Posts Tagged ‘states rights’

Newer Entries »

Montana pisses in Obama’s cornflakes!

February 17, 2009

Montana passed liberty and freedom from the Authoritarians in the federal government. I love it!

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.

SOURCE

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Gun Control, Law, News, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | 10 Comments »

Committee recommends gun rights resolution

February 9, 2009

Mostly those fly over states, the ones with square sides? They have been quietly  telling the Federal Government to take a hike. From unfunded mandates to inalienable rights we the people are telling the big-shots in Washington D.C. to back off. The constant and continual effort to wax fat from the backs of those that they attempt to laird it over is becoming more than can be bared. Not since prohibition has there been such a flare up of resistance against Federal tyranny. Soon, it will reach proportions that lead to the bloodiest conflict the United States has ever known. Latest of the rebellion is Wyoming:

CHEYENNE — A state legislative committee backed a resolution Friday that seeks to reinforce Wyoming’s right to bear arms.

The House Judiciary Committee endorsed the resolution unanimously. The resolution would instruct Congress to stop trying to pass federal legislation that restricts firearm ownership.

Rep. Dan Zwonitzer, R-Cheyenne, the legislation’s sponsor, said Wyoming citizens are concerned that Washington might begin imposing stricter gun control laws.

“A resolution like this isn’t going to change much,” Zwonitzer said, but added that the resolution would send the federal government a message.

The resolution mentions the Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009, a federal bill Zwonitzer said is gaining strength in Congress.

He said the bill would impose more stringent government licensing measures on gun owners and place increased restrictions on guns in homes with children under 18.

Zwonitzer said the resolution has wide support among Wyoming citizens. He said the bill would “strengthen the bond between us all.”

SOURCE

For too long the Federal government has used the interstate commerce clause as an excuse for wielding power that is in fact reserved to the states by the Constitution. Both the Ninth and Tenth Amendments are very clear about this, and no, you don’t need to be educated as a high powered attorney to understand the meanings. The Bill of Rights isn’t about what rights you, or the states have, it is about the limits of the Federal government. Over you as a person, and you as a state when combined with others in your locale.

Now, these very same people are attempting to pull a fast one on we, the people, that will have generational effects upon the ability of Americans to live a normal life:

“On page 151 of this legislative pork-fest [the ‘stimulus’ bill] is one of the clandestine nuggets of social policy manipulation that are peppered throughout the bill. Section 9201 of the stimulus package establishes the ‘Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research.’ This body, which would be made up of federal bureaucrats will ‘coordinate the conduct or support of comparative effectiveness and related health services research.’ Sounds benign enough, but the man behind the Coordinating Council, Health and Human Services Secretary-designate [since withdrawn] (and tax cheat) Tom Daschle, was kind enough to explain the goal of this organization. It is to cut health care costs by preventing Americans from getting treatments that the government decides don’t meet their standards for cost effectiveness. In his 2008 book on health care, he explained that such a council would, ‘lower overall spending by determining which medicines, treatments and procedures are most effective-and identifying those that do not justify their high price tags.’ Once a panel of government experts decides what is and what is not cost-effective by their definition, the government will stop paying for treatments, medicines, therapies or devices that fall into the latter category. … Mind you, they are not simply looking to exclude treatments that don’t work, but to exclude treatments that are effective, but whose cost, in their opinion, does not justify their use. You, the patient, and your physician don’t get a vote. This would make the federal government the single most important decision-maker regarding health care for every patient in America.” –public affairs consultant Douglas O’Brien

Things like the above are just the tip of the iceberg. It’s not simply about firearms rights, or abortion, it is about the fundamental rights of Americans to be free of oppression from government. Be that Federal, State, or local.

How so..?

“The so-called stimulus bill may not do much for the economy, but it’s certainly stimulating a lot of laughter, as its supporters are reduced to arguing essentially that it would be irresponsible not to waste boatloads of taxpayer money. We do not exaggerate. Consider this article by Michael Hirsh of Newsweek: ‘Obama’s desire to begin a “post-partisan” era may have backfired. In his eagerness to accommodate Republicans and listen to their ideas over the past week, he has allowed the GOP to turn the haggling over the stimulus package into a decidedly stale, Republican-style debate over pork, waste and overspending. This makes very little economic sense when you are in a major recession that only gets worse day by day. Yes, there are still some very legitimate issues with a bill that’s supposed to be “temporary” and “targeted” — among them, large increases in permanent entitlement spending, and a paucity of tax cuts that will prompt immediate spending. Even so, Obama has allowed Congress to grow embroiled in nitpicking over efficiency when the central debate should be about whether the package is big enough. When you are dealing with a stimulus of this size, there are going to be wasteful expenditures and boondoggles. There’s no way anyone can spend $800 to $900 billion quickly without waste and boondoggles. It comes with the Keynesian territory. This is an emergency; the normal rules do not apply.’ Who is this Michael Hirsh, who has elevated unrestrained spending of the people’s money to a high principle? Here’s his bio: ‘Michael Hirsh covers international affairs for Newsweek, reporting on a range of topics from Homeland Security to postwar Iraq. He co-authored the November 3, 2003 cover story, “Bush’s $87 Billion Mess,” about the Iraq reconstruction plan. The issue was one of three that won the 2004 National Magazine Award for General Excellence.’ The bill for ‘Bush’s mess’ is less than the margin of error in reckoning the cost of the ’emergency’ legislation about which Hirsh now chides lawmakers for ‘nitpicking over efficiency.'” –Wall Street Journal columnist James Taranto

What I am suggesting, is that the Federal government, at least the vast majority in the Congress, Senate, and Executive branches, are, in fact working day and night to change the Untied States into some socialist utopia, and that the several states, are rebelling.

