Some politicians in Washington are probably thinking of Montana in much the same way as they think of a child in the midst of the “terrible twos”. That’s because Montana seems to like to say “no” when the federal government sticks its nose into state business. State lawmakers made it illegal for Montana to comply with the Real ID act and they have defied Washington on wetlands protection. Now, they’re about to do the same thing on gun manufacturing, control and registration. And gun control advocates are having heart palpitations as a result.
Montana’s state legislature just passed, and their governor - a Democrat by the way - just signed a law called the Montana Firearms Freedom Act. The bill is specifically designed to trigger a 10th Amendment legal challenge over federal firearms laws. The law exempts Montana and all of its citizens from federal firearms laws on weapons that are manufactured and sold within the borders of Montana.
The federal government bases its ability to control firearms on its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce. This power comes from Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. But the Constitution limits the power of the federal government to regulate state matters other than those specified in other areas of the document with the10th Amendment which reads, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” It is one of the shortest and most overlooked articles in the Constitution.
In 2005, the Supreme Court heard a similar case – this one in regard to federal control over sales of marijuana. In that case, California had argued that Marijuana grown and sold within the state was not subject to federal interstate commerce control. The Supreme Court ruled that because marijuana grown in California was indistinguishable from marijuana grown elsewhere, the federal government did have the right to control it.
Montana will use almost exactly the same argument in its case as California did in the case mentioned above. Not wanting to run into the same Supreme Court roadblock, Montana’s new law requires any gun manufactured in the state to bear the words “Made in Montana”. This will allow Montana to distinguish its firearms from those made in other states.
One of the key points mentioned in the bill is the compact between the State of Montana and the United States at the time Montana entered the Union. The bill mentions Constitutional 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.” In other words, Montana is saying that changing the compact with the state is a breach of contract that the state doesn’t have to tolerate.
Montana is not the only state looking at this type of challenge. Texas is also moving in the same direction. But Montana’s law is unique in that the state has a plan to get the issue into court. They plan to have a state citizen send a letter to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) informing them of a plan to manufacture a total of twenty .22 caliber rifles without obtaining a federal permit. ATF will then have a choice. They can ignore the notification or they can file suit to stop the manufacturer from moving forward.
It is most likely that ATF will file suit and the case will wind up in the federal court system; eventually ending up at the Supreme Court. Nobody knows what kind of a decision would be made there, but if the court actually follows the Constitution it seem fairly clear that Montana is within its rights. There is also a growing secessionist movement in Montana and some other states, including Texas. This means that regardless of what the Supreme Court decides, the issue may be far from over.
For anyone interested in the enumerated powers given to the federal government by the Constitution, DownsizeDC has a list of them that are available through this link. Just scroll down the page.
by Jim Malmberg
Subscribe to my website: www.GuardMyCreditFile.org
Follow me on Twitter:
