The Fabric for the Federal Goverment vs the states continues to deteriorate

[SUBMAN1]

It is Montana this time:

-S


House shoots down federal gun controls
Posted on Feb. 14
By KAHRIN DEINES of the Associated Press



HELENA (AP) - Montana lawmakers fired another shot in battles for states’ rights as they supported 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.

“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. The wilderness guide from Livingston defeated Republican incumbent Bruce Malcolm in last spring’s election.
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.”

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

House Republicans were joined by 14 Democrats in passing the measure.

“I would hope that our U.S. Supreme Court would begin to retreat from what I think is an abusive interpretation of our interstate commerce clause,” said Rep. Deborah Kottel, a Democrat from Great Falls who supports the measure.

That clause in the U.S. Constitution grants Congress authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the states. The Supreme Court has handled cases seeking to limit the clause’s application in recent years. In 2005, the court upheld federal authority to regulate marijuana under the clause, even when its use is limited to noncommercial purposes n such as medical reasons n and it is grown and used within a state’s borders.

The Montana bill follows fears here and elsewhere that the election of Barack Obama as president will trigger more gun regulation. In the months before Obama’s inauguration, Montanans rushed to stock up on guns, pushing gun sales beyond normal benchmarks despite the recession.

Opponents of the measure worry lax regulations in the state could lead to a similar surge in both gun sales and gun manufacturing.

“Who are we bringing in and is this the kind of business we want to have in this state?” asked Rep. Sue Malek, D-Missoula. “I want our state to be recognized as a state that cares about people, and that cares about the environment.”

The bill is one of a number the Legislature is considering that may extend gun rights in Montana.

Earlier in the week, the House passed another measure, HB228, that would let Montanans carry concealed weapons in city limits without having permits.

On Saturday the House Judiciary Committee narrowly passed a resolution that affirms Montanans’ right to carry weapons in national parks and wildlife refuges.

http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2...bnews/br26.txt

[GoldenRivet]

responsible gun ownership is the Cornerstone of American Liberty.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

responsible gun ownership is the Cornerstone of American Liberty.

True, but even though firearms is the subject of the bill, it is not what the bill is about. This is what the bill is about:


“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.”

-S

[CaptainHaplo]

I am greatly encouraged by this. First let me point out it was a DEMOCRAT speaking on this - it goes to show that you cannot define a person by the letter beside their name, but by the view of government they hold. So kudos go to those who supported this.

I am telling you all - this is just one more shot across the bow of the federal government. Its going to continue to escalate.

States are realizing that without all the unfunded mandates - and not having to send tax money to DC - they could be doing alot more of the things THEY wanted to without having to answer to big brother. The time is coming that there is going to be a really big change in the way our country does things - and a return to what the nation was founded on.

Good find!

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

responsible gun ownership is the Cornerstone of American Liberty.

Cornerstone?
I'd say the entire Bill of Rights fits that label.

Originally Posted by Tchocky

Cornerstone?
I'd say the entire Bill of Rights fits that label.

Only if you are not fixated on killing other people.

[August]

Originally Posted by Bewolf

Only if you are not fixated on killing other people.

What makes you foreign guys think you know better?

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by August

What makes you foreign guys think you know better?

I'd like to know that too?

Jealousy of our independence and freedom is the only thing I can think of as the real reason.

-S

[Sailor Steve]

WOW! I've missed so much!

Originally Posted by Tchocky

Cornerstone?
I'd say the entire Bill of Rights fits that label.

The Bill of Rights is just a statement of rights that the government is not supposed to be allowed to touch. The Second Amendment is just the numbering of one of those rights. The actual gun ownership is indeed the cornerstone of all freedoms, simply because the Founders recognized that it was private ownership of personal arms that enabled us to fight against tyranny in the first place - real or percieved.

The actual shooting started when the Royal Governor of Massachussetts sent troops to confiscate the contents of a militia armory, including cannons. So the Revolution actually started as a gun-control issue. You can't get much more 'cornerstone' than that.

