The Mental Militia Forums

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Down

Author Topic: Gun Groups File Lawsuit - Montana Firearms Freedom Act  (Read 17107 times)

Basil Fishbone

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2091
    • http://
Gun Groups File Lawsuit - Montana Firearms Freedom Act
« on: October 01, 2009, 01:54:56 pm »

Fwd: Gun Groups File Lawsuit - Montana Firearms Freedom Act
 From: Gary Marbut-MSSA <mssa@mtssa.org>
 To: mssa@mtssa.org
 
Gun Groups File Lawsuit to Validate
Montana Firearms Freedom Act

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE           Contact: Gary Marbut, 406-549-1252
                                                             Alan
Gottlieb, 425-454-7012

MISSOULA - The Montana Shooting Sports
Association (MSSA) and the Second Amendment
Foundation (SAF) filed a lawsuit in federal court
in Missoula today to validate the principles and
terms of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act (MFFA).

The MFFA was enacted by the 2009 Montana
Legislature, signed by Governor Schweitzer, and
becomes effective today, Oct. 1.

Lead attorney for the plaintiffs' litigation team
is Quentin Rhoades of the Missoula firm of
Sullivan, Tabaracci & Rhoades, PC.  The MFFA
litigation team also includes other attorneys
located in Montana, New York, Florida, Arizona and Washington.

"We feel very strongly that the federal
government has gone way too far in attempting to
regulate a lot of activity that occurs only
in-state,” explained MSSA President Gary Marbut.
“The Montana Legislature and governor agreed with
us by enacting the MFFA.  It’s time for Montana
and her sister states to take a stand against the
bullying federal government, which the
Legislature and Governor have done and we are
doing with this lawsuit. We welcome the support
of many other states that are stepping up to the
plate with their own firearms freedom acts.”

“We’re happy to join this lawsuit,” said SAF
founder Alan Gottlieb, “because we believe this
issue should be decided by the courts.”

The MFFA declares that any firearms made and
retained in Montana are not subject to any
federal authority under the power given to
Congress in the U.S. Constitution to regulate
“commerce … among the several states.” The MFFA
relies on the Tenth Amendment and other
principles to challenge Congress’ commerce clause
power to regulate a wide spectrum of in-state
activities. This is a states’ rights effort,
using firearms as the object of the exercise. The
MFFA exempts Montana-made and retained firearms,
firearm accessories and ammunition from federal
power, saying that if these items do not cross
state lines, they are strictly INTRAstate
commerce, not INTERstate commerce, and not subject to federal authority.

MSSA continues to strongly urge that no Montana
citizen attempt to manufacture an MFFA-covered
item, even after the law takes effect today,
until MSSA can prove the principles of the MFFA
in court. Until the courts rule in support of the
MFFA, any such manufacturer could be subject to federal criminal prosecution.

This concept has caught national attention.
Tennessee has passed a clone of the MFFA.  Other
clones have been introduced in Alaska, Texas,
Florida, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan
and Minnesota. Legislators in 20 other states
have indicated that they will introduce MFFA
clones in their states once their legislatures
reconvene, Marbut said. Information about the
Firearms Freedom Act movement is being
accumulated and made publicly available at firearmsfreedomact.com.

This movement follows multi-state rejection of
Washington-mandated Real ID, a law passed by
Congress requiring state drivers licenses to
conform to federal identification standards. The
FFA movement also works in tandem with
resolutions introduced or passed in many states
asserting state sovereignty under the Ninth and
Tenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. As is
the rest of the Bill of Rights, the Ninth and
Tenth Amendments are limitations on federal
power. The Ninth Amendment says:  “The
enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights
shall not be construed to deny or disparage
others retained by the people.”  The Tenth
Amendment declares:  “The powers not delegated to
the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to
the States respectively, or to the people.”

Under our federated system of government in the
U.S., Marbut noted, states and the federal
government are widely recognized to share power
and authority, with definite limits placed on
federal power by the states, the creators of the
federal government. The MFFA lawsuit is designed
to test and define those limits, to assert
states' authority, and to limit what many see as
overbearing authority assumed by Congress and the federal government.

