NationStates Jolt Archive

Link (http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2009/billhtml/HB0246.htm)

Link (http://www.legis.state.ak.us/PDF/26/Bills/HB0186C.PDF)

I'm not sure where they think they are going with this. And I doubt they'll have the eggs to really push the issue if it comes to a confrontation with the USgov. (Anyone remember Wyoming trying to abolish public education?). Still, I expect that a few other states will join in. Probably NH, Idaho, Texas, South Carolina, &c.

It has the potential to be enormously funny however, so I fully support this effort, if no other reason than it is bound to end in tears on all sides.

So... What's nutty exactly?

dKos (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/4/16/720994/-Schweitzer-plays-footsie-with-sovereignty-crowd) had a readable, if rather predictable, summary response to the Montana bill. Seems unlikely it'll accomplish a great deal, though.

It strikes me as the political equivalent of an upset ten-year-old saying, "You're not the boss of me!"

It strikes me as the political equivalent of an upset ten-year-old saying, "You're not the boss of me!"

Kind of. But I am secretly hoping for some kind of clash, because those sorts of things make me laugh.

Kind of. But I am secretly hoping for some kind of clash, because those sorts of things make me laugh.

Yes, but I'm afraid that all you will get are a bunch of right-wing asshats making speeches.

Yes, but I'm afraid that all you will get are a bunch of right-wing asshats making speeches.

Be fair. The governor of Montana is a democrat.

Be fair. The governor of Montana is a democrat.

I know, which is what makes this particularly nutty and puzzling. I can only think that, being a politician, he likes being Governor and wants to be re-elected and so caters to the nuts in his state. Wouldn't be the first time.

Or, we might see left wings with their heads thoroughly buried in the sand.:D

Let's get one of these laws passed in Oregon or California or Vermont, exempting pot grown there from federal regulations.

Be fair. The governor of Montana is a democrat.
Which means he can't be right-wing?

Let's get one of these laws passed in Oregon or California or Vermont, exempting pot grown there from federal regulations.

Really. If I was out to cause trouble I'd have thrown pot into the bill. The DEA are x20,000,000 the assholes that the BAFT are, so you'd almost be guaranteed a showdown within days.

As an aside, why does no-one ever mention that 90% of the mexican drug war border nonsense could be ended by legalizing weed? Seems the easiest thing to do.

Which means he can't be right-wing?

not of necessity, no. but he's really not. they just loves shooting shit and hates the federales out west.

Which means he can't be right-wing?

That's about it.

The bills mostly just seemed geared up for a constitutional challenge.
More then likely they want to take something like this before Obama gets to appoint a judge to SCOTUS. Give the ruling in DC they hope the court will go farther if they push the issue.
To be honest SCOTUS will avoid the 2nd Amendment issue and tell the States they can't ignore federal regulation at whim.
Though the End result will likely be the states refusing to enforce federal gun laws, much how some states refuse to enforce marijuana laws.
Alas, as much as I think an issue is right it can not over come case law.

First, the Feds aren't going to touch gun law. It's a dead horse, no one is talking about it, and no one cares about it any more. Right wing nutjobs shouldn't be worred about Obama taking away their guns any more than left wing nutjobs should have worried about Bush taking away their freedoms--NOT AT FUCKING ALL.

Second, this bill is redundant and a waste of the legislature's time. The US Constitution gives the feds the ability to regulate interstate commerce, and intrastate commerce is relegated to the...states. The taxpayers of these merry little states should stage protests where they throw teabags at the legislatures for wasting their ti...oh.

Finally...Montana and Alaska are both really frakking cold. The legislature is probably all smelly because they've been wrapped up in Parka's all winter long, and it's making them sour.

So where exactly is the nuttiness here, apart from them stating their obvious rights as a state? I mean, it's popular to bash people for wanting guns but what is the justification for the Fed regulating intrastate things anyway? Just because it seems like a good idea doesn't mean that the law allows it.

Let's get one of these laws passed in Oregon or California or Vermont, exempting pot grown there from federal regulations.

At least that really would fall under state authority. People who grow weed for medicinal use generally aren't involving it in interstate commerce.

At least that really would fall under state authority. People who grow weed for medicinal use generally aren't involving it in interstate commerce.

You cant prove me and my 150 caliber gun are meant for interstate commerce.

You cant prove me and my 150 caliber gun are meant for interstate commerce.

