-
- Species
- Whitetails
- Rut Reporters
- Deer Camp
- Big Game
- Small Game
- Birds
- Special Methods
- Bow Hunting
- Conservation
- Heroes of Conservation
- Hero for a Day
- Outdoor Skills
- Total Outdoorsman Challenge
- Land for Sale
-
- Species
- Bass
- Trout
- More Freshwater
- Saltwater
- Catchbook
- Special Methods
- Fly Fishing
- Hook Shots
- Conservation
- Heroes of Conservation
- Hero for a Day
- Outdoor Skills
- Total Outdoorsman Challenge
- Land for Sale
-
- Health & Fitness
- F&S Adventurer
- Outdoor Skills
- Total Outdoorsman Challenge
-
- Rifles
- Shotguns
- 2nd Amendment
- SHOT Show
- Outdoor Skills
- Total Outdoorsman Challenge
AnswersASK YOUR QUESTION
Print
Email
Share
Answers
Browse By
Top Users
Q:
Has anybody else heard about the law that passed in Montana?
Basicly, ANY gun,ammo,or parts made/retained there are NOT subject to Federal Laws. What say you? Good/Bad?.Should it go national?
Question by Big O. Uploaded on May 16, 2009
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Today on Field & Stream
Loading...
Visit Our Sister Sites at Bonnier Corporation
| Enthusiast | Kiteboarding | QUAD | SKI | Skiing | Scuba Diving | Sport Diver | TransWorld Ride BMX | TransWorld Business | TransWorld Motocross | TransWorld SKATEboarding, | TransWorld SNOWboarding | TransWorld SURF | WakeBoarding | WaterSki | Warren Miller Entertainment | WindSurfing |
|---|---|
| Travel | Caribbean Travel & Life | Destination Weddings & Honeymoon | Islands | Meeting Traveler | Resorts & Great Hotels |
| Lifestyle & Shelter | Florida Travel & Life | Garden Design | Home Ft. Lauderdale | Home Miami |
| Luxury | SNOW | Spa |
| Marine | Boating Life | Cruising World | Fly Fishing in Salt Waters | Power Cruising | Marlin | Motor Boating | Sailing World | Salt Water Sportsman | Sport Fishing | Yachting | NewBoats.com | UsedBoats.com | YachtBroker.com |
| Outdoor | Field & Stream | Outdoor Life | SHOT Business |
| Parenting | Babytalk | Parenting |
| Science | Popular Science | Science Illustrated |
| Saveur | Saveur |
| Working Mother Media | Working Mother |
| Entertainment / Events | World Entertainment Services | World Sports & Marketing |
Fieldandstream.com is part of the Field & Stream Network, a division of Bonnier Corporation.
Copyright © 2012 Bonnier Corp. All Rights Reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.
Answers (15)
I say it should go national and tell the likes of ol' horse face Pelosi and dingy Harry Reid to keep their damn hands off our Second Amendment. So there the guantlet has been cast down.
Wait a minute, has Montana seceded from the union, how does a state declare they are no longer subject to the laws of the country? Can I declare I that I no longer am subject to the laws of our government and stop paying taxes? First of all big O I would like to see some proof or evidence that this story is true, second I think it starts us down dangerous a slippery slope. If this first, what next, can we just out of the blue decide what laws we wish to follow and which ones we choose to ignore? What if Utah wants to make Mormonism the state religion? Or Mississippi wants to re-enact slavery? First of all I don't entirely believe the statement and second, if it is true I think it sets a dangerous precedent.
It is set to become law in Montana on Oct. 1st.
And it all goes back to the 1940's commerce law that was passed, that basicly said that Congress can tell individual states what they can and can't do.
Funny you brought Utah up, they along with Texas, and I believe New Mexico are in the process of enacting this law in there own states as "we speak".
My question to you sir, is why is it a dangerous precdent to FINALY tell "BIG GOVERNMENT" where to step off.(Like oh I don't know, OUR SECOND AMMENDMENT RIGHTS. I look forward to your responce sir.