Beginning during the New Deal, federal courts
have generally upheld federal commerce clause
authority, initially in the 1942 case of Wickard
v. Filburn and continuing recently with the 2005
case of Gonzales v. Raich.  Raich was the Supreme
Court case allowing federal regulation of medical
marijuana in California.  However, other cases
such as the 1995 case of US v. Lopez suggest that
federal commerce power is not infinitely elastic,
that there are limits to federal commerce power,
and that it has just not yet been determined what
those limits may be. The MFFA litigation is
structured to clarify and affirm those limits.

The modern era of dramatically-expanded federal
commerce clause power was ushered in with the
Wickard decision. The Supreme Court allowed this
considerable expansion of federal commerce power
under Wickard only after President Roosevelt
threatened to pack the Court with cronies if the
Court didn’t cease declaring Roosevelt’s New Deal
programs to be unconstitutional and beyond
federal reach. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_clause)


MSSA is the primary political advocate for
Montana gun owners. SAF is a national
organization headquartered in Bellevue, WA that
works nationally to advance the interests of gun owners.

- 30 -

Copy of Complaint available at:  http://www.marbut.com/complaint.html


Gary Marbut, president
Montana Shooting Sports Association
http://www.mtssa.org
author, Gun Laws of Montana
http://www.mtpublish.com
Logged

Basil Fishbone

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2091
    • http://
Re: Gun Groups File Lawsuit - Montana Firearms Freedom Act
« Reply #1 on: January 21, 2010, 10:07:42 am »

Fwd: Feds Respond to Firearms Freedom Act Lawsuit - News Release
 From: Gary Marbut-MSSA <mssa@mtssa.org>
 To: mssa@mtssa.org
 
News Release
(for immediate release January 21, 2010)

Feds Respond to Firearms Freedom Act Lawsuit
Motion to Dismiss "Expected"

MISSOULA - The United States has made its first response to a lawsuit
filed in federal district court in Missoula to test the Montana
Firearms Freedom Act (MFFA), passed by the 2009 Legislature and
signed into law by Governor Schweitzer.

The MFFA declares that any firearms, ammunition or firearms
accessories made and retained in Montana are not subject to federal
regulation under the power given to Congress in the U.S. Constitution
to regulate commerce "among the several states."  The MFFA is a
states' rights challenge on Tenth Amendment grounds, with firearms
serving as the vehicle for the challenge.

This lawsuit to validate the MFFA was brought by the Montana Shooting
Sports Association (MSSA) and Second Amendment Foundation (SAF).  The
suit names U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder as defendant, and is
referred to as MSSA v. Holder.

The first response to the lawsuit by the United States is a Motion to
Dismiss, submitted January 19th and considered to be a standard
procedural maneuver in lawsuits against the U.S government .  This
motion seeks to avoid the legal merits by asserting that the
Plaintiffs lack standing to sue, that a justiciable controversy does
not exist, and  that prevailing case law is against Plaintiffs.

MSSA President Gary Marbut, also a Plaintiff in the lawsuit
explained, "The first import of this response is that the legal game
is now on.  There was some concern that the defendants would forfeit
the game with no response in an effort to prevent this important
issue from being adjudicated properly.  We are now beyond that
hurdle."  However, the Motion to Dismiss by Washington also seeks to
sidestep proper adjudication.

SAF Chairman Alan Gottlieb said, "We are disappointed but not
surprised that the government would try to kill this suit on
standing, rather than arguing about the merits of the case."

The MFFA concept has gained traction across the Nation since its
passage in Montana.  Tennessee has enacted a clone of the MFFA, and
other clones have been introduced in the state legislatures of 19
other states, including:  Alabama, Alaska, Arizona Florida, Georgia,
Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire,
Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Virginia,
Washington, and Wyoming. .  Ten or more additional states are
expected to introduce yet more MFFA clones in the next few
weeks.  (See: http://www.FirearmsFreedomAct.com)

The U.S.'s Motion to Dismiss and Brief in Support are viewable at:
http://FirearmsFreedomAct.com/montana-lawsuit-updates/

MSSA and SAF have assembled a litigation team for this effort
consisting of three attorneys from Montana, one from New York, one
from Florida and one from Arizona.  Lead attorney for the Plaintiffs
is Quentin Rhoades, partner the Missoula firm of Sullivan, Tabaracci
and Rhoades.  Other interested parties from both in and out of
Montana are preparing to weigh in on this issue of national interest
and national importance as amicus curiae (friends of the court).

