No i was not lying, I am positive that it has been in front of the Supreme Court, do you have any proof otherwise?

Yes, I do. It hasn't made it past the ninth circuit of appeal. Do you understand what that means? And the first time it was challenged in federal court, it was thrown out. In other words, they sided with ATF. Do you understand what that means? If you don't, its covered in every grade school social study book.

Lastly, there not one mention of the HOUSE BILL NO. 246 or Montana firearms freedom listed at http://www.supremecourt.gov/

I mean you wonder why you get called out constantly. It just shocks me that you even wonder why.

Here is a quote from the law offices, If guns and ammunition are manufactured inside the State of Montana for sale and use inside that state then the federal firearms laws have no applicability since the federal government only has the power to control commerce across state lines. Montana has the law on their side. Since when did the USA start following their own laws especially the constitution of the USA, the very document that empowers the USA.

Section 4. Prohibitions. A personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in Montana and that remains within the borders of Montana is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce. It is declared by the legislature that those items have not traveled in interstate commerce. This section applies to a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured in Montana from basic materials and that can be manufactured without the inclusion of any significant parts imported from another state. Generic and insignificant parts that have other manufacturing or consumer product applications are not firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition, and their importation into Montana and incorporation into a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured in Montana does not subject the firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition to federal regulation. It is declared by the legislature that basic materials, such as unmachined steel and unshaped wood, are not firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition and are not subject to congressional authority to regulate firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition under interstate commerce as if they were actually firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition. The authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce in basic materials does not include authority to regulate firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition made in Montana from those materials. Firearms accessories that are imported into Montana from another state and that are subject to federal regulation as being in interstate commerce do not subject a firearm to federal regulation under interstate commerce because they are attached to or used in conjunction with a firearm in Montana.

You can sit here and try to act like your a constitution expert all you want. But the bottom line is the suite with the ATF did not stand and is under appeal.

If it was cut and dry as you claim, then why even bother with an appeal with the ninth circuit court? From what I understand, the state of montana still freely accepts money from the federal goverment. And still is in the union of the US.

The bottom line is, you said it appeared before the US sepreme court of america. You lied and did it to try to look smart. I show proof it hasn't.

Only thing you have shown is Montana law, which ATF overrides.

And for whatever reason you keep showing parts of this state law.

Again, show us where it appeared before the US Sepreme court. Your full of crap and the funny thing is your showing it more and more with every post.

This is a montana statelaw numbnuts. Again, yousaid it appeared and was upheld in the US Sepreme court. Show us where. You would think a US Sepreme court case would easily be shown.

Your either lying or your not.

Isn't it the other way around. The 10th guarantees to the states those powers which are not expressly guaranteed to the feds.

The feds have the authority to regulate interstate commerce. They do not have the authority to regulate in state commerce.

Thanks bigbulls!!! That is the way I understand it also. If it did get throwed out as you claim, its because the Feds had no leg to stand on. As I said before I appologize to the OP for getting off the subject, Im out of here!

If that is true. You may be a constitution expert and lawyer. I am not. Why did the judge of the federal district court claim lack of subject matter jurisdiction? Please teach us something.

Why did the ATF send out warnings to every FFL holder in the state of Montana? If what you say is true, there would be no need. Again, show us the way.

Then was there a need for the lawsuit period? And just to make it clear to fritz, the judge dismissed the lawsuit filed by MSSA and Gary Marbut. Not the other way around numbnuts. Look it up. So again, what are you freakin talking about fritz???

I know if I know I am in the right and operating under the law of the land, I am going to do what I want within the law. I am not going to file a lawsuit to make sure. Why is the MSSA even bothering to appeal?

If what you say is true, how are all these state laws all over our land being overturned in federal court?

Hey listen, I am all for state rights. But wishing doesn't make it so. Thats a fantasy land.

Plaintiffs filed suit in support of the law, in federal district court, on October 1, 2009. These plaintiffs are the Montana Shooting Sports Association, the Second Amendment Foundation, and MSSA president Gary Marbut. The legal complaint states that Marbut "wishes to manufacture and sell small arms and small arms ammunition to customers exclusively in Montana, pursuant to the MFFA, without complying with the NFA or the GCA, or other applicable federal laws."

On September 29, 2010, U.S. District Court Judge Donald Molloy dismissed the suit "for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim."[13]

Don't even go there to act like now you have a clue. From the start, you think it went to the US Sepreme court. Did you not post this?