I've read about the Montana issue, hope they do. To me it goes back to 'states rights' issue, the right to govern oneself. It's more complicated than that but it does seem Washington is trying its best to erase the borders and we be ruled from them, all the while our state capitol and local representatives have no real authority.
golfing sportsman-
The real story here is the federal constitution.
The Constitution spells out a series of powers held by federal government (signing treaties, declaring war, regulating interstate commerce, etc...)
Then it specifically says that all the powers not explicitly given to the federal government are reserved for the states.
So, you might be wondering, how can the feds regulate guns when "gun regulation" is not one of the powers explicitly given to them?
Interstate commerce is how. Basically every gun made crosses a state line at some point, that makes it interstate commerce, and that's where the feds have derived their gun-regulating power.
(this also how they justify their power to do about 98% of the other things they do)
So, in theory, if a gun never leaves the state, then the feds have no power to regulate it.
In my opinion the catch will be in the gun's parts. Did the steel in the receiver come from Pennsylvania? did the walnut wood in the stock come from Kentucky? It would be rather hard to build a gun ENTIRELY in one state.
Though, the real question is what "BIG GOVERNMENT" federal regulation regulation needs to be "step[ped] off"?
Background checks?
Full-Auto Ban?
are you really sure you want child molesters running around with MP5's?
Can you think of a federal gun regulation in place right now that is really all that bad for you and me?
I like it. More guns should be made there. Can anyone say Montana Rifles? Soon we'll have Montana Assault Rifles.
I love it, I heard about it on talk radio last week and fully support it. The Feds should stay out of states rights. They only have the power as mentioned above to declare war, set taxes, etc etc. I really think they should stay out of the states right to decide moral or ehics for a state. Look at Gay marrage for example. I am not a supporter but there are several states more liberal than the one I live in and if they can legalize that then I say let the state have the final say on guns, ammo, alcohol, and speed limits, just to name a few. It really ticks me off when we force 18 year olds to go to Iraq and can't even buy them a beer when they get back because its not legal for 3 more years. WHAT SAY YOU?
Brad-
I fully get your point, but what federal gun regulation are you chaffing so badly under right now?
All of the gun regulations that I get worked up about are at the state and local level.
Shane-
I take it that you are opposed to the full auto ban then?
There is no so-called "assault weapons ban" currently in place at the federal level. (banning semi autos that are scarier looking than the amount of scariness that congress has deemed acceptable)
So, you are hoping for real assault rifles then? (aka full auto's)
we are trying to do the same thing here in alaska...
Ken, thank you so much for clarifying. I hadn't realized that was how the government regulated arms, I didn't know the details behind how it worked. My concern wasn't so much with this particular legislation as it is meant to protect our (those of the people of Montana) 2nd amendment rights. My concern is with the next state that uses this precedent to infringe on peoples rights per my example of Utah and state religion. I am all for personal rights and minimum government, but I also believe that this is a big complex country and society, the most important country in the world and the one with the biggest problems and we are in an economic and social place right now where laze faire ideas will not work. I think we need to stand tall together or fall away individually.
Was a ban, and with the president,congress, and senate we've got they'll try to get it started again.
As a matter of fact the Dem. congresswoman from N.Y. has already said that she's going to do it.
Oh, by the way Barney Franks also asking for "us" to give a "Bail-out" to the state of California due to there inability to run there "own" finances.
damn, it is good to live in Montana. the issue is all about the constitution and states' rights. the gun part of it is actually coincidental (and highly emotional). it will be years before it gets sorted out by the high court but meanwhile, keep an eye on the issues raised.
Big O-
"As a matter of fact the Dem. congresswoman from N.Y. has already said that she's going to do it."
That congresswoman (Ms. Carolyn McCarthy)is a known nut-job from NYC whose literal stated goal is to make private gun ownership illegal. Trust me, the rest of the congress does not bend to her will, far from it.
She has about as much chance of getting her agenda enacted as Ron Paul had of getting his agenda enacted when the Republicans controlled the congress.
...in other words zero
Re-post on this issue from recent question:
There are certainly people in the executive branch (Pres, A.G., etc...) who want the AWB reinstated, though it is low on their extremely long to do list.
