Montana Fires a Warning Shot Over States’ Rights
30. Apr, 2009 
7 Comments
By Kahrin Deines, Associated Press
HELENA – Montana is trying to trigger a battle over gun control — and perhaps make a larger point about what many folks in this ruggedly independent state regard as a meddlesome federal government.
In a bill passed by the Legislature earlier this month, the state is asserting that guns manufactured in Montana and sold in Montana to people who intend to keep their weapons in Montana are exempt from federal gun registration, background check and dealer-licensing rules because no state lines are crossed.
That notion is all but certain to be tested in court.
The immediate effect of the law could be limited, since Montana is home to just a few specialty gun makers, known for high-end hunting rifles and replicas of Old West weapons, and because their out-of-state sales would automatically trigger federal control.
Still, much bigger prey lies in Montana’s sights: a legal showdown over how far the federal government’s regulatory authority extends.
“It’s a gun bill, but it’s another way of demonstrating the sovereignty of the state of Montana,” said Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer, who signed the bill.
Carrie DiPirro, a spokeswoman for the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, had no comment on the legislation. But the federal government has generally argued that it has authority under the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution to regulate guns because they can so easily be transported across state lines.
CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE
If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,
Ms. DiPirro (mentioned in the article) must also think the federal government can regulate the tomato you grow in your little backyard garden since it could easily be transported across state lines.
Art. I, Sec. 8: “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;”
It does not say “To regulate [all things that could be] Commerce…”
Great point Jeff. It also does not say “to regulate anything that might possibly affect commerce”
It was established to ensure that the states didn’t impede trade throughout the country. It was another limit, not an expansion, on the power of government
The good news is that this might just begin to pull the Tenth Amendment more into the light. Not that the MSM will likely report it, but Fox might pick it up.
I certainly hope it does bring the 10th back into the light, for the many unenlightened Americans that have no idea what it is. In my opinion, the crossing state lines commerce clause needs to be revised (clarification for judicial purposes). I’d say the clause is way to encompassing to be legal under the constitution.
The so-called interstate commerce clause was first meant to “regulate” interstate commerce and not “punish”commerce. HOWEVER,with the passage of the Amendments to the US Constitution this power was totally nullified and States and the people assumed their full sovereign rights.
For too long congress has usurped them at will with the approval of the Federal Courts and the U.S. “Criminal” Supreme Court.
The federal government has no constitutional rights over firearms within the different States not only under amendment 10 but also also under amendment 2 and it’s long overdue that States started to draw a line line not in the sand but in concrete and told Congress and the rest of the federal oppressive system to back off.
If we don’t fight, one day it may be a federal crime going to buy a car or just grocery shopping across State lines.