by Greg Heller, The Holy Cause
There is a new bill circulating in Montana’s legislature which has significant implications on several fronts in the battle for liberty, most notably that of States Rights, and the right to bear arms. The bill can be read here, and is not a long read (freedom is much easier to describe than tyranny), but to whet your interest here are a few snippets.
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.
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 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.
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.
And that all leads to:
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 …. 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 …
I love it! Way to thumb your noses at the tyrants, Montana! Thank you to the bill’s primary sponsor, Joel Boniek, for the courage and foresight in crafting and submitting this bill.
One thing I wonder – the repeated reference to “the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.” It makes perfect sense, and I think it strengthens Montana’s case. But doesn’t this logically lead to different “compacts” and possibly different rights, for each State, in accordance with the common understanding of the role of the Federal Government at the times of their respective acceptances into statehood? What do you think?
Any chance of it being upheld in the inevitable court challenge?
(Hat Tip to Brian Warbiany.)