Gun Groups File Lawsuit to Validate Montana Firearms Freedom Act
Montana Firearms Freedom Act
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:
Gary Marbut, 406-549-1252
Alan Gottlieb, 425-454-7012
MISSOULA – The Montana Shooting Sports Association (MSSA) and the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) filed a lawsuit in federal court in Missoula today to validate the principles and terms of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act (MFFA).
The MFFA was enacted by the 2009 Montana Legislature, signed by Governor Schweitzer, and becomes effective today, Oct. 1.
Lead attorney for the plaintiffs’ litigation team is Quentin Rhoades of the Missoula firm of Sullivan, Tabaracci & Rhoades, PC. The MFFA litigation team also includes other attorneys located in Montana, New York, Florida, Arizona and Washington.
“We feel very strongly that the federal government has gone way too far in attempting to regulate a lot of activity that occurs only in-state,” explained MSSA President Gary Marbut. “The Montana Legislature and governor agreed with us by enacting the MFFA. It’s time for Montana and her sister states to take a stand against the bullying federal government, which the Legislature and Governor have done and we are doing with this lawsuit. We welcome the support of many other states that are stepping up to the plate with their own firearms freedom acts.”
“We’re happy to join this lawsuit,” said SAF founder Alan Gottlieb, “because we believe this issue should be decided by the courts.”
The MFFA declares that any firearms made and retained in Montana are not subject to any federal authority under the power given to Congress in the U.S. Constitution to regulate “commerce … among the several states.” The MFFA relies on the Tenth Amendment and other principles to challenge Congress’ commerce clause power to regulate a wide spectrum of in-state activities. This is a states’ rights effort, using firearms as the object of the exercise. The MFFA exempts Montana-made and retained firearms, firearm accessories and ammunition from federal power, saying that if these items do not cross state lines, they are strictly INTRAstate commerce, not INTERstate commerce, and not subject to federal authority.
MSSA continues to strongly urge that no Montana citizen attempt to manufacture an MFFA-covered item, even after the law takes effect today, until MSSA can prove the principles of the MFFA in court. Until the courts rule in support of the MFFA, any such manufacturer could be subject to federal criminal prosecution.
This concept has caught national attention. Tennessee has passed a clone of the MFFA. Other clones have been introduced in Alaska, Texas, Florida, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Minnesota. Legislators in 20 other states have indicated that they will introduce MFFA clones in their states once their legislatures reconvene, Marbut said. Information about the Firearms Freedom Act movement is being accumulated and made publicly available at firearmsfreedomact.com.
This movement follows multi-state rejection of Washington-mandated Real ID, a law passed by Congress requiring state drivers licenses to conform to federal identification standards. The FFA movement also works in tandem with resolutions introduced or passed in many states asserting state sovereignty under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. As is the rest of the Bill of Rights, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments are limitations on federal power. The Ninth Amendment says: “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” The Tenth Amendment declares: “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.”
Under our federated system of government in the U.S., Marbut noted, states and the federal government are widely recognized to share power and authority, with definite limits placed on federal power by the states, the creators of the federal government. The MFFA lawsuit is designed to test and define those limits, to assert states’ authority, and to limit what many see as overbearing authority assumed by Congress and the federal government.
Beginning during the New Deal, federal courts have generally upheld federal commerce clause authority, initially in the 1942 case of Wickard v. Filburn and continuing recently with the 2005 case of Gonzales v. Raich. Raich was the Supreme Court case allowing federal regulation of medical marijuana in California. However, other cases such as the 1995 case of US v. Lopez suggest that federal commerce power is not infinitely elastic, that there are limits to federal commerce power, and that it has just not yet been determined what those limits may be. The MFFA litigation is structured to clarify and affirm those limits.
The modern era of dramatically-expanded federal commerce clause power was ushered in with the Wickard decision. The Supreme Court allowed this considerable expansion of federal commerce power under Wickard only after President Roosevelt threatened to pack the Court with cronies if the Court didn’t cease declaring Roosevelt’s New Deal programs to be unconstitutional and beyond federal reach. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_clause)
MSSA is the primary political advocate for Montana gun owners. SAF is a national organization headquartered in Bellevue, WA that works nationally to advance the interests of gun owners.
Copy of Complaint available Here
Another futile excellent attempt to reclaim our sovereignty but I have just one question.
““We’re happy to join this lawsuit,” said SAF founder Alan Gottlieb, “because we believe this issue should be decided by the courts.”
The question is this; If the courts are controlled by the Federal Government, and the Federal Government has already made its positions very clear regarding any State countering any Federal Rule and, or Regulation……….isn’t this just another waste of time and money?
Most certainly it’s a waste of ones hopeful expectations at the very least as we should expect nothing from an evil empire except EVIL. It’s that simple.