No, but I can prove that gun companies sell their wares via interstate commerce.

No, but I can prove that gun companies sell their wares via interstate commerce.And also the ones in Montana, which have never left montana, with the mentioned "made in montana" engraved on them?

Not that such a thing is possible. It's not even legal for you to have an automatic in Montana, and I believe those are prohibited by state law.

No, but I can prove that gun companies sell their wares via interstate commerce.

As long as they manufacture in Montana and only Sell in Montana those weapons now exempt federal regulations they are OK.
This law might be an attempt to gun manufacturers in Montana.

And also the ones in Montana, which have never left montana, with the mentioned "made in montana" engraved on them?

Not that such a thing is possible. It's not even legal for you to have an automatic in Montana, and I believe those are prohibited by state law.

The law is written weapons that fire more then one round per trigger pull and have barrels over 1 and 1/2 inches per diameter the federal regulation still applies.

And also the ones in Montana, which have never left montana, with the mentioned "made in montana" engraved on them?

I don't think that every single gun or every single gun manufacturer must cross state lines in order to invoke the interstate commerce clause. Rather, the gun industry in general must be involved in interstate commerce, which it is.

It strikes me as the political equivalent of an upset ten-year-old saying, "You're not the boss of me!"
And should be responded to in precisely the same way:

Cut off the brat's allowance.

I don't think that every single gun or every single gun manufacturer must cross state lines in order to invoke the interstate commerce clause. Rather, the gun industry in general must be involved in interstate commerce, which it is.I'll grant this for companies which have a presence in several states. But I don't see how this can possibly apply to Montana companies which sell to Montana only.

This reminds me: the Federal Assault Weapons Ban has not been renewed....

I'll grant this for companies which have a presence in several states. But I don't see how this can possibly apply to Montana companies which sell to Montana only.

If I remember correctly, the only gun manufactures which exist in Montana are those who sell frontier-style guns from the age of western expansion, and their sales are mostly out-of-state. So the amount of guns which are made in Montana and ACTUALLY stay in the state is minuscule.

I'll grant this for companies which have a presence in several states. But I don't see how this can possibly apply to Montana companies which sell to Montana only.

Laws don't work on single companies. They apply to everyone. Hence the reason I said it depends on whether or not the industry as a whole engages in interstate commerce, rather than on whether or not a single company engages in it.

This reminds me: the Federal Assault Weapons Ban has not been renewed....

Not that it matters to me right now (my current state of residence, Connecticut, has its own AWB), but I'm glad the federal AWB hasn't been renewed. If I can ever get out of this state, I won't have to worry about the appearance of my rifle getting me into legal trouble.

Laws don't work on single companies. They apply to everyone. Hence the reason I said it depends on whether or not the industry as a whole engages in interstate commerce, rather than on whether or not a single company engages in it.

United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995)
Says only if there is a proven wide spread affect on the economy.

Kidd v. Pearson, (1888)
Gives control of regulation of manufacturing states.

I'm not sure what the point of all this is. Federal gun laws are pretty lax, aren't they? Mainly focusing on age/criminal history/insanity restrictions and dealer licensing. The actual picky stuff (carry permits, etc) is all left to the states.
Especially since the Montana law leaves machine guns or assault rifles in the hands of the federal government.

I'm not sure what the point of all this is. Federal gun laws are pretty lax, aren't they? Mainly focusing on age/criminal history/insanity restrictions and dealer licensing. The actual picky stuff (carry permits, etc) is all left to the states.
Especially since the Montana law leaves machine guns or assault rifles in the hands of the federal government.

Just automatic remains with the fed. The Assault Rifle is something that I cant trust the federal government to get a decent definition of.

Just automatic remains with the fed. The Assault Rifle is something that I cant trust the federal government to get a decent definition of.
As someone whose only exposure to guns outside of shooters has been shotguns and air rifles (staples of the redneck arsenal), my idea of an "assault rifle" remains "rifles which can fire on automatic."

As someone whose only exposure to guns outside of shooters has been shotguns and air rifles (staples of the redneck arsenal), my idea of an "assault rifle" remains "rifles which can fire on automatic."

Then I hope they bring that as the legal definition. You just opened up civilian ownership of the modern M-16 and M-4, both of which are fully automatic.

As someone whose only exposure to guns outside of shooters has been shotguns and air rifles (staples of the redneck arsenal), my idea of an "assault rifle" remains "rifles which can fire on automatic."

