What's new
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

and the fight begins....

HELENA — Montana doesn't have the authority to exempt itself from national gun control laws, the federal government argued in new court filings, hoping to beat back a movement from states adopting the Firearms Freedom Act.

The Department of Justice, in a brief filed this week in U.S. District Court in Missoula, said that federal gun control is a "valid exercise of Congress' commerce power under the Constitution."

The agency asked a judge to dismiss a lawsuit filed last year by gun advocates in Montana who argued the state should decide which rules, if any, would control the sale and purchase of guns and paraphernalia made in Montana. The state would then be exempt from rules on federal gun registration, background checks and dealer-licensing.

The lawsuit followed overwhelming support in the state Legislature for an act that declared Montana's sovereignty on the issue. That Montana Firearms Freedom Act was subsequently signed by Gov. Brian Schweitzer.

Gun advocates want a court declaration preventing federal agents from enforcing federal gun laws on Montana-made equipment. They said it's disappointing the Justice Department would seek a dismissal of the suit rather than arguing its merits.

"The first import of this response is that the legal game is now on," said Gary Marbut of the Montana Shooting Sports Association.

Tennessee adopted a clone of the Montana act, which has been proposed in many other states.

The Justice Department argued in its brief that the state act is pre-empted by federal gun control. It also said the advocates don't have standing to bring the lawsuit.

The brief said the 1934 National Firearms Act was first put in place to regulate guns that could be "used readily and efficiently by criminals or gangsters."

Congress followed it in 1968 with a gun control act aimed at decreasing serious crime, and further strengthened its control over interstate commerce, the brief points out.

Those laws and others all mean to keep tabs on guns that easily pass between state borders, the Justice Department argued.

"To achieve this goal, Congress put in place a comprehensive scheme to regulate the movement of firearms in commerce," the government lawyers wrote in their brief.

keep in mind we passed this legislation looking for the fight......
 
States rights are waning, while federal gov't and its power over states grows. It's a saddening trend, and I'm not just talking about this specific issue. Across the board the fed gov't is doing this on many issues. :censor:
 
Good to hear. Bring on the fight. Just because the federal government wants more control doesn't mean we should give it to them. We are the people, we should decide how much power they should have. Not them and thier lawyers with obscure scenarios of how the sale of guns falls under commerce. The act of sale falls under control. The right of ownership does not. Which of the two takes precidence? An act or a right?

Sale to a felon, sure I can buy that. Sale to a citizen, you have no authority to limit sale on something they have a right to posses.
 
actually the feds only have control over a felony that has federal jurisdiction.....a Montana citizen that only committed a felony that broke Montana law can petition the MT court for his gun rights back......they are usually returned in non-violet felonies.....not so much with the violent ones......

---------- Post added at 07:31 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:24 AM ----------

sale of guns does fall under commerce......HOWEVER via the Constitution only interstate sales should fall under the jurisdiction of the feds but due to some crappy Supreme Court rulings from 60 years ago or so the feds think they get to control anything that could possibly cross state lines....one of these decisions is Wickard v. Filburn

From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision that dramatically increased the power of the federal government to regulate economic activity. A farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat to feed his chickens. The U.S. government had imposed limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to drive up wheat prices during the Great Depression, and Filburn was growing more than the limits permitted. Filburn was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine.

The Supreme Court, interpreting the United States Constitution's Commerce Clause (which permits the United States Congress to "regulate Commerce . . . among the several States") decided that, because Filburn's wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, and because wheat was traded nationally, Filburn's production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce, and so could be regulated by the federal government.

the feds are arguing that since a rifle sold to one person can enter interstate commerce via that person selling it to a third party that they have jurisdiction.....
 
Texas will just become its own country. Just kidding, but not really ;)
 
this is another one of those " topics ". I dont really enjoy getting into these debates on TF since I come here for relaxation instead of the normal debates that are constantly going on news programs and etc.

how hypocritical of me though becuase I'm about to state my opinion on the matter and I'm about... ehhh 250% sure that its an unpopular one...so Im going to do my best not to return to the thread for more debating.. :p

but nonetheless in my opinion i believe that all guns that can be concealed should be illegal. basically all handguns and pistols. I believe everyone has the right to own a gun for sport/hunting and even self defense of their own property. I dont believe they should be legally allowed to be carried around "willy nilly" however. you can defend your house with a rifle or a shotgun.

but then what about all the gangsters and people who already have pistols or would obtain them illegally right? well... the only reason thats an issue to the degree that it is today in the US is becuase they were legal in the first place. someones gotta make the first step.

obviously police, security and military would be excempt from this...

pistols and handguns were made to kill people and be carried around all the time with ease... i think thats ridiculous.