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in Domestic Violence, Economics, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Immigration, Law, Men's Issues, News, Politics, Uncategorized, Wordpress Political Blogs | 5 Comments »

The Tenth Amendment…

February 5, 2009

The Federal Government, as currently embodied by the Obama and friends appears to be running into a few roadblocks here and there. It seems that a few states are actually asserting their authority, or at least sending messages that they will do so, and based upon the Constitution of the United States no less.

Washington joins Montana, and Oklahoma now in seeking to bring the Federal Government into check. Tread carefully is my advice. The last time that states really did assert their power resulted in the bloodiest war this nation has ever known. Even Arizona is getting into the act now!

Laws too gentle are seldom obeyed; to severe, seldom executed.
Benjamin Franklin
US author, diplomat, inventor, physicist, politician, & printer (1706 – 1790)

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Law, News, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | 7 Comments »

Montana leads the way!

January 22, 2009

Hat tip to The Liberty Sphere!

The federal government has for years had the idea that it is in fact omniscient. Built in safeguards from the Bill of Rights are largely ignored and from were I sit things do not appear to be changing at all. However, Montana is taking the bull by the horns and challenging the Federal choke hold that the states have been enduring for more years than I care to remember.

2009 Montana Legislature

Additional Bill Links PDF (with line numbers)

HOUSE BILL NO. 246

INTRODUCED BY J. BONIEK

A BILL FOR AN ACT ENTITLED: “AN ACT EXEMPTING FROM FEDERAL REGULATION UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES A FIREARM, A FIREARM ACCESSORY, OR AMMUNITION MANUFACTURED AND RETAINED IN MONTANA; PROVIDING FOR THE DUTIES OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL; AND PROVIDING AN APPLICABILITY DATE.”

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MONTANA:

NEW SECTION. Section 1.  Short title. [Sections 1 through 7] may be cited as the “Montana Firearms Freedom Act”.

NEW SECTION. Section 2.  Legislative declarations of authority. The legislature declares that the authority for [sections 1 through 7] is the following:

(1) The 10th amendment to the United States constitution guarantees to the states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in the constitution and reserves to the state and people of Montana certain powers as they were understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889. The guaranty of those powers is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.

(2) The ninth amendment to the United States constitution guarantees to the people rights not granted in the constitution and reserves to the people of Montana certain rights as they were understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889. The guaranty of those rights is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.

(3) The regulation of intrastate commerce is vested in the states under the 9th and 10th amendments to the United States constitution, particularly if not expressly preempted by federal law. Congress has not expressly preempted state regulation of intrastate commerce pertaining to the manufacture on an intrastate basis of firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition.

(4) The second amendment to the United States constitution reserves to the people the right to keep and bear arms as that right was understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889, and the guaranty of the right is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.

(5) Article II, section 12, of the Montana constitution clearly secures to Montana citizens, and prohibits government interference with, the right of individual Montana citizens to keep and bear arms. This constitutional protection is unchanged from the 1889 Montana constitution, which was approved by congress and the people of Montana, and the right exists as it was understood at the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.

NEW SECTION. Section 3.  Definitions. As used in [sections 1 through 7], the following definitions apply:

(1) “Borders of Montana” means the boundaries of Montana described in Article I, section 1, of the 1889 Montana constitution.

(2) “Firearms accessories” means items that are used in conjunction with or mounted upon a firearm but are not essential to the basic function of a firearm, including but not limited to telescopic or laser sights, magazines, flash or sound suppressors, folding or aftermarket stocks and grips, speedloaders, ammunition carriers, and lights for target illumination.

(3) “Generic and insignificant parts” includes but is not limited to springs, screws, nuts, and pins.

(4) “Manufactured” means that a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition has been created from basic materials for functional usefulness, including but not limited to forging, casting, machining, or other processes for working materials.

NEW SECTION. 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.

NEW SECTION. Section 5.  Exceptions. [Section 4] does not apply to:

(1) a firearm that cannot be carried and used by one person;

(2) a firearm that has a bore diameter greater than 1 1/2 inches and that uses smokeless powder, not black powder, as a propellant;

(3) ammunition with a projectile that explodes using an explosion of chemical energy after the projectile leaves the firearm; or

(4) a firearm that discharges two or more projectiles with one activation of the trigger or other firing device.

NEW SECTION. Section 6.  Marketing of firearms. A firearm manufactured or sold in Montana under [sections 1 through 7] must have the words “Made in Montana” clearly stamped on a central metallic part, such as the receiver or frame.

NEW SECTION. Section 7.  Duties of the attorney general. (1) A Montana citizen whom the government of the United States attempts to prosecute, under the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce, for violation of a federal law concerning the manufacture, sale, transfer, or possession of a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured and retained within Montana must be defended in full by the Montana attorney general.

(2) Upon written notification to the Montana attorney general by a Montana citizen of intent to manufacture a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition to which [sections 1 through 7] apply, the attorney general shall seek a declaratory judgment from the federal district court for the district of Montana that [sections 1 through 7] are consistent with the United States constitution.

NEW SECTION. Section 8.  Codification instruction. [Sections 1 through 7] are intended to be codified as an integral part of Title 30, and the provisions of Title 30 apply to [sections 1 through 7].

NEW SECTION. Section 9.  Applicability. [This act] applies to firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition that are manufactured, as defined in [section 3], and retained in Montana after October 1, 2009.

– END –

source

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Law, Men's Issues, News, Politics, Uncategorized, Wordpress Political Blogs | 4 Comments »

Newer Entries »