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.)
Allen – what do you think of States rights now?
How could it not survive a court challenge?
What if the feds decided that they would enforce “their” regulations against a citizen of Montana, and the citizen used this law (assuming it passes) to protect himself. The court could easily rule that the Montana law was trumped by federal law.
Greg – excellent point here. It’s definitely an example of how our country functions on a “might makes right” principle rather than the principles of liberty.
But, on a positive note, the more that states are trying to enforce their own laws which are contrary to the federal government, the more resistance to centralized tyranny we’ll see. It’s a long haul, but good to see something started…
“Allen – what do you think of States rights now?â€
I think government, including States, has no Rights at all. Government has “Powersâ€. People have Rights. States do not have any “constitutional†powers over the federal government. Reference the last paragraph of Article VI – everyone, and all Judges, elected to any office, Local, State, and Federal take an Oath to support the federal Constitution – granted today none of them honor that Oath to support the Constitution.
Anything repugnant to the Constitution is null and void. Seems to me what “everyone†is missing is who is the “Enforcer†of that Oath and what power of “force†is designated by the Constitution to enforce it? The only proper (constitutional) answer is in Article I, Section 2.
Allan
Alan, thanks for the comment, which has given me food for thought.
Greg
The House has endorsed it with a 64-36 vote, and the Republican-controlled Senate could pass it easily. Now we just have to get the Governor to get on board
It is about time someone reminded the Federal Government about the 9th and 10th Articles of Amendment. 90% of what passes for legislation at the federal level is completely without Constitutional authority. The warping of the commerce clause in the 1930s to regulate everything/anything is so repugnant that I am amazed that it has taken this long to get action started. As someone else noted above, the Federal government only has POWERS specifically articulated in the Constitution, and no more; the 9th and 10th Articles of Amendment specifically state that all other rights and powers belong to the individuals and the states. Indeed, the primary job of the federal government is the PROTECTION of our individual rights; to the extent that said government does the opposite, its laws are unconstitutional and invalid. In fact, statehood itself is a contractual arrangement between the state and the federal government; states are acting lawfully if they secede (Lincoln was in the wrong in the War of Northern Agression – it is misnamed Civil War, but a civil war is one concerning control of government). There are active secessionist movements in Vermont, Alaska, Texas, and Hawaii, so far as I know. And, of course, the breaching of the contract by the federal government with Montana would give Montana the legal right to secede. In fact, the Texas Consitution, as accepted in their statehood agreement, gives them the authority to secede. Of the first 13 states, New York, Rhode Island, and Virginia also specifically reserved secession for those states as well. Thomas Jefferson stated that we are not only not obligated to obey an illegal law, we are morally obliged to disobey illegal laws. The simple passage of legislation by Congress does NOT confer legitimacy on a law, even when corrupt courts rule otherwise. The fact that 15 other states are planning the same legislation is very heartening.
a wonderful bill that will adds job to the state, made in the state , does not leave the state no federal law can be enforced
The once Great NRA does not support the firearms Freedom act, soon to be ex NRA member and no more extra bucks for the once great NRA
9/09 issue page 18 NRA Excutive Director COX
It’s time to abolish the federal government because it serves only as an instrument of oppression. The movement has started already and gaining popularity. Finally we will see the realization of our forefathers dream: a
people’s government.
I think it is worth remembering that Jefferson himself wrote in detail asserting that the States are ‘above’ the Federal Government and that, should the Federal Government breach its contract with a state or states, the state(s) are within their Constitutional ‘rights’ to secede. I think we need to see a State, such as Alaska, or Texas, or Montana, actually vote to secede on the basis of the Contractual breachs made by a now tyrannical Federal Government. This is not 1861; there is not likely to be a ‘war’ fought over secession. If even one State does it, that alone could shatter the Federal Government’s over reaching power grabs. Jefferson’s stated views were really right in line with the Confederacy and what it tried to do. Now, though, would be a better time, with freedom, not slavery, the issue. Bob Anderson
This link must be read by anyone and everyone who wishes to have this movement succeed:
http://www.originalintent.org/edu/chapter44.php