You have to include carbines as well. Carbines (M4 for example) are shorter than full length rifles.

As someone whose only exposure to guns outside of shooters has been shotguns and air rifles (staples of the redneck arsenal), my idea of an "assault rifle" remains "rifles which can fire on automatic."

the US has banned Automatics weapons since the 80's.
Assault weapons as far as the federal government says is weapons that look scary. things like Bayonet mounts, and others things that look scary.
which is why the assault weapons ban was dumb it banned scary looking weapons that were rarely used in crimes because they are too expensive.

More fun from my home state.

Always happy to make trouble for you outsiders :P

You'll notice that Alaska's bill has nothing prohibiting crew served or fully automatic weapons.

This means that in Alaska you'll be able to go deer hunting with a 40mm bofors or 80cm howitzer. :D

You'll notice that Alaska's bill has nothing prohibiting crew served or fully automatic weapons.

This means that in Alaska you'll be able to go deer hunting with a 40mm bofors or 80cm howitzer. :D

80 cm????

I think you carried an extra zero there somewhere

80 cm????

I think you carried an extra zero there somewhere
You would be wrong. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwerer_Gustav)

well i suppose the federal interest is due to the problem of interstate and international trafficking. guns guns guns. people i think are idiots to obsess on them. no one's going to overthrow todays super power governments with popguns, which was the idea of the final check and balance, right to bear arms and all that.

nothing wrong with hunting and gathering if anyone's actually going to do that of course.

hunting long pig's another story. a bit inconvenient on modern society.

no one's going to overthrow todays super power governments with popguns, which was the idea of the final check and balance, right to bear arms and all that.
There are plenty of people managing to do fairly well with just "popguns" and home made explosives in the middle east, and they don't have the advantage of the US military not wanting to shoot them.

There are plenty of people managing to do fairly well with just "popguns" and home made explosives in the middle east, and they don't have the advantage of the US military not wanting to shoot them.

ah but that is why i specified a major super power, which is a slightly different story. absolutely gorilla movements with enough popular support can be VERY effective where the government in power has rather limited resources.

somehow i doubt the same thing being accomplished in america, or any other dominant super power. now if you had enough loonies with a cruise missle and launch capability in their back yard, that might be a different story.

i do know there are some enthusiasts who have managed somehow to legally gain and retain possession of some historical mobile armour, wwii and earlier era tanks and mortars, that sort of thing. but anyway, i'm not really in favor of anyone killing anyone as a way to achieve anything.

but of course this wasn't about what i might or might not be in favor of.

those places you mentioned, 'undergound' c&c networking plays a major roll, and is certainly present and long established. as or more critical then the actual armament itself too. as evenced by the various underground movements during wwii era western europe.

ah but that is why i specified a major super power, which is a slightly different story. absolutely gorilla movements with enough popular support can be VERY effective where the government in power has rather limited resources.

somehow i doubt the same thing being accomplished in america, or any other dominant super power. now if you had enough loonies with a cruise missle and launch capability in their back yard, that might be a different story.

i do know there are some enthusiasts who have managed somehow to legally gain and retain possession of some historical mobile armour, wwii and earlier era tanks and mortars, that sort of thing. but anyway, i'm not really in favor of anyone killing anyone as a way to achieve anything.

but of course this wasn't about what i might or might not be in favor of.

those places you mentioned, 'undergound' c&c networking plays a major roll, and is certainly present and long established. as or more critical then the actual armament itself too. as evenced by the various underground movements during wwii era western europe.
Maybe you've been under a rock for the past eight years, but the government in question in the middle east is the US. Domestically, the US military would find it hard to prosecute a campaign against a revolutionary force because most soldiers will not fire on their neighbors, and the more conservative inclined people that would be the most likely to take up arms against the government are also the people that best know their local area's geography. Many of them also have prior military service.

As for tanks and cruise missiles, those are easy enough for anyone with some basic metal working tools to make. Look at the Killdozer and the cruise missile those dorks in New Zealand made. This isn't 1945. Things like rocketry, jet engines, and turbines are common knowledge that anyone with even a basic understanding of mechanical concepts can grasp.

Plus, given the fact that states like Texas, Montana, Alaska, and Vermont would secede from the Union within hours of the Feds using the military to take out a significant group of armed citizens, I think you greatly overestimate the ability of the Union to win a second civil war.