More states want to bypass Federal gun laws...

[spin]

Executive Summary – There are now bills in the Texas and Alaska legislatures to exempt from Federal regulation firearms made and sold inside the respective states. The bills would not apply to firearms not made in the state or made in the state and sold outside of the state. These bills are very similar to the bill voted and signed into law in Montana. They are also similar to the bill proposed recently by Tennessee.

Texas Bill – This bill exempts from federal regulation firearms, accessories and ammunition made in the state of Texas intended for sale within Texas. This bill requires the State of Texas to pay for the defense of the Texas citizens if prosecuted by the Fed for firearms violations that this bill allows for. This means the State of Texas would throw the book at the Fed with a barrage of lawyers and seek a ruling that was favorable. It is really impossible for Texas to lose unless the Federal judges throw the case illegally.

The constitution has no provision for Federal gun control and to the contrary provides for gun ownership rights. These rights are specifically intended for military weapons, not hunting guns as one can glean from the use of the term “militia”. Militia is not a word used to describe foxhunts. If Texas got their favorable ruling they would attempt to use this to recover legal fees from the Fed. The decision would also be used to cookie cutter more favorable judgments. When other states saw this they too would pass similar laws. It is more likely the Fed would pick a case and jurisdiction where they could rely on the judge to throw the case their way.
http://www.bestsyndication.com/?q=node/31075

HELENA – Montana is trying to trigger a battle over gun control – and perhaps make a larger point about what many folks in this ruggedly independent state regard as a meddlesome federal government.

In a bill passed by the Legislature earlier this month, the state is asserting that guns manufactured in Montana and sold in Montana to people who intend to keep their weapons in Montana are exempt from federal gun registration, background checks and dealer-licensing rules because no state lines are crossed.

That notion is all but certain to be tested in court.

The immediate effect of the law could be limited, since Montana is home to just a few specialty gun makers, known for high-end hunting rifles and replicas of Old West weapons, and because their out-of-state sales would automatically trigger federal control.

Still, much bigger prey lies in Montana’s sights: a legal showdown over how far the federal government’s regulatory authority extends.

“It’s a gun bill, but it’s another way of demonstrating the sovereignty of the state of Montana,” said Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer, who signed the bill.
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2009/apr/30/montana-takes-shot-at-federal-gun-control/

Is exempting a state from Federal firearm regulations a good idea? I haven't done a lot of research on this subject and haven't formed an opinion.

Any comments?

[jody]

1. Good test of the 10th Amendment movement as well as incorporation in the 14th. Looks like SCOTUS

with Sotomayor must choose between incorporation of the 2nd in the 14th which could oppose the state efforts in the OP or reject incorporation of the 2nd that could lend support to those state efforts.

[Bluzmann57]

2. A lot of folks hunt

here in Iowa, in Montana, Texas, and all over the USA. So guns should not be outlawed. States should most certainly overrule the Feds on some anti gun legislation.
If a person lives in NYC, Chicago, Los Angeles, Detroit, or any other place that gun violence is prevalent, it is easy to see why they would want strict gun regs. But we don't all live in huge metropolitan centers.
In 2004, I went to see a guy who was campaigning for President. He said that gun rights should be a state's rights issue. I agreed as did many others in the audience. The man's name? Howard Dean. Just sayin'. Limit federal regulations on guns.

[spin]

11. I agree with Howard Dean also...

but I feel the Federal NICS background check is a valuable tool.

It does need some improvement so as to incorporate more records from the states and add names of those with severe mental problems. I would also like the database to be opened to private sellers on a voluntary or mandatory basis.

A mandatory background check for private sales would help to eliminate the so called (and misleading term) "gun show loophole".

But those who oppose firearms just want to eliminate gun shows - period.

So, as usual, they come up with an inflammatory phrase to confuse those who are unfamiliar with firearms. Other examples include "Cop Killer Bullets". "Saturday Night Special", "Plastic Gun", "Assault Rifle", etc, etc.

That tactic is getting old. That's probably why the anti-gun contingent is losing so badly.