I know its an unpopular stance...just sharing my 2 cents.
 
this is another one of those " topics ". I dont really enjoy getting into these debates on TF since I come here for relaxation instead of the normal debates that are constantly going on news programs and etc.

how hypocritical of me though becuase I'm about to state my opinion on the matter and I'm about... ehhh 250% sure that its an unpopular one...so Im going to do my best not to return to the thread for more debating.. :p

but nonetheless in my opinion i believe that all guns that can be concealed should be illegal. basically all handguns and pistols. I believe everyone has the right to own a gun for sport/hunting and even self defense of their own property. I dont believe they should be legally allowed to be carried around "willy nilly" however. you can defend your house with a rifle or a shotgun.

but then what about all the gangsters and people who already have pistols or would obtain them illegally right? well... the only reason thats an issue to the degree that it is today in the US is becuase they were legal in the first place. someones gotta make the first step.

obviously police, security and military would be excempt from this...

pistols and handguns were made to kill people and be carried around all the time with ease... i think thats ridiculous.

I know its an unpopular stance...just sharing my 2 cents.


I'll risk being unpopular by agreeing with you :) I TOTALLY agree, but the one huge road block we'll always run into is that not everyone plays fair, therefore I have a right to defend myself with a concealed weapon. I do strongly advocate the right though to defend your home. And being that I am from Texas and live in a small town, you can bet that I get flack for this one.

Phil
 
thank god the Supreme Court dont agree with you.....in the right circumstances i can conceal most of my hunting rifles without to much fuss......cracked most of us up after Columbine when our school said it was going to crack down.....had we wanted to we coulda got our 12 gauges with their 28 inch barrels into the school without being noticed quite easily.....the only gun ive come across that i would have a hard time getting into a school or most anywhere unnoticed is an Armalite AR-50 single shot, bolt action 50BMG but its 5 feet long and 40 pounds.....i can get most any hunting rifle with a 24 inch barrel into most anyplace i want, aint hard to conceal if yah know how.....

Montana only has concealed carry laws inside city limits, once you leave city limits you can carry concealed without a permit if you can legally own the handgun.....no big deal to get the sheriff to sign off on you getting a concealed carry permit anyway.....open carry where everyone can see is also perfectly legal by anyone who can legally own the gun.....do you know why breakins when ppl are home are rare in Montana? cause there are more guns than ppl in the state and we can use deadly force if nessisary, criminals know this and tend to wait for you to leave to break in....

also the cops dont care, when i was 16 i got pulled over for a taillight being out, i was coming home from my uncles ranch where i had been shooting ground squirrels all day, had 6 rifles laying on the back seat, highway ptrol gave me a warning, didnt mention the rifles though he saw them, didnt even ask if they were loaded cause had they been i woulda still been legal....

you figure i live in a county bigger than the state of Rhode Island and at any one time might have 8 or 9 cops on duty, even living in town if you call 911 it may take 10-30 minutes for a cop to show up, its just understood that your allowed to defend yourself.......cops are for picking up the pieces after crap has gone wrong, they arent responsible, legally or otherwise, for preventing anything....
 
would you agree its much more difficult for most people to conceal a rifle or shotgun than a handgun?

little kids have been known to bring handguns from parents houses and put them in their backpack and they wind up at schools, now I know this is a rare circumstance and a product of the parents stupidity, but admit that it'd be impossible to pull off with a shotgun or rifle...

I believe illegalizing handguns entirely would save more lives than it would hinder... and therefor is a better option period.

you can defend your home with a rifle or shotgun quite adequately i believe so I'm not trying to take that away from you.. I also think your forgetting that most people in this country dont live in the most rural state in the US. if you got pulled over where I'm at with a gun in the car no matter what type you'd be questioned heavily... and I live in kansas which is more rural than most states as it is...

