The Montana initiative is nothing more nor less than an effort to begin rolling back the Fed's (and specifically the BATFE's) monumental overreaching into what should be state-regulated (or not) matters.
My Father, a UVA Law School Grad, always believed that until it crossed the state line it was a state issue not under the Feds. This could apply to guns or weed.
Weed is a perfect example. The Federal courts have ruled that the Feds have jurisdiction over marijuana, even if it is grown, sold, and consumed all within the same state. "How do they get to claim that?" you might ask.
By some of the most convoluted logic imaginable.
The Feds have the authority, under the Constitution, to regulate interstate commerce. And, in fact, any and all laws enacted that rely on the interstate commerce clause for their justification are supposed to state right in the body of the law how it satisfies the requirement.
The Federal law outlawing the sale of marijuana claims to apply even to MJ grown, sold and consumed all within one state by the tortuous logic that, because someone grew and sold marijuana locally, the end user did NOT have to import it from out of state, and therefore interstate commerce was "affected."
Got that? I hope so, 'cause I didn't just make that up. That's the logic, and that's the logic the Feds are using to counter the Montana initiative. They're going to argue that if even one screw or spring in a Montana-made firearm is "imported," they have jurisdiction. And they'll likely claim that they have jurisdiction anyway, because of a Montana resident buys a Montana-made rifle, he WON'T buy a marlin or a Savage, and thus interstate commerce will be "affected."