You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.
Abraham Lincoln

[Statistical]

3. I don't think it is a good idea but it should be an expected side effect of too much federal control

The states recognize that groups like Brady are marginalized. They are given more federal influence via members of Congress who adhere to the "faith of the banned gun" then their membership numbers and finances warrant.

As long as the federal govt keeps pushing dumb crap there is going to be an interest at the state level from shielding their residents.

If federal govt had simple logical, non infringing gunlaws the issue would be moot. What state is going to push to bypass an nonexistent issue.

[MichaelHarris]

4. Commerce Clause

and interstate traffic, are they going to mine the steel? Will they be casting the parts in state? Will every single piece of material used in the manufacture of the weapon come from within the state? Will the state provide a mechanism to keep the weapon inside the state? Are guns manufactured in other states, and will this action in Montana have an impact on that?

This has already been decided in the Supreme Court in Gonzales v Raich

In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court held that the commerce clause gave Congress authority to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana, despite state law to the contrary. Stevens argued that the Court's precedent "firmly established" Congress' commerce clause power to regulate purely local activities that are part of a "class of activities" with a substantial effect on interstate commerce. The majority argued that Congress could ban local marijuana use because it was part of such a "class of activities": the national marijuana market. Local use affected supply and demand in the national marijuana market, making the regulation of intrastate use "essential" to regulating the drug's national market. The majority distinguished the case from Lopez and Morrison. In those cases, statutes regulated non-economic activity and fell entirely outside Congress' commerce power; in this case, the Court was asked to strike down a particular application of a valid statutory scheme.

Just replace "marijuana" with "firearm" and you have the same case.

[spin]

7. Interesting...good reply. (n/t)

[Merchant Marine]

9. Unlike Mary Jane

The origin of a gun can be readily identified by the makers mark. A gun marked "Made in Montana" would most certainly be subject to federal regulations outside of Montana.

[MichaelHarris]

14. would

actually be illegal outside of Montana if the state chose to ignore federal laws.

[krispos42]

12. As a practical issue, this won't matter unless a new AWB is passed

There currently is no federal limit on design features or magazine capacities, safety requirements, safe-storage, registration, etc.

The only thing this might affect is the current sale of post-1986 full-auto firearms. I guess if a machine gun was made it Texas and sold in Texas to a Texan, that might become legal.

:shrug:

[Deadric Damodred]

13. I think the worry of another AWB is exactly what is fueling this.

Even if all these bills that these states are passing would not hold up in the Supreme Court, it sends a strong message to congress and makes it harder for them to muster the votes to pass an AWB. Just like it's harder for them to get the votes when gun & ammo sales are skyhigh. If none of these states were passing these bills or if the sales of "assault weapons" were't so significant right now, it would be a lot easier for the antis to find votes. They can't make their claims that "most American's want an assualt weapon ban" when nation wide sales of them are skyhigh and a bunch of states are passing bills to negate a federal assault weapon ban.

[MichaelHarris]

15. Not according to

the Supreme Court, it would still be illegal.

[walkaway]

5. Sounds like the folk in the red states are gittin' ready to go liburl huntin"

I feel so safe knowing people who hate my guts want more guns.

[spin]

6. Somehow I doubt that many gun owners hate liberals...

as much you you think.

There are some very extreme people in our country who hate just about everybody. These individuals are dangerous and every effort should be made to prevent them from acting out their fantasies.

The absolutely overwhelming majority of legal gun owners are good citizens and abhor violence, period.

[walkaway]

8. Maybe so but all of the right wing nuts that are killing liberals seem to have guns.

It seems to me that the people who are so concerned about their gun rights don't care about our right to live in safety and peace. It's all about their right to spread as many guns and bullets as possible in every neighborhood in the country.

To me and my friends and family, gun owners are dangerous people. And this country doesn't need any more. Hoarding guns and bullets make people look very bad to the outside world.

[spin]

10. Contrary to your view most people who are concerned about gun rights...

are interested in everyone's right to live in safety and peace.

I have no real interest in trying to convince you or your friends that you should run out and buy a firearm and ammo. That should be your choice.

