Montana nullifies federal gun laws!?

That refers to weapons which DO NOT move in interstate commerce, in other words, weapons which are made in Montana and stay in Montana. Constitutionally the Federal Government does not have the power to restrict arms, but they do have the power to restrict interstate commerce, which they use to restrict firearms. There is no Federal law regulating the intrastate commerce in weapons, so there is no nullification of any Federal laws. In fact, this Montana Bill is along the same lines as the states where switchblades are legal, even though they are illegal in interstate commerce, so there is precedence for this bill.

"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."

I'm sure they will have good laws for their state. But I got to say when getting robbed or having a home invasion, I might want to use a Russian,m Hungarian or even a swiss made weapon. Ii would like to know what calibers they do have and also rifles just in case you are being attacked in force and have to stop a few before they get too close. Have an enchanted 2009!

oN the lighten side I figure what they are doing is going to cost them something, but if they can handle it then maybe, just maybe some other states will cut the cord!

Legally speaking, Montana may pass such a law, and there is nothing really to challenge it until just one of those forearms/silencers leaves the state of Montana. The the law becomes pretty much null and void. There is also the little matter of the ATF, a federal agency that enforces federal firearms legislation. What you describe is similar to the California medical marijuana regulation. While medical marijuana is legal in California, by prescription, it is illegal under federal law. Users and distributors may be arrested, fined and possibly imprisoned under federal law

Very cool. When this country started it was with the idea that the states would create their own laws with the Constitution being the only limiting document. Unfortunately that changed many years ago and the federal government got more and more involved with our everyday lives without being asked to do so.

States are supposed to have the rights to control these things. Good for Montana.

I'm proud to have been born and raised in Montana...except for the whole Max Baucus and UniBomber thing...

I like this idea because I like states' rights. People in Montana use guns for recreation. Period. I was shooting a gun and learned all about gun safety when I was 9 years old. Do you know what the gun- crime rate is in Montana? Pretty much zero...that is, unless the government tries to take away our RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS...then, the rate may go up =]

Good for them. Ah the 10th Amendment... it's a b___h! LOLOLOL!

A video you should see (somewhat related to topic):

It's about the Swiss and WW2.

http://americansjourney.blogspot.com/2009/02/map-o...

From the 'comments' section:

* Having lived in Switzerland, it was clear to me that the Swiss are the most organised people on the planet, and the most free in the sense that their system of government places individuals at the top and all the layers of government below. They still have all the bidges and tunnels mined, there are tank traps in every valley road ready to be placed at an instant and the mountains are full of ammunition dumps and military facilities. *** Every Swiss man has a rifle and must attend a rifle range at least once a year to keep up their skills. They are fiercely proud. The story I was told is that the policy is "aggressive neutrality", they would not provoke anyone, but should anyone attack, they would not relent. Seeing their special forces in action during the one hijack attempt at Zurich airport makes it clear they are ruthlessly efficient. *** I don't think any sensible army would try to attack them in their mountain strongholds, simply impossible to overcome. They still have donkey troops to get over the high mountain passes and even still have carrier pidgeons equiped with electronic storage devices for carrying messages between valleys. Back in the '90s they were investigating bouncing radio off the micrometeors as a way to communicate between the valleys. No, Hitler would have been stupid to attack. The banking system certainly had a role, particularly as a medium of transfer of wealth between the waring nations, but the "aggressive neutrality" was enough to prevent the invasion.

* Switzerland's official policy is to fight to the last Swiss, including men women and children, and destroy the country if defeated. It is the policy that lower level officers will disobey any order to surrender, and that enlisted men will shoot any officer who orders surrender. Switzerland officially does not have chemical and nuclear weapons but will certainly use them if invaded and facing defeat.

Sweden has a similar policy and was also spared invasion by the Nazis and the communists. Both Sweden and Switzerland allowed Hitler to transit their countries. Dishonorable? Perhaps, but no more so than the US and Britain cooperating with Stalin.

Good for Montana and its legal and law abiding gun owners. Now only if the other 50 states followed suit...I am sure some will look into this.

It is good to see that some people get things.

Yes!

I live in Montana and there is no Obama Military Youth Brigade that is going to come to my door with intent to take away my home or my rights without a fight!

I'm keeping my gun and my bullets!

Wealth Management, I agree with the whole Max Baucus thing, Montana lost it on that one. (Schweitzer too.)

Go Montana!

No, Montana helps UPHOLD　Constitutional gun laws.