Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Basil Fishbone]

Excellent editorial!  ~Basil

----- Original Message -----
From: Gary Marbut-MSSA
To: mssa@mtssa.org
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 10:20 PM
Subject: WA Times supports MFFA and MSSA v. Holder


Editorial of the Washington Times
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jun/15/states-challenge-feds-on-guns/

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

[Basil Fishbone]

----- Original Message -----
From: Gary Marbut-MSSA
To: mssa@mtssa.org
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 10:13 AM
Subject: Why the WA Times editorial about MSSA v. Holder is important


Dear MSSA Friends,,

Some of you may be wondering why today's Washington Times editorial about the Montana Firearms Freedom Act and our lawsuit to validate that, MSSA v. Holder, is important.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jun/15/states-challenge-feds-on-guns/

The purpose for the Montana Firearms Freedom Act is to use it and firearms as the vehicle to roll back a half-century-plus of bad Commerce Clause judicial precedent, power the federal government has been allowed by the courts to use improperly to regulate everything and anything it chooses.  Only the U.S. Supreme Court can effectively reverse this history of bad precedent, so we're playing for our case, MSSA v. Holder, to be heard and decided positively by the USSC.

However, the USSC only accepts (grants certiorari for) 5% of the cases appealed to it.  There are two features of a case that cause the USSC to be more inclined to accept a case on appeal:  1) that it is about a core constitutional issue (which our case certainly is), and 2) that there are differences between or among the various circuit courts of appeal concerning how they've ruled on the same issue.

This case is certainly about a core constitutional issue.  However, there have not yet been any lawsuits parallel to ours in other federal circuits.  Replacing that impetus in part are the many other states that have enacted or introduced Firearms Freedom Acts.  Still, this case needs to catch the attention of three or more justices on the USSC to cause them to vote to accept the case.

For building awareness among USSC justices that this case is percolating towards them and for sparking their interest, this Washington-local editorial is invaluable, as will be a front page story about the case due to soon appear in the Wall Street Journal.  You can just bet that the USSC justices and their law clerks read the Washington Times and the Wall Street Journal.  Having such seeds planted before the case is appealed to the USSC may well make the difference, causing MSSA v. Holder to be one of the few cases the USSC chooses to accept and decide.

Best wishes,

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

[Junker]

"The purpose for the Montana Firearms Freedom Act is to use it and firearms as the
vehicle to roll back a half-century-plus of bad Commerce Clause judicial precedent,
power the federal government has been allowed by the courts to use improperly to
regulate everything and anything it chooses."

Pro-gun actions tend to lose.  Anti commerce-clause-control actions tend to lose.
So, using a loser cause to help with another loser clause doesn't make much
sense, to me.

But, go, go, go for it.


On the side:  Anyone reading in on this might see Veiera (the gold guy).  He's a
constitutional law guy and opines the USSC has rational reason why they've sunk
the constitution.  If it seems to make sense to constitution arguers, it might help in
explaining why constitutional argument goes awry in USSC issues.

[FDD]

anything new on this?

[Bill St. Clair]

I searched for "MSSA v Holder" at mtssa.org, and found "It's over -- MSSA v. Holder": http://www.mtssa.org/?p=76

The Supreme Court refused, in August of 2014, to review the Ninth Circuit Court's opinion on the Montana Firearms Freedom Act.

Finally, this epic trip to the US Supreme Court, and the Court’s rejection of MSSA v. Holder, have finally persuaded me that it is fruitless to expect any part of the federal government to control the lust for centralized and tyrannical power that our federal government displays.  Further, and perhaps more important, it proves that it is improper to rely on the federal government, or any branch thereof, to be the judge of what powers the states have delegated to the federal government in the Constitution.  As the creator of the Constitution and the federal government, only the states may properly or practically do that.

That’s why I have proposed the concept of the Constitutional Settlements Commission (CSC), a way for the states to operate in unison to “just say no” to the federal government and its countless minions.  For a more thorough discussion of the CSC concept, see:
http://www.marbut.com/csc