On the other hand, I am most definitely opposed to any efforts to unreasonably restrict or take away my firearms. I pose no threat to anyone who avoids attacking me or my family, but I want the ability to defend myself and my loved ones from those who would threaten us with severe bodily harm.

My daughter, years ago, did stop an intruder from entering our house by pointing a large caliber revolver at him. He was in the process of forcing a sliding glass door open and was halfway in. Had she not had access to a firearm, I might not have two wonderful grandchildren to enjoy today.

Fortunately, I have never had to use a firearm for self defense. I don't lay awake at night fantasizing about shooting some bad guy. I have enough experience and commonsense to know that shooting and possibly killing another individual is the LAST thing I would ever want to do. If for no other reason, it would probably cause me both legal and psychological problems for an extended period of time. Many police officers need counseling after entirely justified shootings.

If I were required to turn in my weapons, I would be basically defenseless against the criminal element that exists in our society. They, after all, are criminals and by definition chose not to obey laws.

Of course, firearms serve far more purpose than merely self defense. I have enjoyed the hobby of target shooting for many years. While I am not a hunter, many of the people where I live hunt deer and hog. Since I live in one of the poorest counties in Florida, hunting is more than mere sport to a large number of people, it provides essential food. Guns are not just for killing people.

So while gun ownership serves many purposes including self defense, gun owners would enjoy a less violent society.

I personally would like to return to the era where I grew up, the 50's and the 60's. Violent crime was not a problem. While some people did own firearms for hunting, shooting or collecting - few owned firearms for self defense. In that time frame, I only can recall two handguns. One was a German weapon brought back from Germany after WWII by a soldier (my father in law) who had landed in Normandy and had fought until the end of the European conflict. He had no ammo for the weapon. The other was a small .22 caliber revolver that my mother had used to stop a rapist who attacked her on her way home from work in the 1920 time frame. She drew the weapon from her purse and fired two quick shots over his head. The .22 caliber S&W Ladysmith was well hidden in my childhood home, but of course I found it. My father, a rather wise man, had anticipated this and rendered the weapon inoperable.

But attempting to take firearms from honest citizens will merely enable the criminals. There are many things we can do to address the problem of violence in our society that don't require further useless "feel good" laws. We need to address criminal gangs and treat them as terrorists (which they are). We also need to improve opportunity and fight racism. Educational reform should be a top priority and should not merely involve better paid teachers and fewer students in the classroom. We need to move our educational system into this century through the use of computers. Our youth is not interested in a teacher and a blackboard in this modern age. Unfortunately, this is expensive. many of the politicians we elect prefer to pass "feel good" laws like the "assault weapons" ban which are merely words on paper and totally ineffective if not counter productive, but convince people like you and your friends to vote to return them to office.

I fear you have a major misconception of gun owners probably fostered by the news media and movies. This is understandable, especially if you live in a very liberal anti-gun metropolitan area with a high crime rate. You probably know very few honest gun owners.

I happen to have lived in Florida for the last 40 years. Firearms are VERY common here. The majority of the people I've known and have worked with own handguns and rifles. Their occupations have varied from low paying jobs to professional jobs requiring college education. They are just your everyday cross section of our society from hamburger flippers to doctors and rocket scientists.

And if all the gun owners in Florida were as dangerous as you suggest, we sure as hell wouldn't attract any out of state tourists. If you are not aware, we can legally carry a loaded firearm in our car that is basically assessable in an emergency and many of us have concealed carry permits and carry.

I could suggest you broaden your horizon and attempt to meet gun owners by vising and joining a gun range and learn their views. I doubt that you will ever do this, but you might be pleasantly surprised that they are not all ruthless individuals waiting for the opportunity or excuse to murder. You might disagree with their views on many issues as many (but not all) are Republican. It would be my bet that you would find them very polite and helpful if you expressed an interest in the shooting sport.

But you will probably ignore my advise and continue to stereotype all gun owners as "dangerous people".

May I ask if that makes you better than those few sad gun owners who belong to extremist organizations who hate Jews and Blacks and anyone who doesn't look like them or hold their radical and often religious views?