BDS
That should be pretty easy, the federal courts rule in favor of the goverment and the suit goes to the SCOTUS, where it is expected to go in favor of the state 5/4 or 6/3.
THANK YOU MONTANA!
You guys stood tall on Real ID, and now are pushing back again with the Firearms Freedom Act.
We had a short legislative session in Kentucky this year, and a budget crisis that pushed everything else off the agenda, but we will be pushing hard for the Kentucky Firearms Freedom Act in 2010. We’ve been talking to our legislators about this issue. Our 10th amendment bill has already been pre-filed and we’ll have the KFFA pre-filed and a lot of support marshaled in the legislature and among the people of Kentucky prior to the legislative session. On your map, Kentucky should be purple, not red, and we should be blue soon, and green in 2010!
We should ALL be fighting for our states rights and our individual liberty. Thank you for leading the way Montana! You are definitely not standing alone.
@Bruce Layne
Bruce,
As soon as a KY legislator pre-files an FFA bill, let me know and we’ll change KY to purple.
Thanks!!!
Gary
I am a firm beleiver that the constitution is absolute. The longer we let people distort it for there own ends the further we will be moved away from it. This to me would be the end of FREEDOM. I think that MONTANA has taken a great step in ensuring these people remain challenged. many thanks
Any new updates on this or are the courts being slower than cold molassas as usual?
Montana’s Firearms Freedom Act and MSSA’s lawsuit are doomed to failure. The constitutional issues raised were decided years ago. Congress’ authority to regulate interstate commerce extends not only to articles that have moved in interstate commerce, but to aritles and matters that “affect” interstate commerce as well. For example, a gun business solely dealing in an intrastate business has been held by the courts to be subject to the Federal licensing requirement. As the U.S. Constitution states, Federal law prevails over conflicting State law.
Montana’s new law purports to preempt Federal law requiring registration of certain weapons such as silencers that never moved interstate. However, Federal registration requirements are not based on Federal authority over interstate commerce. Rather, they are based on Federal authority under the Constitution to tax. It’s unbelievable that the drafters and the governor who signed the bill into law overlooked such a basic principle of constitutuional law.
Why limit the FFA to fire arms manufacture ? Many small business of various industries contain themselves WITHIN their own State. The recent financial fiasco would never have been a big as it is if the Federal Government and not permitted banks chartered and incorporated in one State to do business in another State. ‘Nationalizing’ our commerce means a whole industry sinks together when crisis hits. There’s no question that Fed jurisdiction exists in industries such as the airline industry where planes fly across State lines. However, Texas is so big that it could support and govern an airline that stays wholey within Texas and uses Texas State and/or local airports. “Regulation” of interstate commerce was intended by the Founders to protect States, not to limit their jurisdiction. Today’s micro managing of the economy by the Fed is completely and totally unconstitutional. I think this timely issue is far more important than the name of the act implies. Therefore, the name of the Firearms Freedom Act should be renamed to the Intra-State Commerce Freedom Act. Such a name change would solicit support from many more industries. It would certainly help “Start-ups” also in all States by limiting or removing Federal anoyances at least until those businesses start doing business accross State boundary lines.
In follow-up to my comment above, the FFA renamed the Intra-State Commerce Freedom Act (ICFA) would also remove Federal jurisdiction for intrastate communications cable networks that don’t transmit signals accross State lines. Whole new Statewide communications companies could start up much more easily. Just think of all the various business and “start-ups” that could benifit with the ICFA. Lets get some discussion started in which we indicate and reveal many more industries that would benefit by a ICFA. How about energy companies, candy companies, Disneylands, etc, etc. What other industries would benefit from the ICFA ?
@Jack Patterson
Which article of the US constitution says that federal law prevails over states rights?
You are right about what you said…but if people who are fighting the “Evil” believe it is a “futile” to attempt to reclaim our sovereignty…then the battle is already lost. I will fight them however I can…and will not stop until the day I die if that is what it takes.
Article VI, Section 2. I only declairs that all constitutional laws shall be the supreme law of the land. This is what they call the “supremacy clause.” The feds believe it says any federal law, or regulation is the supreme law without regard to anything else in the constitution. @Lou
Would you surrender to a tyrant? What stops the Oblamer right now from declaring marial law and declaring himself permanent president ? The same influence that gave the Japanese government reason to not do a land invasion of the USA : too many rifles in the hands of the population…..Oblamer the Obama planned to use the BORDER WALKING RIFLES scheme as an excuse to regulate with much greater control of firearms….the guns used in Mexico would have been his excuse….tyrants abound…see the congress and the debt…listen to the demand for MORE TAXES AND MORE SPENDING…promises to cut later….tyrants of power sucking ……….