Marbut commented, "The FFA concept has created a firestorm of
interest nationwide.  Lots of people and other states are watching
carefully to see how Montana fares in this challenge to overbearing
federal authority and to Washington's attempt to control every detail
of commerce in the Nation, especially including activity wholly
confined within an individual state.  That level of micro management
certainly was not the intent of our founders when they gave Congress
limited power in the Constitution to regulate commerce 'among the
states'."  (See:  http://FirearmsFreedomAct.com/what-is-the-commerce-clause/)

MSSA is the primary political advocate for gun owners and hunters in
Montana, having gotten 54 pro-gun and pro-hunting bills through the
Montana Legislature in the past 25 years.  SAF is a pro-gun
foundation in Bellevue, Washington, established to press the rights
of gun owners primarily in judicial fora.  SAF has been a party to
numerous lawsuits to assert the rights of gun owners across the Nation.

  - 30 -

Information:  Gary Marbut; 406-549-1252


Gary Marbut, president
Montana Shooting Sports Association
http://www.mtssa.org
author, Gun Laws of Montana
http://www.mtpublish.com
Logged

Basil Fishbone

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2091
    • http://
Re: Gun Groups File Lawsuit - Montana Firearms Freedom Act
« Reply #2 on: February 01, 2010, 12:33:01 pm »

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=123419

WND Exclusive WEAPONS OF CHOICE

Feds claim authority to regulate in-state commerce

Government cites Constitution in demanding dismissal of gun challenge

Posted: January 31, 2010
8:06 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

The federal government is claiming in court documents demanding the dismissal of a gun-law challenge in Montana the authority to regulate in-state commerce under the Constitution's Commerce clause.

But the plaintiff in the case says the court needs to review that provision in its amended form – since the 10th Amendment, adopted after the Commerce Clause, can be viewed as modifying the Constitution's provisions regarding the regulation of commerce, specifically granting additional authority to states.

The argument is arising in a lawsuit filed in Montana against U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and others. The complaint seeks a court order that the federal government stay out of the way of Montana's management of its own firearms within state boundaries. ...<snip>...
Logged

mutti

  • Mutti
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5832
Re: Gun Groups File Lawsuit - Montana Firearms Freedom Act
« Reply #3 on: February 21, 2010, 12:32:45 pm »

If this is in the wrong place, I apologize:

ATF Tries to Revoke "Montana Made"
State Sovereignty Laws


Quote
We all predicted this would happen.

In a move typical for that fear-mongering organization with an ever-swelling acronym, the BATFE has written gun dealers in the states of Montana and Tennessee to let them know the BATFE will be disregarding the states' sovereign gun laws.

Is true?
Logged
Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.  Jefferson

"The universe never did make sense; I suspect it was built on government contract." Heinlein

Basil Fishbone

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2091
    • http://
Re: Gun Groups File Lawsuit - Montana Firearms Freedom Act
« Reply #4 on: February 21, 2010, 02:06:32 pm »

Yes, it is true.  The BATFEces has some power over licensed gun dealers, so this may be tested by people without existing federal permission slips.
Logged

Basil Fishbone

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2091
    • http://
Re: Gun Groups File Lawsuit - Montana Firearms Freedom Act
« Reply #5 on: April 08, 2010, 02:11:01 pm »

http://cbs4denver.com/wireapnewswy/Utah.Wyoming.South.2.1617593.html

Utah, Wyo., SD Plan To Join Mont. Gun Lawsuit

BEN NEARY, Associated Press Writers
CHEYENNE, Wyo. (AP) ― The attorneys general for Utah and Wyoming said Wednesday that their states and South Dakota will join a federal lawsuit pending in Montana in which pro-gun groups are seeking to protect that state's sovereign right to regulate guns.

The attorneys general confirmed that they plan to file a "friend of the court" brief in the Montana case this week, and that South Dakota also plans to join them. ...<snip>...
Logged

Basil Fishbone

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2091
    • http://
Re: Gun Groups File Lawsuit - Montana Firearms Freedom Act
« Reply #6 on: April 12, 2010, 10:49:18 pm »

http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/article_e198555a-4672-11df-a680-001cc4c002e0.html

More states join fight with feds over guns

Associated Press | Posted: Monday, April 12, 2010 2:32 pm | (3) Comments

HELENA — A growing list of states joining the legal battle over federal gun control argued Monday that Congress can't regulate guns made and sold within a state.

