Montana Firearms Freedom Act - House bill 246

Dont forget about HB228 Right to Self-Defense and HB 246 Montana Made Firearms Freedom Act.

At least Call 440-4800 and leave a message its really easy. Tell them you want to send it to the whole committee and thy will. It only takes 5min please call NOW! Make your voice heard.

NRA link also includes House Judiciary Committee contact info.
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=4313

Montana Self-Defense Legislation to be Heard on Thursday!

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

Please Contact the House Judiciary Committee Today!

On Thursday, January 22, the House Judiciary Committee will consider important self-defense legislation and it is critical that Montana’s law-abiding gun owners voice their support for the bill.


House Bill 228, sponsored by State Representative Krayton Kerns (R-58), is a broad piece of legislation that provides a number of specific protections for law-abiding citizens. The provisions of HB 228 facilitate the right of self-defense by safeguarding victims across the whole legal continuum of an incident in which self defense is warranted and necessary, from before anything happens to the resolution of a criminal trial. HB228 does the following:


-Clarifies the ability of law-abiding citizens to carry a firearm in plain view and to display the firearm for harmless defensive purposes;
-Allows a person who can lawfully possess a firearm and who doesn’t use it to commit a criminal offense to carry it concealed anywhere in the state without first obtaining governmental permission;
-Prevents landlords and hotel operators from restricting law-abiding citizens’ self-defense rights and requires employers who do restrict such rights to provide a comparable level of security and safety;
-Clarifies in statute the existing legal precedent that there is no duty to retreat from a threat before exercising the right to self-defense and allows a law-abiding citizen to use reasonable force in exercising the existing law that gives a private person the authority to arrest an offender;
-Protects law-abiding citizens against seizure of their firearms absent an arrest and ensures return of seized property if a person is exonerated;
-Ensures that self-defense claims are adequately considered during incident investigations; and,
-Shifts to the state, if self-defense is asserted by a defendant in a criminal case, the burden of proving an absence of justification and provides reaonable attorney fees to a person who is accused of an offense and who is found to have acted in self-defense.

For a section-by-section analysis of the bill in order to better understand and communicate with legislators, please visit http://progunleaders.org/Self-defense/.


Please contact your legislators and the members of the House Judiciary Committee TODAY and respectfully urge them to support and protect your right to self-defense by voting for HB228. Please call (406) 444-4800 to leave a message for your legislators as well as the House Judiciary Committee. You may also use the “online message form” located at http://leg.mt.gov/css/About the Legislature/Lawmaking Process/contact legislators.asp. Additional contact information for the committee can be found below.
 
An update on this bill.

On 03-21-2009, the bill passed the House (85-14) and was sent to the Senate.

On 03-27-2009, the bill passed out of the Senate Businee, Labor, and Economics Committee (7-4).

On 04-02-2009, the bill passed the Senate (29-21) and was sent to the Governor.

The Governor of Montana signed the bill into law on 04-15-2009. The law goes into effect on 10-01-2009 (info taken from here).
 
I think there's almost no chance of this actually standing up in a federal court. Wish there was, but I disagree with the optimistic assertions that GvR won't be found to apply in this case as well.

Still, bravo for trying, and I'll still maintain hope.

States have done the same thing in relation to medical marijuana. What's the difference?
Click to expand...

You'll note that the federal government still holds that possession and distribution of medical marijuana is still illegal in those states. The apparent policy of the new administration not to waste resources enforcing those laws doesn't change this; the laws are still in force, and such a policy can be reversed on a dime.

I only wish I could make California wages in MT. I guess I'll have to wait until retirement. Or if BHO starts to chip away at more of our right it may be sooner.
Click to expand...

Stay the heck out of Bozeman and you can live quite nicely on MT wages up here.
 
The apparent policy of the new administration not to waste resources enforcing those laws doesn't change this; the laws are still in force, and such a policy can be reversed on a dime.
That was actually a campaign promise, and they swear they're going to start living up to it, so I expect they will very soon. :rolleyes:

As of February, we were still waiting. I don't know if there have been any busts since then, but it would kind of surprise me if there have not.
 
Last edited:
The question, to my mind, isn't whether the federal courts will uphold Montana's statute (they won't, under over a century of an incredibly expansionist view of the interstate commerce clause), but what Montana will do when the dust has settled. There are many who believe that Montana's next shot will be to attempt secession. Should be interesting.
 
