I like Indiana, but...

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • 243rem700

    Expert
    Rating - 100%
    11   0   0
    Nov 21, 2008
    885
    18
    Fort Wayne
    I may be moving.

    Montana Fires a Warning Shot over States' Rights
    Wednesday, April 29, 2009
    By Staff, Associated Press

    Helena, Mont. (AP) - 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.

    Guns and states' rights both play well in Montana, the birthplace of the right-wing Freemen militia and a participant in the Sagebrush Rebellion of the 1970s and '80s, during which Western states clashed with Washington over grazing and mineral extraction on federal land.

    Montana's leading gun rights organization, more hardcore than the National Rifle Association, boasts it has moved 50 bills through the Legislature over the past 25 years. And lawmakers in the Big Sky State have rebelled against federal control of everything from wetland protection to the national Real ID system.

    Under the new law, guns intended only for Montana would be stamped "Made in Montana." The drafters of the law hope to set off a legal battle with a simple Montana-made youth-model single-shot, bolt-action .22 rifle. They plan to find a "squeaky clean" Montanan who wants to send a note to the ATF threatening to build and sell about 20 such rifles without federal dealership licensing.

    If the ATF tells them it's illegal, they will sue and take the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, if they can.

    Similar measures have also been introduced in Texas and Alaska.

    "I think states have got to stand up or else most of their rights are going to be buffaloed by the administration and by Congress," said Texas state Rep. Leo Berman.

    Critics say exempting guns from federal laws anywhere would undermine efforts to stem gun violence everywhere.

    "Guns cross state lines and they do so constantly, and this is a Sagebrush Rebellion-type effort to light some sort of fire and get something going that's pleasing to the gun nuts and that has very little actual sense," said Peter Hamm, communications director for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

    In a 2005 case, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the enforcement of federal laws against marijuana in California, even if the drug is for medical purposes and is grown and used within the state. The court found that since marijuana produced in California is essentially indistinguishable from pot grown outside the state, the federal government must have the authority to regulate both to enforce national drug laws.

    Randy Barnett, the lawyer and constitutional scholar who represented the plaintiff in the California case, said that Montana could argue that its "Made in Montana"-stamped guns are unique and sufficiently segregated as to lie outside federal regulation.

    Supporters of the measure say the main purpose is not extending gun freedoms, but curbing what they regard as an oppressive interpretation of the interstate commerce clause and federal overreach into such things as livestock management and education.

    "Firearms are inextricably linked to the history and culture of Montana, and I'd like to support that," said Montana state Rep. Joel Boniek, the bill's sponsor. "But I want to point out that the issue here is not about firearms. It's about state rights."

    :rockwoot:
     

    VN Vet

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Aug 26, 2008
    2,781
    48
    Indianapolis
    My extended Family has been talking about moving to Montana upon retirement. I am not sure. If we end up in a fight I would rather stay here and do so with my Friends. If Fight we must, then Fight We Will!

    This is Not to be missunderstood as a threat. I am not promoting and not antaginizing anything, I am only making a Statement on how I and I alone feel now during these Trying Days.

    My Friends, We are all living in a Very Historical Time in Our Country, IMO.

    We the People, the First Words of the Preamble of OUR CONSTITUTION are the Change that is coming, that Obama is Really Talking About.
     
    Last edited:

    hotfarmboy1

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Nov 7, 2008
    7,919
    36
    Madison County
    I'd love to live in Montana, and have thought many times about moving there. But the fact that I want to take over the farm someday is what keeps me here. Oh well I still like IN too :)
     

    Indy317

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Nov 27, 2008
    2,495
    38
    My future plans do include having some sort of property in Montana. I went there two years ago, from Billings to Whitefish and down to W. Yellowstone...Montana is just awesome. Even given that, they are not a land that is 100% free. Montana had a state wide smoking ban in restaurants (and my guess is other public places, at least where people under 18 were allowed in). This was back in Sept. of 2007, so they were way ahead of violating the rights of private business owners long before Indiana started to dive into that mess.

