New Montana Gun laws

[909bowsniper]

I have noticed in recent weeks that other states have signed on to this bill, such as Alaska, where it has passed the House there, and other states like Texas, now Tenn. South Dakota, and Wyoming are contemplating such action.
If you live in one of those states where this bill was or islaw, would you specifically purchase your gun in your home state to circumvent federal regulation.
This is Alaska's version of the bill, it is pretty much the same as Montana.

CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 186(FIN) am
01 "An Act declaring that certain firearms and accessories are exempt from federal
02 regulation."
03 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF ALASKA:
04 * Section 1. The uncodified law of the State of Alaska is amended by adding a new section
05 to read:
06 FINDINGS. The legislature finds that the authority for this Act is the following:
07 (1) the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees
08 to the states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in
09 the constitution and reserves to the state and people of Alaska certain powers as they were
10 intended at the time that Alaska was admitted to statehood in 1959; the guaranty of those
11 powers is a matter of contract between the state and people of Alaska and the United States as
12 of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Alaska
13 and the United States in 1959;
14 (2) the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees
01 to the people rights not granted in the constitution and reserves to the people of Alaska certain
02 rights as they were intended at the time that Alaska was admitted to statehood in 1959; the
03 guaranty of those rights is a matter of contract between the state and people of Alaska and the
04 United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and
05 adopted by Alaska and the United States in 1959;
06 (3) the regulation of intrastate commerce is vested in the states under the
07 Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, particularly if not
08 expressly preempted by federal law; the United States Congress has not expressly preempted
09 state regulation of intrastate commerce pertaining to the manufacture on an intrastate basis of
10 firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition;
11 (4) the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reserves to
12 the people the right to keep and bear arms as that right was intended at the time that Alaska
13 was admitted to statehood in 1959, and the guaranty of the right is a matter of contract
14 between the state and people of Alaska and the United States as of the time that the compact
15 with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Alaska and the United States in 1959;
16 (5) art. I, sec. 19, Constitution of the State of Alaska clearly secures to Alaska
17 citizens and prohibits government interference with the right of individual Alaska citizens to
18 keep and bear arms.
19 * Sec. 2. AS 44.99 is amended by adding a new section to read:
20 Article 5. Alaska Firearms Freedom Act.
21 Sec. 44.99.500. State policy, declarations, and requirements concerning
22 certain firearms not in interstate commerce and not subject to federal regulation.
23 (a) A personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured
24 commercially or privately in this state and that remains in the state is not subject to
25 federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of the
26 United States Congress to regulate interstate commerce as those items have not
27 traveled in interstate commerce.
28 (b) This section applies to a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that
29 is manufactured in this state from basic materials and that can be manufactured
30 without the inclusion of any significant parts imported from another state. Generic and
31 insignificant parts that have other manufacturing or consumer product applications are
01 not firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition, and their importation into this state
02 and incorporation into a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured in
03 this state does not subject the firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition to federal
04 regulation. Basic materials, such as unmachined steel and unshaped wood, are not
05 firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition and are not subject to congressional
06 authority to regulate firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition under interstate
07 commerce as if they were actually firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition. The
08 authority of the United States Congress to regulate interstate commerce in basic
09 materials does not include authority to regulate firearms, firearm accessories, and
10 ammunition made in this state from those materials. Firearm accessories that are
11 imported into this state from another state and that are subject to federal regulation as
12 being in interstate commerce do not subject a firearm to federal regulation under
13 interstate commerce because they are attached to or used in conjunction with a firearm
14 in this state.
15 (c) A firearm manufactured or sold in this state and not subject to federal
16 regulation under this section must have the words "Made in Alaska" clearly stamped
17 on a central metallic part, such as the receiver or frame.
18 (d) The attorney general may defend a citizen of this state who is prosecuted
19 by the government of the United States under the congressional power to regulate
20 interstate commerce for violation of a federal law concerning the manufacture, sale,
21 transfer, or possession of a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured
22 and retained within this state.
23 (e) In this section,
24 (1) "firearm accessory" means an item that is used in conjunction with
25 or mounted on a firearm but is not essential to the basic function of a firearm,
26 including a telescopic or laser sight, magazine, flash or sound suppressor, folding or
27 aftermarket stock and grip, speedloader, ammunition carrier, and light for target
28 illumination;
29 (2) "generic and insignificant parts" includes springs, screws, nuts, and
30 pins;
31 (3) "manufactured" means a firearm, a firearm accessory, or
01 ammunition that has been created from basic materials for functional usefulness,
02 including forging, casting, machining, or other processes for working materials.
03 * Sec. 3. The uncodified law of the State of Alaska is amended by adding a new section to
04 read:
05 APPLICABILITY. AS 44.99.500, added by sec. 2 of this Act, applies to firearms,
06 firearm accessories, and ammunition that are manufactured and retained in this state after
07 October 1, 2009.