The congressional leaders (Pelosi and Reed) don't want to touch an AWB with a 10 foot pole because they know it will get their majorities voted out of their seats come 2010.
About the only people who are really pushing for it are some crazy big city congress people who actually think it will stop gangsters from getting scary looking guns.
(as if the drive by victims cared how scary the gun used to shoot them looked...)
So overall, I'd call it possible but not likely that another AWB gets passed.
Remember two things :
1)Obama already had a perfect chance to call on congress to pass an AWB while his popularity was sky high and so was the mexican gun violence... He chose not to.
2) there were a lot of dems elected to gun owning, traditionally republican districts... They don't want to loose their seats.
...seriously, Can anyone name a federal gun regulation in place right now (not an imaginary future one) that is THAT unreasonable?
The mexican gun violence is an on going problem,the AWB is still on the table, and the next one they will be going after will be the "cop killer" fN 5.7(America's Most Wanted/John Walsh's word's not mine).
It's like that poem about the jews(Nazi Germany). They came for the gypsies, and I did nothing, they came for the ... and I did nothing, then they came for me and there was nobody left to stand up to stop them(paraphrased of course).
I was just playing on words there, mostly.
I would prefer for a full auto ban to not exist, but I'll settle and be OK with it. Full auto is fun, but unnecessary and expensive. I've fired a few guns thusly when I was younger, so it's pretty much out of my system now.
Post an Answer
I say it should go national and tell the likes of ol' horse face Pelosi and dingy Harry Reid to keep their damn hands off our Second Amendment. So there the guantlet has been cast down.
It is set to become law in Montana on Oct. 1st.
And it all goes back to the 1940's commerce law that was passed, that basicly said that Congress can tell individual states what they can and can't do.
Funny you brought Utah up, they along with Texas, and I believe New Mexico are in the process of enacting this law in there own states as "we speak".
My question to you sir, is why is it a dangerous precdent to FINALY tell "BIG GOVERNMENT" where to step off.(Like oh I don't know, OUR SECOND AMMENDMENT RIGHTS. I look forward to your responce sir.
I've read about the Montana issue, hope they do. To me it goes back to 'states rights' issue, the right to govern oneself. It's more complicated than that but it does seem Washington is trying its best to erase the borders and we be ruled from them, all the while our state capitol and local representatives have no real authority.
I love it, I heard about it on talk radio last week and fully support it. The Feds should stay out of states rights. They only have the power as mentioned above to declare war, set taxes, etc etc. I really think they should stay out of the states right to decide moral or ehics for a state. Look at Gay marrage for example. I am not a supporter but there are several states more liberal than the one I live in and if they can legalize that then I say let the state have the final say on guns, ammo, alcohol, and speed limits, just to name a few. It really ticks me off when we force 18 year olds to go to Iraq and can't even buy them a beer when they get back because its not legal for 3 more years. WHAT SAY YOU?
Wait a minute, has Montana seceded from the union, how does a state declare they are no longer subject to the laws of the country? Can I declare I that I no longer am subject to the laws of our government and stop paying taxes? First of all big O I would like to see some proof or evidence that this story is true, second I think it starts us down dangerous a slippery slope. If this first, what next, can we just out of the blue decide what laws we wish to follow and which ones we choose to ignore? What if Utah wants to make Mormonism the state religion? Or Mississippi wants to re-enact slavery? First of all I don't entirely believe the statement and second, if it is true I think it sets a dangerous precedent.
golfing sportsman-
The real story here is the federal constitution.
The Constitution spells out a series of powers held by federal government (signing treaties, declaring war, regulating interstate commerce, etc...)
Then it specifically says that all the powers not explicitly given to the federal government are reserved for the states.
So, you might be wondering, how can the feds regulate guns when "gun regulation" is not one of the powers explicitly given to them?
Interstate commerce is how. Basically every gun made crosses a state line at some point, that makes it interstate commerce, and that's where the feds have derived their gun-regulating power.
(this also how they justify their power to do about 98% of the other things they do)
So, in theory, if a gun never leaves the state, then the feds have no power to regulate it.
