The state of Montana has decided to pick a fight with the Federal Government. The Montana State Legislature recently passed legislation, which was signed into law by the Democratic Govenor Brian Schweitzer, which exempts citizens of Montana from federal background check requirements if a gun was made in Montana, sold to a resident of Montana, and intended to remain within Montana.
The idea behind this is that if the gun remains within the state then the commerce clause of the U.S. constitution does not apply and the Federal Government would not be allowed to regulate the sale or distribution of these firearms. This is an interesting concept, and is sure to generate a fight. This one could get really ugly, really fast.
I'm sorry what's that US gov't? You say that states rights are dead? I don't f^&king think so!
Montana is claiming that this is less of a gun control issue and more of a state’s rights issue. That may be the case, but I can’t think of a quicker way to generate a federal fight that is on the express lane to the Supreme Court than something like the sale of guns. For once it appears that legislators actually had some logical thought processes when they came up with this plan. Great work Montana. I also find it interesting that the Governor of Montana is a democrat and he is supporting this legislation on the basis that the states should be free of such federal conrol.
States should be free of such federal control. The interstate commerce clause is possibly the most abused clause in the entire Constitution, and it's time to return to what our founders intended for the states to be, and that's individual states with their own laws free from the powers of a central gov't.
To put it another way, the federal gov't and the supreme court have ruled many times in the past that all the states were going to be whitewashed and made to follow estentially the same laws (federal), and Montana has just said "um...screw that I think we are going to be RED instead of white."
Not surprising from the state which was first to remove federally imposed speed limits even though the gov't threatened to remove interstate funding....(lol as if the federal gov't would let the interstates go to ruin...).
I know that similar arguments were made when the issue of Marijuana grown and used (is that the term you would use?) in California does not fall under federal authority because it does not enter the stream of “interstate commerce” which would allow federal regulation. The argument failed because the Supreme Court stated that pot grown in California was indistinguishable from pot grown outside of California. The Montana gun manufacturer would get around this requirement by a “Made in Montana” stamp which is clearly place on the gun.
See, and you thought there was no reason that the pot-heads and gun nuts would ever get together! Well...bring on the pot-smoking gun toters cause mama always said "freedom is as freedom does!"
Harold A. Black is professor emeritus in the Department of Finance, University of Tennessee, Knoxville having retired after 24 years of service. He has served on the faculties of American University, Howard University, the University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill and the University of Florida. His government service includes the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and as a Board Member of the National Credit Union Administration. He also has served on the boards of directors Home Savings of America and its parent company, H. F. Ahmanson & Co., Irwindale, California prior to its merger with Washington Mutual Savings Bank, on the board of New Century Financial Corporation, Irvine, California, then the nation’s largest real estate investment trust and as director and later chairman of the Nashville Branch of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta. He writes an occasional article for the Knoxville News-Sentinel at http://www.knoxnews.com/staff/dr-harold-black/. His web page is haroldablackphd.com