The question, to my mind, isn't whether the federal courts will uphold Montana's statute (they won't, under over a century of an incredibly expansionist view of the interstate commerce clause), but what Montana will do when the dust has settled. There are many who believe that Montana's next shot will be to attempt secession. Should be interesting.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I see that happening. Right.

A) Even assuming the "natives" would get behind it, increased migration into the state from places that aren't crazy pretty much guarantees that secession would not have the level of support needed to go forward.

B) Secession ain't legal. Whether you think it should be, and whether you're interested in arguing the validity of this legal fact, does not change the fact that the federal government isn't going to let Montana go.

C) Even assuming popular support could be gained, and even assuming you somehow managed to successfully secede (peacefully or through force), I'm pretty sure Montana would quickly descend to the level of third world craphole. Nothing against Montana, or the people here; I'd say the same about most (and possibly all) states, as well as most regions. Though I think this holds true for Montana more than some others. The United States is truly more than the sum of its parts.

EDIT: Basically talks of secession, particularly by individual states, always make me chuckle.
 
Even assuming the "natives" would get behind it, increased migration into the state from places that aren't crazy pretty much guarantees that secession would not have the level of support needed to go forward.
Click to expand...
I would argue that the increased migration into Montana would be from folks who FAVOR, not reject secession.

B) Secession ain't legal. Whether you think it should be, and whether you're interested in arguing the validity of this legal fact, does not change the fact that the federal government isn't going to let Montana go.
Click to expand...
Actually, the "legality" of secession is irrelevant. There is not one bit of settled law on this topic; the U.S. Constitution is entirely silent on the issue. The Union victory in the American Civil War did not settle the legality of secession, only the overwhelming military superiority of the northern states over the southern states.

C) Even assuming popular support could be gained, and even assuming you somehow managed to successfully secede (peacefully or through force), I'm pretty sure Montana would quickly descend to the level of third world craphole. Nothing against Montana, or the people here; I'd say the same about most (and possibly all) states, as well as most regions. Though I think this holds true for Montana more than some others. The United States is truly more than the sum of its parts.
Click to expand...
This is, of course, entirely speculative on your part and you have no way of knowing what would happen should Montana secede. You also have no way of knowing what the federal response to a Montana secession might be. None of us do.

EDIT: Basically talks of secession, particularly by individual states, always make me chuckle.
Click to expand...
Laugh all you want, however the likelihood of one or more states' attempting to secede from the U.S. grows each day.
 
I would like to see this country split into 2 countries. One for following the constitution, and the other for the Dems and Repubs to fight over how the constitution should be violated.

Well, a man's got to have a dream:D
 
Instead of of the dubious talk of secession, which would take this thread completely off topic and closure...

Or even the discussion over how the feds will not allow this Montana law to stand....

How about discussing how Montana might respond to the question over the validity of its laws?

Amendments to the COTUS do what, exactly?

We all know the reasons for the Bill of Rights, but what exactly do they do? How do the BOR affect the COTUS? There are some valid arguments that they affect something. But what and to what degree?

The Congress has pretty much plenary power over interstate commerce. Does the prohibition within the 2A have any affect over that power? It was placed into effect after the commerce clause, therefore is there an argument that the 2A prohibits acts of Congress that rely on the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause, if those clauses interfere (infringe) upon the right(s) articulated?

If so, could this be a (or even, the) means for States to revive the long dead 10th Amendment?

The Bill of Rights stated purpose was to further restrict the Federal Government, as well as to make certain declaratory statements. We know this, as the preamble to the BoR says just that.

And while a preamble is not law, it is used to determine (interpret) what the restrictions or declaratory statements are to mean, as regards the rest of the body of the Constitution. Just as the Supreme Court has often used the preamble to the Constitution itself, to guide and interpret how far Federal Power may reach, in fulfilling the purpose (stated goals of the preamble) of the Constitution.

Unfortunately, there is a conflict in the commerce clause and the 2nd amendment.

The Congress has used the commerce clause to regulate arms between the states. Such regulation includes the outright banning of civilian ownership of certain weapons that it deems have no usefullness to the citizenry. The cosmetic semi-automatic rifle ban of 1994 is just such an example.

Yet, the 2nd amendment says that the right to keep (own; possess) and bear (shoulder; wear; use) arms (defined at the time of the writings as any small arm an infantryman would use in combat) shall not be infringed. Clearly, the ban on certain weapons, weapons that bear a similar likeness to the weapons used by the Army, is an infringement. That particular law has ended, so it is now a moot point. But it is an usefull illustration of how the Congress, and the Courts (because the Courts had consistently upheld this law) have infringed this right.