And as for police 'protection', there has been more than one case in the courts in which people have tried to sue the police for not responding in time to save lives or property, and the verdict has always been the same: the police have no legal obligation to actually protect citizens from crime, and cannot be taken to court for failing to do so.

I'd rather depend on a .45 than a 911 call to save me and mine from intruders, thank you.

[Max2147]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

WOW! I've missed so much!

The Bill of Rights is just a statement of rights that the government is not supposed to be allowed to touch. The Second Amendment is just the numbering of one of those rights. The actual gun ownership is indeed the cornerstone of all freedoms, simply because the Founders recognized that it was private ownership of personal arms that enabled us to fight against tyranny in the first place - real or percieved.

The actual shooting started when the Royal Governor of Massachussetts sent troops to confiscate the contents of a militia armory, including cannons. So the Revolution actually started as a gun-control issue. You can't get much more 'cornerstone' than that.

And as for police 'protection', there has been more than one case in the courts in which people have tried to sue the police for not responding in time to save lives or property, and the verdict has always been the same: the police have no legal obligation to actually protect citizens from crime, and cannot be taken to court for failing to do so.

I'd rather depend on a .45 than a 911 call to save me and mine from intruders, thank you.

The 2nd Amendment wasn't meant to protect the people from the government, it was meant to protect the country (government included) from foreign invaders. We didn't have a standing army at the time, so we needed a militia to protect the country, and that militia needed to be armed for obvious reasons.

Nowadays militias are illegal. If you started a militia with an armory today, it would be legal for the government to shut you down and confiscate your guns, even with the 2nd Amendment.

If an American government really wanted to become a dictatorship, they would be able to do it even with the 2nd Amendment. A bunch of handguns won't stop a determined dictator with the military on their side. Red Dawn was a great movie, but so was Seven Days in May.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Max2147

The 2nd Amendment wasn't meant to protect the people from the government, it was meant to protect the country (government included) from foreign invaders. We didn't have a standing army at the time, so we needed a militia to protect the country, and that militia needed to be armed for obvious reasons.

Not even remotely true. There were no armed invaders in 1775 - you're forefathers staged a revolution against their rightful, god-given government. A standing army was one of the things they feared the most, and we didn't even have one for another eighty years. It turns out they were wrong, at least so far.

Nowadays militias are illegal. If you started a militia with an armory today, it would be legal for the government to shut you down and confiscate your guns, even with the 2nd Amendment.

And that's one of the things that is wrong with the country today. I agree we don't need private militias, and they didn't then either; but a state militia is not a bad thing.

If an American government really wanted to become a dictatorship, they would be able to do it even with the 2nd Amendment. A bunch of handguns won't stop a determined dictator with the military on their side. Red Dawn was a great movie, but so was Seven Days in May.

And that again is one of the problems, not the solution. And Red Dawn was an awful movie.

Do you really think the state restrains itself out of fear of armed violence? Regardless of gun ownership laws, the state still has the overwhelming advantage in firepower. The people can respond with armed violence, but it would just be suicide.

Better to not respond at all? Better to not stand against a dictator? The Founders knew that if they lost that war they would all hang. They stood against what they percieved as tyrrany anyway. Do you believe we should lie down and let them roll over us?

Besides, according to Weber's widely accepted definition, a state must have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force in order to exist. So by admitting that a use of force outside of the state's control would be somehow legitimate, a state ceases to exist as a state.

This state derives its just powers "from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it..."

They knew then what you have apparently forgotten - that any government can turn tyrannical, and for the people to be armed is the only guarantee we have that that can happen. True, with today's military it is harder, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be ready to try if necessary.

You do have a point that the ultimate power the people have is to bring down the government. But in the US Constitution that power is granted by elections, not by the 2nd Amendment.

Hitler was elected by popular vote. Not picking on my German cousins, just pointing out a fact.

The belief that private citizens armed with guns can save themselves against the might of a state intent on taking away their liberty is an egotistical delusion. I've studied plenty of dictatorships, and I don't know of a single case where private gun ownership did anything to stop an infringement on liberty. A dictatorship rises or falls based on its relation to the military, not gun toting citizens.