    Even with the violations upon private business owners, Montana is still a great state. It is so nice there, the various regions of the state. I would not mind living in the Kalispell/Whitefish/Flathead Valley area at all. As far as staying in an area with friends, I wouldn't worry too much about that at all. There are a ton of transplants in W. Montana. In fact, just west of Kalispell, in Sandpoint, ID, that town is filled with retired LAPD types who foresee the coming collapse of this country. I would love to retire to the area, but that will depend on many things. Hell, I would love to move to the area now, but again, it is hard when your _entire_ family is based in and around Indy.
     

    El Cazador

    Expert
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 17, 2009
    1,100
    36
    NW Hendricks CO
    As much as I love the west, and might retire out there, I would rather foster that Montana ideal here in Indiana, than pick up and run somewhere else to encounter a new set of problems I didn't have here. Our Senate passed a sovereignty/10th Amendment resolution this year, and the House tried to pass one as well. They might have not been as in-your-face as Montana's but it's a start. We've got to encourage the people that voted for the resolutions, and work to vote out the ones that didn't.

    I know, more cheerleading, but Indiana's got pretty good carry and gun laws (and just a few of them), and except for some of the larger cities, Hoosiers are pretty self-sufficient and not so keen on somebody telling them what to do and how to do it. That really should help in getting most folks to tell the Feds "Get Lost".
     
    Last edited:

    243rem700

    Expert
    Rating - 100%
    11   0   0
    Nov 21, 2008
    885
    18
    Fort Wayne
    As much as I love the west, and might retire out there, I would rather foster that Montana ideal here in Indiana, than pick up and run somewhere else to encounter a new set of problems I didn't have here. Our Senate passed a sovereignty/10th Amendment resolution this year, and the House tried to pass one as well. They might have not been as in-your-face as Montana's but it's a start. We've got to encourage the people that voted for the resolutions, and work to vote out the ones that didn't.

    I know, more cheerleading, but Indiana's got pretty good carry and gun laws (and just a few of them), and except for some of the larger cities, Hoosiers are pretty self-sufficient and not so keen on somebody telling them what to do and how to do it. That really should help in getting most folks to tell the Feds "Get Lost".

    I agree with you, but Montana has two things that interest me that Indiana will never have: the mountain scenery and much more open space.
     

    mettle

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    14   0   0
    Nov 15, 2008
    4,224
    36
    central southern IN
    Been out there, love it out there, want to move and be a Park Ranger out there! I can't wait to get my degree!!! Indiana can go suck its head.
    I may be moving.

    Montana Fires a Warning Shot over States' Rights
    Wednesday, April 29, 2009
    By Staff, Associated Press

    Helena, Mont. (AP) - 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.

    Guns and states' rights both play well in Montana, the birthplace of the right-wing Freemen militia and a participant in the Sagebrush Rebellion of the 1970s and '80s, during which Western states clashed with Washington over grazing and mineral extraction on federal land.

    Montana's leading gun rights organization, more hardcore than the National Rifle Association, boasts it has moved 50 bills through the Legislature over the past 25 years. And lawmakers in the Big Sky State have rebelled against federal control of everything from wetland protection to the national Real ID system.

    Under the new law, guns intended only for Montana would be stamped "Made in Montana." The drafters of the law hope to set off a legal battle with a simple Montana-made youth-model single-shot, bolt-action .22 rifle. They plan to find a "squeaky clean" Montanan who wants to send a note to the ATF threatening to build and sell about 20 such rifles without federal dealership licensing.

    If the ATF tells them it's illegal, they will sue and take the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, if they can.

    Similar measures have also been introduced in Texas and Alaska.

    "I think states have got to stand up or else most of their rights are going to be buffaloed by the administration and by Congress," said Texas state Rep. Leo Berman.

    Critics say exempting guns from federal laws anywhere would undermine efforts to stem gun violence everywhere.

