Index  •  FAQ  •  Search  

It is currently Mon Jun 25, 2018 8:01 am

This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 32 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
 Montana working on a BATF endrun 
Author Message
 Post subject: Montana working on a BATF endrun
PostPosted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:09 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 9:54 am
Posts: 5270
Location: Minneapolis
Quote:
Montana Lawmakers Approve Bill to Skip Firearms Reporting Transactions

February 23, 2009

HELENA, Mont. — The Associated Press reports that Montana lawmakers letting some Montana gun owners and dealers skip reporting their transactions to the federal government.

Under House Bill 246, firearms made in Montana and used in Montana would be exempt from federal regulation. The same would be true for firearm accessories and ammunition made and sold in the state.

The House voted 64-36 for the bill. If it clears a final vote, the measure will go to the Senate.

“What we need here is for Montana to be able to handle Montana’s business and affairs,” Republican Rep. Joel Boniek told fellow lawmakers Saturday.

Boniek’s measure aims to circumvent federal authority over interstate commerce, which is the legal basis for most gun regulation in the United States.

The bill potentially could release Montanans from both federal gun registration requirements and dealership licensing rules. Since the state has no background-check laws on its own books, the legislation also could free gun purchasers from that requirement.

“Firearms are inextricably linked to the history and culture of Montana, and I’d like to support that,” Boniek said. “But I want to point out that the issue here is not about firearms. It’s about state rights.”

_________________
I am defending myself... in favor of that!


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 2:32 pm 
Eagle-eyed watcher of legislation
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2008 2:34 pm
Posts: 185
Location: Bloomington
Gotta love all the talk about states rights.

The bill text looks like it is basically preempting any future federal firearms registration program. I was more excited at first when I thought they were giving the middle finger to the NICS and GCA of 68.

I get all warm and fuzzy when I see bills referencing the 9th and 10th amendments.

Full text
http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2009/billhtml/HB0246.htm

_________________
April 19, 1775 the strongest military in the world attacked farmers and townspeople formed as militia in Concord. One year, 3 months, and 25,000 american casualties later, we would begin forming a government based on limited powers and individual liberties.

It's your constitution. They died for it. Read it. Know it.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution ... rview.html

http://LibertyMinnesota.com


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 9:58 pm 
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 12:22 pm
Posts: 339
Location: Suburban Twin Cities, MN
So who makes guns or loads (factory) ammo in MT?
And does so without bringing in any out-of-state components?
(brass? powder?)


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 11:03 pm 
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 11:05 pm
Posts: 199
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Lawyer_in_Training wrote:
So who makes guns or loads (factory) ammo in MT?


Good question. And it begs another.

Think about all the brass and steel the east Asian heavyweights have bought out of the market in the last two years. Is that so they can cash in on the war mark up?

A lot of manufacturers nationwide are sucking it because they can't collect the spent brass off the military ranges at home anymore.

Makes one wonder what kind of position that leaves a potential Montana start up in.

_________________
"My name is Shosanna Dreyfus. This is the face of Jewish vengeance."


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 25, 2009 9:32 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 9:54 am
Posts: 5270
Location: Minneapolis
Lawyer_in_Training wrote:
So who makes guns or loads (factory) ammo in MT?

There's a couple, but imagine if MN did that. We already have DPMS and Federal Cartridge.

_________________
I am defending myself... in favor of that!


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 04, 2009 9:32 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 8:36 am
Posts: 702
Location: St. Paulish
Looks like UT may be going down this path too.

Quote:
Utah legislators eye Montana gun law
May 4th, 2009 @ 8:05am
By Andrew Adams
story link

SALT LAKE CITY -- Utah lawmakers are considering following Montana's lead and claiming state's rights in the war over gun control.

The Montana legislature passed and its governor signed into law a measure making guns that are made and kept within state boundaries exempt from federal regulations. That means they're exempt from things like background checks, licensing and registration.

Several Utah lawmakers want to do the same thing here. They say President Barack Obama and the Congress are anti-gun and will infringe on states' rights.

Rep. Carl Wimmer, R-Herriman, tells the Salt Lake Tribune he or another Utah lawmaker will introduce a similar measure next year.

Rep. Ken Sumsion, R-American Fork, told the Tribune he wishes he'd thought of it and would support such a measure "in a heartbeat."

But some legislators, like Rep. Rebecca Chavez-Houck, D-Salt Lake City, have reservations. They say Montana's law is expected to face legal challenges and they don't want the same thing to happen in Utah.