The argument over gun control, sparked with the "firearm freedoms act" first enacted in Montana and subsequently in other states, is leading to a constitutional showdown over the reach of Congress into state borders.

A total of seven states filed "friend of the court" briefs by Monday's deadline to do so. And the Montana attorney general also is seeking to intervene in a lawsuit first filed by gun advocates in U.S. District Court in Missoula.

"The American people and the several states created the federal government, and they now want the federal government constrained to the proper role for which it was created," said Gary Marbut, president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association that launched the lawsuit. "This is a forward step for freedom that has always been at the heart of who we are in America." ...<snip>...
Logged

patrick076

  • Guest
Re: Gun Groups File Lawsuit - Montana Firearms Freedom Act
« Reply #7 on: May 24, 2010, 03:07:50 am »

Yes, it is true.  The BATFEces has some power over licensed gun dealers, so this may be tested by people without existing federal permission slips.



its true i availed this it is just great
Logged

Basil Fishbone

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2091
    • http://
Re: Gun Groups File Lawsuit - Montana Firearms Freedom Act
« Reply #8 on: June 17, 2010, 12:35:00 pm »

Fwd: More from the U.S. on standing - MSSA v. Holder
 From: Gary Marbut-MSSA <mssa@mtssa.org>
 To: mssa@mtssa.org
 
Dear MSSA Friends,

The U.S. has filed a response to our recent motion about
standing.  While I understand intellectually that this is all
boilerplate legalese, it sure seems as if the U.S. is doing
everything it can to prevent MSSA v. Holder from going to trial for a
decision on merit.

See the response and Exhibit A the U.S. filed at the bottom of the
"Briefs" section at:
http://firearmsfreedomact.com/montana-lawsuit-updates/

Best wishes,

Gary Marbut, president
Montana Shooting Sports Association
http://www.mtssa.org
author, Gun Laws of Montana
http://www.mtpublish.com
Logged

Basil Fishbone

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2091
    • http://
Re: Gun Groups File Lawsuit - Montana Firearms Freedom Act
« Reply #9 on: July 16, 2010, 02:43:55 am »

Fwd: Report - Oral argument; MSSA v Holder US Motion to Dismiss
 From: Gary Marbut-MSSA <mssa@mtssa.org>
 To: mssa@mtssa.org
 
Dear MSSA Friends,

Oral argument was held today on the U.S. Motion to Dismiss MSSA v.
Holder, our lawsuit to validate the principles of the Montana
Firearms Freedom Act.

The hearing took place in the U.S. Courthouse at the corner of
Broadway and Pattee in Missoula, beginning at 9:00 AM, and finished
shortly after 11:00 AM.

The U.S. moved to dismiss the lawsuit (standard, boilerplate move)
based on standing, jurisdiction, and merit.

Concerning standing, the U.S. argues that I, as the sole individual
plaintiff, don't face imminent injury to allow me to obtain judicial
relief because there is no certainty that the BATFE will arrest me
and the U.S. will prosecute me if I forge ahead with plans to make
MFFA items without federal permission (licensure).

About jurisdiction, the feds say the U.S. is sovereign and cannot be
sued, except under the provisions of the Administrative Procedures
Act which allows suit to clarify rights and responsibilities only
after "final agency action."  The U.S. says that the BATFE letter to
me advising me that I will be prosecuted if I make any MFFA items for
resale is not final agency action, although the U.S. cannot say what
other position the BATFE could take to grant me any relief beyond
what it already has done (threaten me with prosecution if I make
MFFA-protected items).

About merit, the U.S. says that precedent is against the MFFA
concept, our side is bound to lose, so the court might as well just
dismiss the lawsuit now.

In this hearing, the U.S. was represented by
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/05/huffposts-sam-stein-is-ge_n_278251.html>Jessica
Leinwand, a young Department of Justice attorney from D.C.  Jessica
seemed bright, competent, well prepared, but only knowledgeable in a
bookish way.  That is, she seemed quick with and knowledgeable about
case citations that supported her side of the argument, but she did
not mount or support any philosophically-based arguments.  Although
Jessica's arguments seemed to be competently mounted, they also
seemed to lack any touch of passion or personal vestment.  One may
suppose it's difficult to wax passionate about arguing the federal
government position.

