Feds Override Montana State Law

[Kevin_Kennedy]

On Friday, we saw the letter ATF sent to FFL dealers in Tennessee telling them the Bureau was overriding the state's Firearms Freedom Act, and would continue to impose federal requirements in disregard of state law.

They've done the same thing to Montanans.

ATF to Montana: 'You will respect our authoritah!'

The Montana Firearms Freedom Act made it so that no federal regulations would apply to any firearms that do not leave the state of Montana but now the federal government basically says that the law is null and void because federal law supersedes state law. However, the Constitution is clearly on the side of the state of Montana in this instance. The Constitution allows the federal government to regulate interstate commerce not intrastate commerce, and doesn't allow them to regulate firearms at all. I hope that Montana doesn't back down because they need to protect their sovereignty from the federal government.

 

[WillowTree]

On Friday, we saw the letter ATF sent to FFL dealers in Tennessee telling them the Bureau was overriding the state's Firearms Freedom Act, and would continue to impose federal requirements in disregard of state law.

They've done the same thing to Montanans.

ATF to Montana: 'You will respect our authoritah!'

The Montana Firearms Freedom Act made it so that no federal regulations would apply to any firearms that do not leave the state of Montana but now the federal government basically says that the law is null and void because federal law supersedes state law. However, the Constitution is clearly on the side of the state of Montana in this instance. The Constitution allows the federal government to regulate interstate commerce not intrastate commerce, and doesn't allow them to regulate firearms at all. I hope that Montana doesn't back down because they need to protect their sovereignty from the federal government.

Supreme Court?

 

[Baruch Menachem]

The current supreme court? It is to laugh

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

On Friday, we saw the letter ATF sent to FFL dealers in Tennessee telling them the Bureau was overriding the state's Firearms Freedom Act, and would continue to impose federal requirements in disregard of state law.

They've done the same thing to Montanans.

ATF to Montana: 'You will respect our authoritah!'

The Montana Firearms Freedom Act made it so that no federal regulations would apply to any firearms that do not leave the state of Montana but now the federal government basically says that the law is null and void because federal law supersedes state law. However, the Constitution is clearly on the side of the state of Montana in this instance. The Constitution allows the federal government to regulate interstate commerce not intrastate commerce, and doesn't allow them to regulate firearms at all. I hope that Montana doesn't back down because they need to protect their sovereignty from the federal government.

Supreme Court?

It might end up there but I wouldn't hold out much hope for them to rule in favor of Montana.

 

[WillowTree]

The current supreme court? It is to laugh

It would be a really really good test donchyathink?

 

[Old Rocks]

Test of what?

 

[WillowTree]

Test of what?

States Rights! DUmmie!

 

[manifold]

I hope this does go to the Supreme Court. Talk about precedent setting... one way or the other.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I hope this does go to the Supreme Court. Talk about precedent setting... one way or the other.

To many of the Supremes are all about violating peoples rights. This is the same Court that ruled any Government at any level could take your property as Imminent Domain simply to give to someone that might bring in higher tax revenue.

 

[WillowTree]

I hope this does go to the Supreme Court. Talk about precedent setting... one way or the other.

To many of the Supremes are all about violating peoples rights. This is the same Court that ruled any Government at any level could take your property as Imminent Domain simply to give to someone that might bring in higher tax revenue.

wasn't that before Roberts and Alito?

 

[brownlou]

Ya...not surprized..that is what happened in California with medicinal marijuana. The Feds stepped in and got all threatening. Made a few busts too.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

ATF to Montana: 'You will respect our authoritah!'

The Montana Firearms Freedom Act made it so that no federal regulations would apply to any firearms that do not leave the state of Montana but now the federal government basically says that the law is null and void because federal law supersedes state law. However, the Constitution is clearly on the side of the state of Montana in this instance. The Constitution allows the federal government to regulate interstate commerce not intrastate commerce, and doesn't allow them to regulate firearms at all. I hope that Montana doesn't back down because they need to protect their sovereignty from the federal government.

Supreme Court?

It might end up there but I wouldn't hold out much hope for them to rule in favor of Montana.

Montana would lose. Supremacy Clause would apply here.

 

[Old Rocks]

I hope this does go to the Supreme Court. Talk about precedent setting... one way or the other.

To many of the Supremes are all about violating peoples rights. This is the same Court that ruled any Government at any level could take your property as Imminent Domain simply to give to someone that might bring in higher tax revenue.

Well, you got your states rights Actually, on this subject, I absolutely agree with you. That was a damned poor decision. Now you had better go and reconsider your position on this right?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Supreme Court?

It might end up there but I wouldn't hold out much hope for them to rule in favor of Montana.

Montana would lose. Supremacy Clause would apply here.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." - Supremacy Clause

It must be in "Pursuance" of the Constitution for the Supremacy Clause to apply, and the federal law is not in "Pursuance" of the Constitution.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

It might end up there but I wouldn't hold out much hope for them to rule in favor of Montana.

Montana would lose. Supremacy Clause would apply here.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." - Supremacy Clause

It must be in "Pursuance" of the Constitution for the Supremacy Clause to apply, and the federal law is not in "Pursuance" of the Constitution.

I would like to see you back up the bolded part with case law.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof"

You have grossly misinterpreted the meaning of this. Read it again slowly and try again.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Montana would lose. Supremacy Clause would apply here.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." - Supremacy Clause

It must be in "Pursuance" of the Constitution for the Supremacy Clause to apply, and the federal law is not in "Pursuance" of the Constitution.

I would like to see you back up the bolded part with case law.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof"

You have grossly misinterpreted the meaning of this. Read it again slowly and try again.

Please explain how I've misinterpreted the meaning, and as I'm sure you know caselaw is rarely an accurate measurement of what the Constitution actually says.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." - Supremacy Clause

It must be in "Pursuance" of the Constitution for the Supremacy Clause to apply, and the federal law is not in "Pursuance" of the Constitution.

I would like to see you back up the bolded part with case law.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof"

You have grossly misinterpreted the meaning of this. Read it again slowly and try again.

Please explain how I've misinterpreted the meaning, and as I'm sure you know caselaw is rarely an accurate measurement of what the Constitution actually says.

All codified federal laws are considered pursuant until ruled otherwise. One of the Federal Governments enumerated powers granted to it by Article 1 is the power to make laws. Therefore any law made is pursuant.

Just in case you don't know what pursuant measn here.

Pursuant- Proceeding from and conformable to; in accordance with.

pursuant - definition of pursuant by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Well considering the Constitution does not give the federal government the power to regulate intrastate commerce or guns any law that attempts to do so is not in pursuance of the Constitution. Historically the states had a right to nullify unconstitutional federal laws which is what the Montana Firearms Freedom Act essentially did.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Well considering the Constitution does not give the federal government the power to regulate intrastate commerce or guns any law that attempts to do so is not in pursuance of the Constitution. Historically the states had a right to nullify unconstitutional federal laws which is what the Montana Firearms Freedom Act essentially did.

When was this? Pre 14th Amendment?

As for intrastate commerce, that is a valid argument, but it is weak in the face of a Supremacy Clause that is as old as the document itself.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Well considering the Constitution does not give the federal government the power to regulate intrastate commerce or guns any law that attempts to do so is not in pursuance of the Constitution. Historically the states had a right to nullify unconstitutional federal laws which is what the Montana Firearms Freedom Act essentially did.

When was this? Pre 14th Amendment?

As for intrastate commerce, that is a valid argument, but it is weak in the face of a Supremacy Clause that is as old as the document itself.

The 14th Amendment doesn't stop nullification.