In my opinion the catch will be in the gun's parts. Did the steel in the receiver come from Pennsylvania? did the walnut wood in the stock come from Kentucky? It would be rather hard to build a gun ENTIRELY in one state.
Though, the real question is what "BIG GOVERNMENT" federal regulation regulation needs to be "step[ped] off"?
Background checks?
Full-Auto Ban?
are you really sure you want child molesters running around with MP5's?
Can you think of a federal gun regulation in place right now that is really all that bad for you and me?
I like it. More guns should be made there. Can anyone say Montana Rifles? Soon we'll have Montana Assault Rifles.
Brad-
I fully get your point, but what federal gun regulation are you chaffing so badly under right now?
All of the gun regulations that I get worked up about are at the state and local level.
Shane-
I take it that you are opposed to the full auto ban then?
There is no so-called "assault weapons ban" currently in place at the federal level. (banning semi autos that are scarier looking than the amount of scariness that congress has deemed acceptable)
So, you are hoping for real assault rifles then? (aka full auto's)
we are trying to do the same thing here in alaska...
Ken, thank you so much for clarifying. I hadn't realized that was how the government regulated arms, I didn't know the details behind how it worked. My concern wasn't so much with this particular legislation as it is meant to protect our (those of the people of Montana) 2nd amendment rights. My concern is with the next state that uses this precedent to infringe on peoples rights per my example of Utah and state religion. I am all for personal rights and minimum government, but I also believe that this is a big complex country and society, the most important country in the world and the one with the biggest problems and we are in an economic and social place right now where laze faire ideas will not work. I think we need to stand tall together or fall away individually.
Was a ban, and with the president,congress, and senate we've got they'll try to get it started again.
As a matter of fact the Dem. congresswoman from N.Y. has already said that she's going to do it.
Oh, by the way Barney Franks also asking for "us" to give a "Bail-out" to the state of California due to there inability to run there "own" finances.
damn, it is good to live in Montana. the issue is all about the constitution and states' rights. the gun part of it is actually coincidental (and highly emotional). it will be years before it gets sorted out by the high court but meanwhile, keep an eye on the issues raised.
Big O-
"As a matter of fact the Dem. congresswoman from N.Y. has already said that she's going to do it."
That congresswoman (Ms. Carolyn McCarthy)is a known nut-job from NYC whose literal stated goal is to make private gun ownership illegal. Trust me, the rest of the congress does not bend to her will, far from it.
She has about as much chance of getting her agenda enacted as Ron Paul had of getting his agenda enacted when the Republicans controlled the congress.
...in other words zero
Re-post on this issue from recent question:
There are certainly people in the executive branch (Pres, A.G., etc...) who want the AWB reinstated, though it is low on their extremely long to do list.
The congressional leaders (Pelosi and Reed) don't want to touch an AWB with a 10 foot pole because they know it will get their majorities voted out of their seats come 2010.
About the only people who are really pushing for it are some crazy big city congress people who actually think it will stop gangsters from getting scary looking guns.
(as if the drive by victims cared how scary the gun used to shoot them looked...)
So overall, I'd call it possible but not likely that another AWB gets passed.
Remember two things :
1)Obama already had a perfect chance to call on congress to pass an AWB while his popularity was sky high and so was the mexican gun violence... He chose not to.
2) there were a lot of dems elected to gun owning, traditionally republican districts... They don't want to loose their seats.
...seriously, Can anyone name a federal gun regulation in place right now (not an imaginary future one) that is THAT unreasonable?
The mexican gun violence is an on going problem,the AWB is still on the table, and the next one they will be going after will be the "cop killer" fN 5.7(America's Most Wanted/John Walsh's word's not mine).
It's like that poem about the jews(Nazi Germany). They came for the gypsies, and I did nothing, they came for the ... and I did nothing, then they came for me and there was nobody left to stand up to stop them(paraphrased of course).
I was just playing on words there, mostly.
I would prefer for a full auto ban to not exist, but I'll settle and be OK with it. Full auto is fun, but unnecessary and expensive. I've fired a few guns thusly when I was younger, so it's pretty much out of my system now.
Post an Answer