For a young attorney with limited experience to travel half way
across the country to a strange place and stand in opposition to a
half-dozen other experienced attorneys must be a nervous-making,
intimidating experience.  However nervous, Jessica did not let it
show and did a good job of focusing on business at hand.

There were a whole string of attorneys representing our side of this
contest.  Lead attorney for Plaintiffs (MSSA, SAF, and me) was
Quentin Rhoades, a partner with the Missoula firm of
<http://www.montanalawyer.com/>Sullivan, Tabaracci and
Rhoades.  Quentin has been lead counsel for Plaintiffs on this case
since the inception, and has done other litigation for MSSA.  Quentin
was accompanied by ST&R attorney Rob Erickson, although Rob did not argue.

Plaintiffs had arranged in advance to give some of our argument time
to two other attorneys representing amici parties to the
lawsuit.  One is Nick Dranias of the
<http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/>Goldwater Institute in
Arizona.  Montana federal court rules require that attorneys from out
of state must associate with and be "sponsored by" a Montana attorney
in order to appear in federal court in Montana.  Nick was sponsored
by attorney Tim Fox of Helena, recent candidate for Montana Attorney General.

The other amicus to whom Plaintiffs ceded some argument time was
Virginian attorney Herb Titus, who represents Gun Owners of America
and <http://www.gunowners.com/>Gun Owners Foundation.  Herb was
sponsored in Montana by attorney Greg Jackson of Helena.

The Attorney General of Montana has intervened in this lawsuit to
defend the constitutionality of a statute enacted by the Montana
Legislature and was given oral argument time separate from that given
to Plaintiffs and Defendant U.S.  The Montana AG was represented by
attorney Chris Tweeten from the Montana Department of Justice in Helena.

The AG was persuaded to cede some of his allocated oral argument time
to <http://www.umt.edu/law/faculty/renz.htm>Professor Jeff Renz of
the U. of M. School of Law, who argued for another amicus group of
Montana legislators.

Forward of the bar in the courtroom were the judge - Magistrate Judge
Jeremiah Lynch, the court secretary, the judge's two law clerks,
Quentin, me, Jessica (and Jessica's unnamed assistant), Tim, Nick,
Greg, Herb, Chris and Jeff.  There were about 40 people in the
audience, including MSSA Board Member and State Representative Cary
Smith from Billings, State Senator Jim Shockley from Victor, Idaho
Representative Dick Harwood who sponsored the Idaho Firearms Freedom
Act, a delegate from Congressman Denny Rehberg's office and interesting others.

The order of presentation was this:

Magistrate Lynch introduced the case.

Quentin explained time ceded to Nick and Herb and introduced the
Montana sponsors for each who introduced Nick and Herb to the court.

Chris introduced himself and introduced Jeff.

Then the hearing began.

Jessica went first for 35 minutes (all times approximate), and
reserved 15 minutes for rebuttal at the end.

Quentin went next for 20 minutes, then Nick for 10 minutes, and Herb
for another 10 minutes.

Following those, Chris argued for 15 minutes, and finally Jeff for 10 minutes.

Last, Jessica used her reserved 15 minutes for rebuttal/closing.

I will not attempt to cover all of the arguments made or questions
asked by Magistrate Lynch.  There was not a lot of new material that
was not already in briefs provided by various parties, all of which
is available from the
<http://firearmsfreedomact.com/montana-lawsuit-updates/>FFA Website.

Although all attorneys involved (including Jessica) did a great job,
Jeff carved out for himself the role of a cleanup batter.  He used
his final ten minutes primarily to address issues left in play by
questions from Magistrate Lynch.  In jumping into that cleanup role,
I thought Jeff did an especially helpful job.

I have asked ALL others present (including audience members) to offer
personal comment about the hearing today, and I will post those
comments Online when available and send you a link.  This location
will also offer digital pics of all the folks involved (outside the
Courthouse).

I will say that I thought we had a powerful presentation by those on
our side (i.e., everyone but Jessica).  Our net argument was that the
lawsuit should not be dismissed, but should go to trial for
development of relevant facts.  There are far too many legal issues
and subtleties at work to attempt to brief you on all of them
here.  However, if an entirely neutral judge were presented with all
the briefs submitted and arguments heard today, I believe he'd let
the matter go to trial.  Of course, I'm not prejudiced.

Whether or not that will actually happen remains to be seen.  Quentin
thinks we may have a decision within two weeks, but I don't think
anyone really knows for sure.