Then you must have missed the French Resistance. The first thing the Nazis did with every country they conquered was to start registering guns, and then cofiscating them. The biggest thorn in their side was underground groups blowing up bridges with illegal <gasp> explosives.

You advocate giving up the only possible chance to defend myself on the grounds that I'm delusional and it would be suicide to even try. I try not to get this personal when I post, but you frighten me more than any illegal militia. And I don't support them at all.

[Max2147]

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

responsible gun ownership is the Cornerstone of American Liberty.

I know my view won't be popular here, but I've just never understood statements like that.

I understand why people like their guns. I'm from a rural state, I know plenty of hunters, and I go to school in DC so I certainly understand why somebody might want one for self-defense.

But as THE cornerstone of American liberty? I just don't get it. I've been to plenty of countries with very restrictive gun laws, and I certainly haven't felt less free because of it. In fact, I feel more free in a country where the gun laws are so restrictive that the regular police don't even carry guns. To me a fair and open judicial system where I can effectively defend myself against the government is far more important to my liberty, not to mention the power to legally overthrow my government via the ballot box.

Now I'm not necessarily in favor of further gun control. But I think it ought to be seen as a crime issue, not a liberty issue.

And yes, I'm aware that I probably just kicked a hornets' nest.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

responsible gun ownership is the Cornerstone of American Liberty.

I'd say GR is right on the money with this one. Some of you have valid points concerning "cornerstone-ness ", but consider this;

The cornerstone of any nation is violence, and the threat of violence. If you break a law, you go to jail. No violence there, necessarily. But if you resist the authority of the state to put you in jail, you get violence. Sometimes lethal violence.
If a state attacks another state, violence does the talking.

The U.S. was conceived from tyranny. Or percieved tyranny, if you're loyalist.
The Bill of Rights is a list of protections of freedoms. Limitation on government.
However, if the government attempts to violate those freedoms, the people have the threat of armed violence with which to respond.

That it is why it is the cornerstone. No matter what the state tries to do, the people have the power to bring it down. It is the single greatest freedom gauranteed by the Bill of Rights. No other right protects the people from tyranny as much as that one, and as long as it is "not infringed" upon, the other rights can be defended.

[Max2147]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

I'd say GR is right on the money with this one. Some of you have valid points concerning "cornerstone-ness ", but consider this;

The cornerstone of any nation is violence, and the threat of violence. If you break a law, you go to jail. No violence there, necessarily. But if you resist the authority of the state to put you in jail, you get violence. Sometimes lethal violence.
If a state attacks another state, violence does the talking.

The U.S. was conceived from tyranny. Or percieved tyranny, if you're loyalist.
The Bill of Rights is a list of protections of freedoms. Limitation on government.
However, if the government attempts to violate those freedoms, the people have the threat of armed violence with which to respond.

That it is why it is the cornerstone. No matter what the state tries to do, the people have the power to bring it down. It is the single greatest freedom gauranteed by the Bill of Rights. No other right protects the people from tyranny as much as that one, and as long as it is "not infringed" upon, the other rights can be defended.

Do you really think the state restrains itself out of fear of armed violence? Regardless of gun ownership laws, the state still has the overwhelming advantage in firepower. The people can respond with armed violence, but it would just be suicide.

Besides, according to Weber's widely accepted definition, a state must have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force in order to exist. So by admitting that a use of force outside of the state's control would be somehow legitimate, a state ceases to exist as a state.

You do have a point that the ultimate power the people have is to bring down the government. But in the US Constitution that power is granted by elections, not by the 2nd Amendment.

If the United States ever gets to the point where private gun ownership is the only thing between us and tyranny, then it's too late. The belief that private citizens armed with guns can save themselves against the might of a state intent on taking away their liberty is an egotistical delusion. I've studied plenty of dictatorships, and I don't know of a single case where private gun ownership did anything to stop an infringement on liberty. A dictatorship rises or falls based on its relation to the military, not gun toting citizens.

[UnderseaLcpl]

@Max2147

I typed a reply but then I had a browser failure and I lost it.
I'll edit a new reply into this space.