Comments on: Gun Groups File Lawsuit to Validate Montana Firearms Freedom Act

By: mac

mac — Fri, 22 Jul 2011 15:23:19 +0000

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 ……….

By: James W.

James W. — Sat, 10 Apr 2010 03:05:31 +0000

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

By: Patrick

Patrick — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 10:49:13 +0000

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.

By: Lou

Lou — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 18:40:02 +0000

@Jack Patterson Which article of the US constitution says that federal law prevails over states rights?

By: Gary Grella

Gary Grella — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 07:27:19 +0000

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 ?

By: Gary Grella

Gary Grella — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 07:08:21 +0000

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.

By: Jack Patterson

Jack Patterson — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 14:42:26 +0000

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.

By: Kentucky Joins Movement to Resist Abuses of Commerce Clause, 2nd Amendment « The Ice Blog

Mon, 16 Nov 2009 04:19:57 +0000

[...] October, the Montana Shooting Sports Association (MSSA) and the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) filed a lawsuit in federal court in Missoula, MT to validate the principles and terms of the Montana Firearms [...]

By: Take the 10th--Please! - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine

Take the 10th--Please! - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 03:26:28 +0000

By: Kentucky Joins Movement to Resist Abuses of Commerce Clause, 2nd Amendment - Politics & Current Affairs Forum

Fri, 13 Nov 2009 14:20:48 +0000