No matter, the game is now engaged - we are on the field.  We are in
play with MSSA v. Holder and at the wave front of a tsunami of
interest in states rights sweeping the U.S.

Best wishes,


Gary Marbut, president
Montana Shooting Sports Association
http://www.mtssa.org
author, Gun Laws of Montana
http://www.mtpublish.com
Logged

Basil Fishbone

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2091
    • http://
Re: Gun Groups File Lawsuit - Montana Firearms Freedom Act
« Reply #10 on: July 18, 2010, 02:23:00 am »

Fwd: Some comments - MSSA v. Holder hearing
 From: Gary Marbut-MSSA <mssa@mtssa.org>
 To: mssa@mtssa.org
 
FYI.

Here are some comments by some folks who attended the oral argument
hearing in MSSA v. Holder on Thursday.  I expect some other comments
to come in and I will post those as they become available, so check
back.  There are pictures here too.

http://marbut.com/MSSAHolderHearing/

Gary Marbut, president
Montana Shooting Sports Association
http://www.mtssa.org
author, Gun Laws of Montana
http://www.mtpublish.com
Logged

Basil Fishbone

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2091
    • http://
Re: Gun Groups File Lawsuit - Montana Firearms Freedom Act
« Reply #11 on: August 31, 2010, 09:49:36 pm »

Magistrate's Findings and Recommendations
 From: Gary Marbut-MSSA <mssa@mtssa.org>
 To: mssa@mtssa.org
 
Dear MSSA Friends,,

The "Findings and Recommendations" of U.S. Magistrate Jeremiah Lynch
in MSSA v. Holder concerning the U.S. Motion to Dismiss have just
been released, and are now posted at:

http://firearmsfreedomact.com/updates/MtD%20-%20Magistrate%20Findings%20and%20Recommendations.pdf

or

(<http://firearmsfreedomact.com/updates/MtD%20-%20Magistrate%20Findings%20and%20Recommendations.pdf>HERE)

These Findings and Recommendations will now go to U.S. District Court
Judge Don Molloy for final determination.  Estimates of timing for
action by Molloy range from soon to six months.  Unless Molloy takes
some radical departure from Magistrate Lynch's opinions, we will then
be headed to the Ninth circuit on appeal.

Gary Marbut, president
Montana Shooting Sports Association
http://www.mtssa.org
author, Gun Laws of Montana
http://www.mtpublish.com
Logged

Bill St. Clair

  • Techie
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6842
    • End the War on Freedom
Re: Gun Groups File Lawsuit - Montana Firearms Freedom Act
« Reply #12 on: September 01, 2010, 12:41:03 pm »

For those not wanting to wade through 58 pages of legal gobbledygook, and not knowing to scroll to the end without reading it:

Quote
IV.   Conclusion
      For all of the above reasons,
      IT IS RECOMMENDED that the United States’ motion to dismiss for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which may be
granted be GRANTED and this case be dismissed in its entirety.

In other words, the judge ruled against the MFFA, and granted the US gummint's motion to dismiss.
Logged
"The state can only survive as long as a majority is programmed to believe that theft isn't wrong if it's called taxation or asset forfeiture or eminent domain, that assault and kidnapping isn't wrong if it's called arrest, that mass murder isn't wrong if it's called war." -- Bill St. Clair

"Separation of Earth and state!" -- Bill St. Clair

Basil Fishbone

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2091
    • http://
Re: Gun Groups File Lawsuit - Montana Firearms Freedom Act
« Reply #13 on: September 01, 2010, 10:22:01 pm »

Eventually, when all the appeals to fairness and justice fail, freedom oriented states are just going to have to take a hard stand for 10th Amendment sovereignty.  What is at issue here is a law passed by the Montana legislature and governor followed by seven other states.  Edwin Viera is right, the states need to bring back the state militias.  And all the sheriffs need to be Oath Keepers.
Logged

canadian

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 545
Re: Gun Groups File Lawsuit - Montana Firearms Freedom Act
« Reply #14 on: September 01, 2010, 11:13:14 pm »

freedom oriented states are just going to have to take a hard stand for 10th Amendment sovereignty.

And give up all that federal pork? Not in this lifetime.
Logged
Istum enim est bellum quibus necessarium, et pia arma ubi nulla nisi armis spes est.
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Up