_________________
Proud owner of 2 wonderful SGH holsters.
"If man will not work, he shall not eat" (2 Th 3:14)
"If you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one" -Jesus (Luke 22:36)


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 04, 2009 9:36 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:40 pm
Posts: 2264
Location: Eden Prairie
DeanC wrote:
Lawyer_in_Training wrote:
So who makes guns or loads (factory) ammo in MT?

There's a couple, but imagine if MN did that. We already have DPMS and Federal Cartridge.


I think DPMS should try this route.

Full-auto, here we come!

-Mark


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 04, 2009 10:45 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 8:36 am
Posts: 702
Location: St. Paulish
PocketProtector642 wrote:
Looks like UT may be going down this path too.


Of course, add Texas to the list too.

Quote:
Lawmaker aims at making Texas firearms exempt from federal regulation
By ANNA M. TINSLEY
full story

A Texas lawmaker wants to further push state sovereignty from the federal government.

Rep. Leo Berman, a former Arlington mayor pro tem, has filed a bill to make guns, ammunition and gun parts that are made, sold and kept in Texas free from federal regulation.

_________________
Proud owner of 2 wonderful SGH holsters.
"If man will not work, he shall not eat" (2 Th 3:14)
"If you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one" -Jesus (Luke 22:36)


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 04, 2009 2:03 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 10:24 am
Posts: 6767
Location: Twin Cities
Sounds like time for a Constitutional amendment to properly, explicitly restrict the Commerce Clause.

_________________
* NRA, UT, MADFI certified Minnesota Permit to Carry instructor, and one of 66,513 law-abiding permit holders. Read my blog.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 04, 2009 2:28 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 10:41 am
Posts: 4468
Andrew Rothman wrote:
Sounds like time for a Constitutional amendment to properly, explicitly restrict the Commerce Clause.


BINGO!

_________________
Certified Carry Permit Instructor (MNTactics.com and ShootingSafely.com)
Click here for current Carry Classes
"There is no safety for honest men, except by believing all possible evil of evil men." - Edwin Burke


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 04, 2009 2:33 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 1:46 pm
Posts: 845
Location: Saint Paul
Andrew Rothman wrote:
Sounds like time for a Constitutional amendment to properly, explicitly restrict the Commerce Clause.


I agree wholeheartedly, but unfortunately Congress drove a coach and horses through the Commerce Clause in the 1930's, and since that time the Federal Government has far exceeded it's Constitutional authority. I would like to think differently, but I suspect that the genie is so far out the bottle that it would be an impossible task to make things right again.

Possibly when our present <s>communist, marxist, leninist regime</s> administration begins to refer to States as "colonies" might we experience another colonial uprising. :roll:


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 04, 2009 2:35 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:40 pm
Posts: 2264
Location: Eden Prairie
Traveler wrote:
Andrew Rothman wrote:
Sounds like time for a Constitutional amendment to properly, explicitly restrict the Commerce Clause.


I agree wholeheartedly, but unfortunately Congress drove a coach and horses through the Commerce Clause in the 1930's, and since that time the Federal Government has far exceeded it's Constitutional authority. I would like to think differently, but I suspect that the genie is so far out the bottle that it would be an impossible task to make things right again.

Possibly when our present <s>communist, marxist, leninist regime</s> administration begins to refer to States as "colonies" might we experience another colonial uprising. :roll:


We'll get the uprising just as soon as everybody throws both parties out and brings in Ron Paul.

I keep voting for him, too bad enough other folks don't.

-Mark


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 05, 2009 4:10 am 
Senior Member

Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 2:03 am
Posts: 227
We have one handgun manfacturer in Fridley, Magnum Research.

Any clue as to a MN version of this law?


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 05, 2009 4:45 am 
The Man
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am
Posts: 7970
Location: Minneapolis MN
12smile wrote:
We have one handgun manfacturer in Fridley, Magnum Research.

Any clue as to a MN version of this law?
No chance. You need a lege that wants to take on the Feds.

_________________
Just a guy.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 05, 2009 7:40 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 11:02 am
Posts: 1684
Location: St Louis Park
This will still leave the dealers and manufacturers in violation of federal law. The state won't have a problem, but the feds will. MT residents will buy guns in MT, be legal by MT law and get stomped on by the feds. Does the new law provide funds for the legal defense of MT residents in violation of federal law under the new MT law? That's a test case I'm not anxious to see.

_________________
Of the people, By the People, For the People. The government exists to serve us, not the reverse.

--------------------
Next MN carry permit class: TBD.

Permit to Carry MN
--------------------

jason <at> metrodefense <dot> com


Offline
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 32 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.

All times are UTC - 6 hours


 Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron


 
Index  |  FAQ  |  Search

phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group