Feds vs Montana

[Alex Linder]

Fascist Feds try to shoot down Montana gun laws
Posted by David Kramer on July 20, 2009 05:31 AM

Mark Carroll writes:

“Recently the Montana State Legislature passed, and their Governor signed, HB 246. HB 246 declares that any guns and ammunition made and retained in Montana are not subject to ANY federal regulation under the authority of Congress to regulate commerce “among the states.” It is under the guise of regulating “interstate commerce” that the Feds have stuck their nose in where it doesn’t belong and claimed authority they do not have instituting all kinds of draconian gun control measures. HB 246 will become effective on October 1, 2009.

As you may have guessed, the Feds aren’t going to put up with this, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives…[has] sent letters to gun dealers in Montana telling them they don’t care about no stinking state legislation, nor do they care about the Ninth or Tenth Amendment to the Constitution.”


...


ATF to Montana: 'You will respect our authoritah!'
July 19, 10:37 AM
36 comments
ShareThis
RSS
Email
Print

On Friday, we saw the letter ATF sent to FFL dealers in Tennessee telling them the Bureau was overriding the state's Firearms Freedom Act, and would continue to impose federal requirements in disregard of state law.

They've done the same thing to Montanans.

http://www.examiner.com/x-1417-Gun-R...our-authoritah

[OTPTT]

Montana and Tennessee will have to provide protection for those people who wish to engage in the lawful production and sale of firearms under state law. This would best be done in the form of a militia, the closure of all federal ATF agencies, and the expulsion of all ATF agents in those two states.

[Alex Linder]

The Battle Begins: ATF vs the Constitution

Posted on 18 July 2009

by Bryce Shonka

A line was drawn in the sand last week - a response by the Federal Government to the State of Tennessee and their assertion of sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution.

(Editor’s note: A similar response was sent to Montana Firearms licenses on 07-16-09 as well)

Part of a series of moves by states seeking to utilize the Tenth Amendment as a limit on Federal Power, the Tennessee State Senate approved Senate Bill 1610 (SB1610), the Tennesse Firearms Freedom Act, by a vote of 22-7. The House companion bill, HB1796 previously passed the House by a vote of 87-1.

Governor Breseden allowed the bill to become law without signing.

The law states that “federal laws and regulations do not apply to personal firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition that is manufactured in Tennessee and remains in Tennessee. The limitation on federal law and regulation stated in this bill applies to a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured using basic materials and that can be manufactured without the inclusion of any significant parts imported into this state.”

At the time of passage through the TN House and Senate, Judiciary Chairman Mae Beavers had this to say-

“Be it the federal government mandating changes in order for states to receive federal funds or the federal government telling us how to regulate commerce contained completely within this state – enough is enough. Our founders fought too hard to ensure states’ sovereignty and I am sick and tired of activist federal officials and judges sticking their noses where they don’t belong.”

The Federal Government, by way of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms expressed its own view of the Tenth Amendment this week when it issued an open letter to ‘all Tennessee Federal Firearms Licensees’ in which it denounced the opinion of Beavers and the Tennessee legislature. ATF assistant director Carson W. Carroll wrote that ‘Federal law supersedes the Act’, and thus the ATF considers it meaningless.

Constitutional historian Kevin R.C. Gutzman sees this as something far removed from the founders’ vision of constitutional government:

“The letter says, in part, ‘because the Act conflicts with Federal firearms laws and regulations, Federal law supersedes the Act, and all provisions of the Gun Control Act and the National Firearms Act, and their corresponding regulations, continue to apply.’ That is precisely what I predicted the Federal Government’s response to the Tennessee act would be. As I told Judge Andrew Napolitano on Fox News’s Glenn Beck Program on June 5, 2009, federal officials don’t care about a good historical argument concerning the meaning of the Constitution.”

“Their view is that the states exist for the administrative convenience of the Federal Government, and so of course any conflict between state and federal policy must be resolved in favor of the latter.”

“This is another way of saying that the Tenth Amendment is not binding on the Federal Government. Of course, that amounts to saying that federal officials have decided to ignore the Constitution when it doesn’t suit them.”

The Federal Government has regularly claimed that the commerce clause of the constitution, which gives DC authority to regulate commerce between the states, gives them authority to regulate or add prohibitions on items that never cross state lines.

One notable use of the commerce clause in this manner can be found in the 2005 decision by the Supreme Court in ‘Gonzales vs. Raich’, where the court contended that consuming one’s locally grown marijuana for medical purposes affects the interstate market of marijuana, and hence that the federal government may regulate—and prohibit—such consumption. They used this claim, even though at the same time they made it clear that no legal market for marijuana exists.

One key aspect of the ATF’s letter is that it was only sent out to existing Federal Firearms Licensees, those generally already in compliance with federal regulations - and who likely would not have participated in the TN Firearms Freedom act anyway, according to sources close to Tenth Amendment Center.

Ultimately what the letter represents is another move in the chess match being played out between the states and the Federal Government, the resolution of which may not be seen for quite some time.