    "Guns cross state lines and they do so constantly, and this is a Sagebrush Rebellion-type effort to light some sort of fire and get something going that's pleasing to the gun nuts and that has very little actual sense," said Peter Hamm, communications director for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

    In a 2005 case, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the enforcement of federal laws against marijuana in California, even if the drug is for medical purposes and is grown and used within the state. The court found that since marijuana produced in California is essentially indistinguishable from pot grown outside the state, the federal government must have the authority to regulate both to enforce national drug laws.

    Randy Barnett, the lawyer and constitutional scholar who represented the plaintiff in the California case, said that Montana could argue that its "Made in Montana"-stamped guns are unique and sufficiently segregated as to lie outside federal regulation.

    Supporters of the measure say the main purpose is not extending gun freedoms, but curbing what they regard as an oppressive interpretation of the interstate commerce clause and federal overreach into such things as livestock management and education.

    "Firearms are inextricably linked to the history and culture of Montana, and I'd like to support that," said Montana state Rep. Joel Boniek, the bill's sponsor. "But I want to point out that the issue here is not about firearms. It's about state rights."

    :rockwoot:
     

    Crimson

    Expert
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Jul 24, 2008
    785
    28
    Columbus, Indiana
    Go Montana. I have lived out west in my earlier days(idaho) and just love that western feeling. All states should do this, there is no reason to have this much federal involment in all aspects of our lives.
     

    Kirk Freeman

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    11   0   0
    Mar 9, 2008
    48,269
    113
    Lafayette, Indiana
    Ummm, isn't the federal government the biggest landowner in Montana?

    Typical Montana--"federal government should leave me alone, but I want my federal check and BLM land.":D

    Interesting proposal, it be meaningless in federal court.
     

    teknickle

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    May 4, 2009
    402
    18
    God's Country
    That's pretty fricking sweet. Who doesn't love somebody standing up to authority. Why havn't i seen this covered on any news?
    Seriously?
    Only 5 entities (corporations + Rupert Murdock) own ALL of the major media outlets and mainstream television in this country. Mainstream Media (MSM) is for amusement only.
    If you want truth then turn off the idiot box.

    This all started back in 1935 with JP Morgan purchasing up the major newspapers of the time and started the Council on Foreign Relations.
    Control media and you control public opinion.

    Other members of CFR you might recognize:
    Dick CheneyJohn Kerry
    Bill Clinton
    Al Gore
    Ronald Reagan
    George H. W. Bush
    Gerald Ford
    Richard Nixon
    John, David & Nelson Rockefeller
    Condolezza Rice
    Paul Wolfowitz
    Alan Greenspan
    Colin Powell
    Henry Kissinger
    Angelina Jolie (Yes, the actress has a five year term membership as an ambassador)
    Barack ObamaHillary Clinton
    John Edwards
    Chris Dodd
    Bill Richardson
    Mitt Romney
    Rudy Giuliani
    John McCain
    Fred Thompson
    Newt Gingrich


    Things are just a few things you SHOULD be aware of right now:
    HR 45: Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009


    HR 17: Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 2009: To protect the right to obtain firearms for security, and to use firearms in defense of self, family, or home, and to provide for the enforcement of such right.


    HR 1913: Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 (the REAL scary thing with this one is that if local law enforcement doesn't pursue allegations of it being a 'hate crime', then the Fed comes in and takes the case).


    HR 197: National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2009

    There are important pieces of legislation that are GOOD (but won't pass the Senate). Then look at the crazy stuff that WILL make it through.
    National ID implementation, 'carbon tax'(that gets paid to UN), ban on organic farming, irradiation of all produce and socialized civilian force and you have a modern remake of Stalin.

    Should we all move to Montana?
    NO!
    Contact your representatives and let them know you will support them for standing up (reaffirming sovereignty under 10th amendment is a start).
    Also let them know you will work hard to get them out of office if they cave into selling off all your rights and liberties.
     
    Top Bottom