Montana Defies Feds with the Montana Firearms Freedom Act – HB 246

By Ernest Hancock

 

Executive Summary – The USA state of Montana has signed into power a revolutionary gun law. I mean REVOLUTIONARY.
 
The State of Montana has defied the federal government and their gun laws. This will prompt a showdown between the federal government and the State of Montana. The federal government fears citizens owning guns. They try to curtail what types of guns they can own. The gun control laws all have one common goal – confiscation of privately owned firearms.

Montana has gone beyond drawing a line in the sand. They have challenged the Federal Government. The fed now either takes them on and risks them saying the federal agents have no right to violate their state gun laws and arrest the federal agents that try to enforce the federal firearms acts. This will be a world-class event to watch. Montana could go to voting for secession from the union, which is really throwing the gauntlet in Obamas face. If the federal government does nothing they lose face. Gotta love it.

Important Points – If guns and ammunition are manufactured inside the State of Montana for sale and use inside that state then the federal firearms laws have no applicability since the federal government only has the power to control commerce across state lines. Montana has the law on their side. Since when did the USA start following their own laws especially the constitution of the USA, the very document that empowers the USA.

Silencers made in Montana and sold in Montana would be fully legal and not registered. As a note silencers were first used before the 007 movies as a device to enable one to hunt without disturbing neighbors and scaring game. They were also useful as devices to control noise when practicing so as to not disturb the neighbors.

Silencers work best with a bolt-action rifle. There is a long barrel and the chamber is closed tight so as to direct all the gases though the silencer at the tip of the barrel. Semi-auto pistols and revolvers do not really muffle the sound very well except on the silver screen. The revolvers bleed gas out with the sound all over the place. The semi-auto pistols bleed the gases out when the slide recoils back.

Silencers are maybe nice for snipers picking off enemy soldiers even though they reduce velocity but not very practical for hit men shooting pistols in crowded places. Silencers were useful tools for gun enthusiasts and hunters.

There would be no firearm registration, serial numbers, criminal records check, waiting periods or paperwork required. So in a short period of time there would be millions and millions of unregistered untraceable guns in Montana. Way to go Montana.

Discussion – Let us see what Obama does. If he hits Montana hard they will probably vote to secede from the USA. The governor of Texas has already been refusing Federal money because he does not want to agree to the conditions that go with it and he has been saying secession is a right they have as sort of a threat. Things are no longer the same with the USA. Do not be deceived by Obama acting as if all is the same, it is not.

Full text of bill: HB 246

What the Second Amendment Really Means – And What the Supreme Court Really Means

Today’s Supreme Court ruling on the Second Amendment – the first of its kind in our history – has been hailed in the corporate media as a “victory” for the Second Amendment and its defenders. It is anything but. In fact, it is a resounding defeat of our constitutionally guaranteed right to defend our lives and liberty from an increasingly despotic government.

When the founders wrote the Second Amendment, their intent was clear: in order that we, the people, may be able to ensure the future of our liberty, we must have the means to defend our most basic and fundamental of all rights: the right to life.

Much obfuscatory ado has been made about the language of the amendment being “confusing,” and to the majority of today’s dumbed down public, it probably is. However, for anyone with the ability to think critically, the language is clear enough. The main point of the amendment is stated quite clearly in its second clause, “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The preceding verbiage is really irrelevant to an understanding of what the amendment says.

One has only to consider that the Constitution was written, not to grant rights to the people and the states, nor to enumerate all of those rights, but to spell out the limitations of the government’s powers. It does so by clearly listing several existing rights that were recognized by the founders as necessary conditions of human life and that, among these is the right to keep and bear arms. Once one understands the purpose of the document, its “interpretation” is no mystery at all: the government cannot, under any circumstances, infringe upon the rights outlined and those left open to us by the Tenth Amendment.

By merely “considering” the Second Amendment and ruling on it, the Supreme Court has violated the very spirit, if not the exact letter of the Constitution, itself. The Constitution is the founding document of our nation, the only written guarantee we have of our freedom in the face of a corrupt and tyrannical government. For the Supreme Court to even assume that it has the power to revise, alter, or even reconsider what the Constitution says is, on its face, an act of high treason. By doing so, they have said, in effect, that the Constitution is null and void and that they will tell us what the law is.

The Supreme Court is not the law of the land – the Constitution is. It was intended to be followed to the letter, used as a guide by the court to determine whether any law or action is allowed or disallowed by the Constitution. That is the sole duty and responsibility of the Supreme Court and its own powers are also limited by the Constitution.

Having said all that, there is no way this “decision” – made in smoke filled corporate boardrooms, the White House and Congress and then handed down to the court as its instructions – is in any way a “victory” for the people. The actual language used by the court in rendering its opinion says that, while it acknowledges the people do have an individual right to own firearms, the court has added the terms, “within reasonable limitations.”

Let that sink in for a moment. What this really means is that, yes, you do have the right to own a gun, but the government will tell you under what conditions you can own and use it. It does nothing to strike down the existing plethora of gun control laws that have been accumulating on the books since 1933, and because it doesn’t, it also doesn’t really strike down the so-called D.C. handgun ban, as the media would have us believe. Think about it. If they have left the door open for further regulation, then the ban – being regulation, itself – does not “infringe” on your Second Amendment right, according to the Supreme Court’s twisted logic.

In other words, now that they have told us that further regulation of gun ownership is part of what the Second Amendment really means, then, by their interpretation, further regulation of any kind and to any extent or degree they choose to force upon us will be perfectly “constitutional.” After all, the Supreme Court has said so and who are we to question its infinite wisdom?

So, the end result of this devastating ruling is that, not only will our fundamental right to defend ourselves continue to be whittled away until it no longer is recognized at all, but so will all the other rights our constitution protects, now that the legal precedent has been set to allow the Supreme Court to dictate to us what the Constitution really means.

Gary Rea © 2008

%d bloggers like this: