too far away. I have contacted my Senator, as well as the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to ask that they support HB228. What more would you have me do?

Why don't YOU go to Helena?

Just out of curiosity, since you are so concerned with Montana's laws, why haven't you chimed in on this thread?

http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulle...-changing.html

We now return you to your regularly scheduled topic.

[Chorizo]

Unfortunately, I believe this will run afoul of the Federal Supremecy clause. It will be litigated under that clause for sure. Here iit is to read for yourself:

SUPREMACY CLAUSE - "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." U.S. Const. art. VI, Paragraph 2

Under the Supremacy Clause, everyone must follow federal law in the face of conflicting state law. It has long been established that "a state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid federal statute" and that a conflict will be found either where compliance with both federal and state law is impossible or where the state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress. Edgar v. Mite Corp., 457 U.S. 624, 631 (1982). Similarly, we have held that "otherwise valid state laws or court orders cannot stand in the way of a federal court's remedial scheme if the action is essential to enforce the scheme." Stone v. City and County of San Francisco, 968 F.2d 850, 862 (9th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 1050 (1993).

Due to concerns of comity and federalism, the scope of federal injunctive relief against an agency of state government must always be narrowly tailored to enforce federal constitutional and statutory law only. Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1089 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1069 (1987). This is critical because "a federal district court's exercise of discretion to enjoin state political bodies raises serious questions regarding the legitimacy of its authority." Id.

[tinkerinWstuff]

Chorizo,
No doubt that will be the counter arguement. However, supporters will be arguing that that Interstate Commerce Clause which the Fed uses as it's "authority" in these gun laws does not apply to in-state commerce and therefore you're supremacy clause does not apply either.

It's a muddy road because I'm sure there are other laws imposed by the fed under the name of Interstate Commerce that would have to come into question (possibly sales tax?). If nothing else, this sends a message to the current administration that they will have a tough fight on their hands when they try to impose tighter gun restrictions on law abiding citizens.

[archer51]

Actually some of the finest rifles in the worls are being made in Big Timber Montana. The Shiloh Manufacturing Company is located there. They make every part on their rifles the barrels the foundry work and the stocks. I have one of their rifles. It was a two year wait after ordering before I took delivery.

Please look for their website ,you will be impressed. Oh, they make the 1874 Sharps. The one made in quigly down under was made by them. Its an inhouse operation.

Michael

They may make all of the parts, but since they sale outside of Montana this law would not affect them. If they are going to sale their guns outside of Montana they would still have to abide by Federal law.

[tinkerinWstuff]

They may make all of the parts, but since they sale outside of Montana this law would not affect them. If they are going to sale their guns outside of Montana they would still have to abide by Federal law.

But only the ones sold out of state? I would think that the serial numbers sold to Montana residents would be exempt.