Comments on: The Firearms Freedom Act (FFA) is sweeping the Nation.

By: GunRightsAttorneys

GunRightsAttorneys — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 17:32:09 +0000

States should control what happens within their respective borders.

By: moncler

moncler — Sat, 07 Jan 2012 21:53:15 +0000

I live in Washington State. I would love for someone to e-mail me the proposed legislation that my state has to follow the FFA. I am dieing for the day it passes here. As I own several firearms made in Washington. Every time I have brought it up the clowns in the state capitol tell me no. And I am just a voting citizen.

By: Randy Howard

Randy Howard — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 14:55:43 +0000

@ck Pass this and see how quickly someone opens up a plant to make them. It will be profitable and left alone by the feds.

By: Mrs. Silence Dogood

Mrs. Silence Dogood — Wed, 28 Sep 2011 18:53:11 +0000

I forgot to make the connection of fed interference between med cannabis and our gun rights.

By: Mrs. Silence Dogood

Mrs. Silence Dogood — Wed, 28 Sep 2011 18:50:24 +0000

The states are stepping up to reclaim their sovereignty EXCEPT when and where they want Fed interference. Like with Montana’s med cannabis law allowing it’s use!
Check out the latest govt intrusion on state’s rights. http://www.mtcia.org

By: Jeff Phillips

Jeff Phillips — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 14:00:58 +0000

One issue with this approach is that we have to have all these separate manufacturers in each state. What is a gun? Can we make “most” of a particular kind of gun in one state, “most” of a particular kind of gun in another state, and so on, trade them, and then finish the final production and stamp the state’s insignia on the gun in the state we want to sell it in?

By: Carl

Carl — Fri, 09 Sep 2011 10:18:30 +0000

@Nathan
Your comment sparked a curiosity about the legalistic definitions of the word commerce and in pursuing the idea I found an excellent article in the St. John’s law review concerning the matter.

http://www.umt.edu/law/faculty/natelson/articles/Commerce%20Clause.pdf

While it is subject to human error,(What is perfect right?) it does tend to open up the larger vista as to what the writers of the constitution meant when they included the term in the document, mercantile transactions as you point out in your post or the larger scope of economic activity as the mentioned Professor Crosskey has argued it does. I would say from the research presented, it would be very likely that a strict reading of the constitution would mean the commerce clause would indicate a very narrow definition of what commerce is.

The only thing that concerns me is the wording in HB 246 is that the bill explicitly states that the articles in question remain within the boundaries of the State of Montana to be free from any requirements. Thus, while it is not the whole kit and kaboddle, Mr. Marbut’s comment stays consistent with the wording in the bill.

I would also guess the bill was written in this way to avert a Mann Act type response, in which transportation is tied in with the commerce and thus regulated by the federal government.

By: Mark

Mark — Tue, 23 Aug 2011 02:20:18 +0000

@Steve in NC
Steve, where do you live in NC? Glen Bradley introduced ours in the NC house…do help support him at http://www.GlenBradley2012.com
NC is not the best state for this…read Article I section IV and V of the NC constitution and you’ll see why.

I live in Burlington BTW

By: CathyR

CathyR — Fri, 29 Jul 2011 18:55:53 +0000

@Nathan Excellent Deductions… and Great Comments…I could not agree more…!
Once the ‘Transaction’ is complete in whatever state your bill of sale was made… what the owner of

By: Vincent

Vincent — Wed, 20 Jul 2011 23:03:35 +0000

@Ck ever heard of gunsmiths?