Below is the full text of the letter sent last week by the ATF:

“U.S. Department of Justice
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives
Assistant Director
OPEN LETTER TO ALL TENNESSEE
FEDERAL FIREARMS LICENSEES

The purpose of this letter is to provide guidance on your obligations as a Federal firearms licensee (”FFL”). The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (”ATF”) is dedicated to your success in meeting your requirements as a Federal firearms licensee. The following guidance is intended to assist you in accomplishing this goal.

The passage of the Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act, H.B. 1796, 106th Leg. (Tenn. 2009) 1796 (”Act”), effective June 19, 2009, has generated questions from industry members as to how this State law may affect them while engaged in a firearms business activity. The Act purports to exempt personal firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition manufactured in the State, and which remain in the State, from most Federal firearms laws and regulations. However, because the Act conflicts with Federal firearms laws and regulations, Federal law supersedes the Act, and all provisions of the Gun Control Act and the National Firearms Act, and their corresponding regulations, continue to apply.

As you may know, Federal law requires a license to engage in the business of manufacturing firearms or ammunition, or to deal in firearms, even if the firearms or ammunition remain within the same state. All firearms manufactured by a licensee must be properly marked. Additionally, each licensee must record the type, model, caliber or gauge, and serial number of each firearm manufactured or otherwise acquired, and the date such manufacture or other acquisition was made. The information required must be recorded in the licensee’s records not later than the seventh day following the date such manufacture or other acquisition was made. Firearms transaction records and NICS background checks must be conducted prior to disposition of firearms to unlicensed persons. These, as well as other Federal requirements and prohibitions, apply whether or not the firearms or ammunition have crossed state lines.

If you have any questions regarding the Federal firearms laws and regulations, please contact your local ATF office. ATF works closely with the firearms industry and appreciates the important role the industry plays in combating violent crime. A listing of ATF office phone numbers can be found at http://www.atf.gov/contact/field.htm. Carson W. Carroll, Assistant Director (Enforcement Programs and Services)”

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/...-constitution/

[Bwana]

Thank you for the link to the Tenth Amendment Center, I hadn't heard of it before. Very up to date with good opinions.

Now, these are 'laws" that Montana and Tennessee have passed, their legislatures must have expected DC to challenge them.

After reading these bills, I don't see any penalties that can be enacted against the "federal government" or their agents.

Are penalties "implied", or are the "laws" toothless?

[Rikert]

Expect the Federal Government to get VERY heavy handed with their response. The old threat of pulling Federal funding out of a state whenever it has the "audacity" to exercise its constitutional rights (pulling funding for highways if minimum drinking age isn't set at 21 for example) is no longer a tool the Feds can use to maintain control, since the Federal Government will soon be very broke (yes it technically is broke, etc). There is only one other way besides persuasion to get someone to comply with your wishes - with the application of FORCE.

[Marse Supial]

Originally Posted by Alex Linder

“This is another way of saying that the Tenth Amendment is not binding on the Federal Government. Of course, that amounts to saying that federal officials have decided to ignore the Constitution when it doesn’t suit them.”

Under current SCOTUS decisions, the 10th amendment may as well not exist. The 10th reserves to states the powers not specifically given to the federal government. But the way the commerce clause has been interpreted, i.e. that fedgov has the authority to regulate anything that even affects interstate commerce, what power hasn't been given to the federal government?

In Wickard v. Filburn the Supremes said that fedgov has the authority to prohibit a guy from growing wheat in his own back yard for his own personal consumption because his growing wheat would have an impact on the price of wheat in interstate commerce -- no matter how microscopic the impact. Following this logic, there is NO human activity that doesn't in some way impact interstate commerce.

If I could change only two things in the U.S. Constitution, it would be to repeal the commerce clause and to repeal the 16th amendment allowing income tax: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Without these, fedgov would be the weak central government the founders intended it to be.

[Alex Linder]

Originally Posted by General_Lee

Under current SCOTUS decisions, the 10th amendment may as well not exist. The 10th reserves to states the powers not specifically given to the federal government. But the way the commerce clause has been interpreted, i.e. that fedgov has the authority to regulate anything that even affects interstate commerce, what power hasn't been given to the federal government?

In Wickard v. Filburn the Supremes said that fedgov has the authority to prohibit a guy from growing wheat in his own back yard for his own personal consumption because his growing wheat would have an impact on the price of wheat in interstate commerce -- no matter how microscopic the impact. Following this logic, there is NO human activity that doesn't in some way impact interstate commerce.

If I could change only two things in the U.S. Constitution, it would be to repeal the commerce clause and to repeal the 16th amendment allowing income tax: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Without these, fedgov would be the weak central government the founders intended it to be.

Just shows that you that faith in paper or people is misplaced. There really isn't any security. People disposed to ignore the law will always find a way.

[Marse Supial]

Originally Posted by Alex Linder

People disposed to ignore the law will always find a way.

Without fail.

Originally Posted by Alex Linder

Just shows that you that faith in paper or people is misplaced. There really isn't any security.

Paper money, paper constitutions. Neither of them mean much without something backing them up. In Jefferson's day we had gold backing the money. And well armed, freedom loving white men backing the constitution. Without the backing, either of them are just so much worthless paper.