[burniegoeasily]

Each and every state, well except for the stupid liberal states, need to do this on a large scale. Fight back to regain states rights. Here in Texas, I feel we would gladly give back any and all fed funds to be left alone.

[James B]

If thirty Four states could get together on any constitutional issue they could take State rights back Fast. They could call for a constitutional congress and threat to revoke the income tax. It would take 2/3 of the states to do it. It would end the power of the fed in a hurry. They would not have to even do it, just show them that they could. It could be a gun law or some other issue completely.

The Judge on FOX does not think this gun law can pass as written.

[thndrchiken]

They already know it won't pass as written, it is being done to wake people up and to advise the Fed that they are overreaching.

[909bowsniper]

ORIGINAL: thndrchiken

They already know it won't pass as written, it is being done to wake people up and to advise the Fed that they are overreaching.

But, it already has passed and was signed by the Governer of Montana on April 15, 2009, it is Montana State law. The bill in Alaska is almost word for word the same as ther bill passed and signed into law in Montana...I do believe that many more States will pass this...JMO

[Lemaitre]

States can pass legislation exempting themselves from Federal authority but whether it will mean anything or not will be up to the courts. I think there is practically zero chance that the Supreme Court would rule that individual states can enact legislation exempting themselves from provisions of Federal law. During the 1960s some southern states had state laws essentially saying they did not have to submit to Federal laws requiring them to respect the civil rights of all Americans regardless of race. The courts ruled in favor of the Federal Government. Furthermore,The Federal Government went as far as sending Federal troops to some states to insure that Federal law rather than state law prevailed. I have little doubt that the Supreme Court would reaffirm the ultimate authority of Federal law over state laws and the Federal Government would again take whatever steps it had to to compel state compliance.

[kevin1]

ORIGINAL: Lemaitre

States can pass legislation exempting themselves from Federal authority but whether it will mean anything or not will be up to the courts. I think there is practically zero chance that the Supreme Court would rule that individual states can enact legislation exempting themselves from provisions of Federal law. During the 1960s some southern states had state laws essentially saying they did not have to submit to Federal laws requiring them to respect the civil rights of all Americans regardless of race. The courts ruled in favor of the Federal Government. Furthermore,The Federal Government went as far as sending Federal troops to some states to insure that Federal law rather than state law prevailed. I have little doubt that the Supreme Court would reaffirm the ultimate authority of Federal law over state laws and the Federal Government would again take whatever steps it had to to compel state compliance.

If my state follows the lead of the others all I've got to say is "Bring it on, you federal douchebags! I've got better camo and know the local woods way better than you do." [:@]

[909bowsniper]

I live in California...and if you go to the California DOJ website one of the items that you will read there...concerning weapons is this.
All California enacted gun laws supercede any Federal Law.
Granted California would never pass anything like this, they still supercede the Federal system in alot of ways, and they put it in writing, or maybe thet just say they will...there is no test of that statement here in California...the true test of this bill/lawwill be when this goes to the Supreme Court...the more States that sign on to this bill in the meantime the harder it will be for the Feds to knock it down...

Just like the State of California passed the medical pot bill, and the Feds said...you can't do that...well, it's still California law to this day...and that law was passed 2-3years ago.

Myself, I would diffently consider moving to a State that stands up for our 2nd Amendment rights over one that doesn't...will I exit California....you bet!

[James B]

Yeah, several states are adopting the same law but Montana will get the first crack at the courts. And it's true, it is more of a test than a actual gun law. The long range idea is to test the overall constitutional right of the feds pushing laws on the states that are not sanctioned by the constitution. Also for several states to file cases at the same time in the higher courts. One reason that more conservatives didn't want osama appointing new supreme court judges. But they got their puppet and i hope they are happy with his mess

[Canuck_Buck]

once again JB nails it right, it happens up here with our provinces vs feds. when you take fed money they start to think they own you, and when you develop a dependency on those funds well you just better obey or else...God Damn the pusherman...the libby feds dish out money like it is free and they are doing u a great service, but they most certainly just bought you.