I still can't find a good reason for the average person to need a pistol on them in public or really at all...

the whole "not everyone plays fair" issue is really the heart of the problem for the average person... the oh no but if the bad guys have weapons then so should we!. illegalizing handguns would take time to get all of them back out of the hands that currently own them but with time... most of them could be taken out of peoples hands...

again I think it'd save more lives than it would hurt. seems like a pretty easy decision in my opinion...
 
  • #10
no it wouldnt, notice how most the shootings keep happening in "gun free zones" Columbine, Virginia Tech, Fort Hood....all places where the average person CAN NOT carry a firearm be they rifle or handgun....criminals aint that stupid, atleast most of them.....very few of the idiots walk into a gun show and open fire cause they dont like being shot back at.....criminals prefer unarmed victims.....besides a handgun on your person is better than a shotgun in the closet....rather not carry a shotgun to the front counter when i wait on customers....
 
  • #11
haha gun free zone? its legal to carry them right outside the school, its as easy as sneaking your own pop and candy into a movie theater...

if the whole country was a gun free zone it'd be different.
 
  • #12
no it wouldnt.....see unlike you i live in the real world and realize criminals dont give a rip what the law says its what makes them criminals.....everywhere that tightens down gun control sees a rise in violent crime that doesnt go away, and im not talking just cities like Chicago, im talking entire countries like Australia which took a huge leap after the crack down and Japan which has never allowed handguns by civilians but sees more and more shootings every year....when yah loosen them violent crime drops, such as what happened in Florida in the late 80's....you cant push a button and get rid off all handguns, impossible.....look at the war on drugs, heroin is illegal, only manufactured outside the US and its use is on the rise, it aint coming from inside the US....

there will always be wolves, you can either be the sheep or the sheepdog.....be a victim or you can fight back when one comes your way....i have yet to pull my gun on any two legged varmint and hope i never do but it aint that rare for me to come across the 4 legged variety where the choice is shoot the SOB or get hurt, given i dont like always packing a rifle when walking my dog inside city limits and handgun is the best choice....have had to shoot a rabid skunk, my choice was discharge a firearm inside city limits and face a ticket or risk some kid stumbling on the sick critter and getting bit and facing a real rough medical treatment......was told by the police chief thanks for doing what needed to be done, same by the neighbors.....

in the real world words on paper dont stop criminals, bullets do......you want to be a sheep, go ahead, but being a victim aint in my nature and the facts on gun control are on my side, not yours......
 
  • #13
hey buddy I'm not attacking you. I'm merely sharing my opinion...

I understand how you feel I just feel differently. it wasn't meant to be personal.
 
  • #14
aint taking it personal.....just stating real life operates differently from what you seem to believe.....the facts of gun control favor my side of the argument, not yours....you wanna argue facts we can argue facts but arguing emotions and feelings wont get yah anywhere.....

this post is from before you became a member...unless something went haywire with your account like has happened to a few and you had to reset your account, in which case i apologize if you have seen this.....

http://www.terraforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=108093&highlight=gun+control
 
  • #15
I believe what I'm saying wouldnt work unless applied on a country wide scale, I understand you can look at... australia's whatever, or japan's whatever, or the UK's whatever to support yourself... and thats fine and dandy. I believe the USA is different...

keep in mind I'm not saying guns should be illegal. I'm saying hand guns should be illegal.

you dont think you could defend yourself or your own property with a rifle or shotgun? I think you can...

in the end your right, the vast majority of people in charge dont agree with me, but its also a heavily heated debate...and its become more and more heated and controversial as time continues right? I'm thinking as more and more of these "old ways" type people die off, and rural america becomes less and less and the new generations reach power that there will eventually be stricter gun regulations specifically on handguns...

so while I may not have the research to back up my opinion, or a majority ruling... I believe that I will within my lifetime see change on this matter... consider this my leisurely opinion on the subject and nothing of significance to those with supreme education on the matter...

" oh the times, they are a changing "

p.s. I hate these threads, I should really stop participating :\

Chris.... OUT.
 
  • #16
but your wrong, the US is not any different.....why would we be?

besides, im more likely to get shot in Chicago or DC where owning certain firearms has been illegal than i am out here in "rural America" where they are common to the point no one pays any attention to someone with one.....im statistically safer here where nearly everyone has them than in places that outlaw them.....dude, you make no sense.....
 
Back
Top