The 2nd amendment, without explicitly saying so, modifies the commerce clause to comform to the language of the 2nd. Any interpretation that would say otherwise, completely voids the restrictions of that amendment.

I will go one further. Each and every power of the Federal Government is modified by the 2nd amendment, if said power would infringe the right. That is what amendments to the Constitution do. They modify (restrict, when dealing with the BoR) the main document.

Article V of the Constitution states that Amendments to the Constitution "shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution..." This is one part of the Constitution that has remained intact and without modification since it was ratified. Therefore, according to Article V, the BoR does not have a separate existence, but they do modify each, every, and any clause that would diminish the restrictions placed upon federal power by the very enactment and ratification of those broadly termed amendments.

The Bill of Rights, whether by design and purpose or by accident, are overly broad. For the Congress to restrict them, is a violation of its authority. For the Courts to interpret them as being less than they are, is to ignore the constitutional process of amendment.
 
I have little to add to that, except that I like how you think. And I feel kinda stupid for not seeing this fairly obvious implication earlier.

I guess this hadn't really been an issue before, since we didn't have a clear interpretation backing up the 2A as an individual right before. No other uses of the ISC have conflicted with amendments, have they?
 
Here is what the Montana Gun law is aimed at.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

Roscoe Filburn was a farmer who produced wheat in excess of the amount permitted. Filburn however, argued that because the excess wheat was produced for his private consumption on his own farm, it never entered commerce at all, much less interstate commerce, and therefore was not a proper subject of federal regulation under the Commerce Clause.
Click to expand...

Judge Andrew Napolitano has stated on some programs that the USSC would probably have 5 or 6 votes to overturn this ruling on the current court.

If this movement spreads to other states which I believe it has and gains momentum this would have Feds quaking in thier shoes. I am getting the popcorn and soda ready for the show. I know somebody in DC is sweating over the potential of this case. So do they make a big throwdown with propoganda and risk waking the sleeping giant or do nothing and hope it gets no attention?

Has my support.
 
Eghad, that is why my suggestion is to hit them with Constitutional Construction (I don't think we have the 5 votes to overturn Wickard, and the cases stemming from it - See Raich). Whatever the BOR may or may not protect, it surely overrides Congressional powers (Art. I Section 8) as regards legislation that abridges or infringes those amendments. If they don't, then there are no restrictions upon the Congress (and the Government, in general) at all (as Thomas summarized in Raich).

We have a lot of 1st amendment case law that does this, without ever saying this. That's what must change. The Courts need to recognize that whatever powers were granted, were then further restricted by those amendments.
 
Glenn Beck did a segment on this subject and interviewed the authors. The segment may be watched HERE

Apparently the governor has signed this law and it goes into effect October 1st.

Texas is going to soon follow suit according to one of the people interviewed who stated "We have already filed his (Gary Marbut's) bill in Texas"..
 
Last edited:
What I thought was the most interesting comment in the Glenn Beck link was the concept of the state government instructing it's law enforcement not to enforce federal laws that it considered over reaching and unconstitutional thus overwhelming the federal authorities with the burden.
Sounds good, but will be interesting to see if any state will actually do that visibly.
 
Texas is going to soon follow suit according to one of the people interviewed who stated "We have already filed his (Gary Marbut's) bill in Texas"..
Click to expand...
The bill I heard about in TX was more of a generalized states' rights statement, not a gun-specific bill like MT.

IMHO the MT bill would have serious trouble passing in TX. The TX legislative process is notoriously difficult; there's a single short legislative session once every 2 years, and given the number of issues affecting our big and populous state, the sessions tend to degenerate into a horse race to pass mounds of legislation in a very short time. Bills aren't guaranteed a floor vote unless they have broad-based support and/or are favored by powerful committee members, and sometimes not even then. :(

TX has a strong and historically entrenched fiscally conservative legislative culture that crosses party lines. Based on the speeches I've heard, this is the main impetus behind the proposed state's-rights bill. OTOH despite out-of-state stereotypes, our legislature is not always strongly pro-gun. TX is still not an open-carry state and there has been no strong legislative action taken to change this. The recent campus-carry and employee-parking bills died in the House, were resurrected in the Senate, and look like they're going to wither on the vine because the regular legislative session ends June 1st.

It'll be interesting to see what happens in 2011 regardless. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top