Anyone who has had the privilege to listen to a lecture from Tom Woods or read Judge Andrew Napolitano knows this is big news. Nullification is one the best weapons in our constitutional arsenal to check the power of the federal government back to its proper levels; although nullification is relatively unknown. Nullification declares a federal law the state feels is unconstitutional invalid within the state passing the nullification law. It goes beyond the language of state sovereignty acts and takes action.
There is speculation that the Supreme Court would take up the eminent case between the federal government and Montana should an emerging consensus arise with several states adopting similar laws, and overturn the expansion of the Interstate Commerce clause, and in doing so severely tie the hands of congress and the executive branch. The federal government currently uses an expanded and unconstitutional interpretation of the interstate commerce clause to interfere in affairs constitutionally left to the states ranging from guns to what a farmer can grow on his farm for personal consumption. Those looking for more information on nullification should check out the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 penned by Jefferson and Madison respectively or check out this Tom Woods video.
Montana's nullification action is with regard to gun laws. Montana has declared that federal gun laws are invalid in the state of Montana on guns made in the state of Montana, used exclusively in the state of Montana, and never transported across state lines. This particular law applies to ammunition and gun accessories as well.This is now a law in Montana. It has been passed and signed by the governor. Similar laws are being formed in Utah, Tennessee, and Texas. Imagine the impact Campaign for Liberty could have in getting similar legislation passed with local efforts within our states.
The law, included below, says in simple terms the following.
Section 1: Gives a name to the bill Section 2: States why the state of Montana can nullify a federal law, including references to the 2nd, 9th, & 10th amendments to the US Constitution Section 3: Sets up definitions for terms used in the bill Section 4: Nullifies federal gun laws relating to arms built, used, and kept within the state of Montana Section 5: Sets exceptions to what is nullified Section 6: Brands Montana firearms Section 7: Lists where the law goes in the Montana Code Section 8: Sets application date to October 1, 2009
Text of the New Law "HOUSE BILL NO. 246 INTRODUCED BY J. BONIEK, BENNETT, BUTCHER, CURTISS, RANDALL, WARBURTON.
AN ACT EXEMPTING FROM FEDERAL REGULATION UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES A FIREARM, A FIREARM ACCESSORY, OR AMMUNITION MANUFACTURED AND RETAINED IN MONTANA; AND PROVIDING AN APPLICABILITY DATE. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MONTANA:
Section 1. Short title.. [Sections 1 through 6] may be cited as the "Montana Firearms Freedom Act".
Section 2. Legislative declarations of authority. The legislature declares that the authority for [sections 1 through 6] is the following: (1) The 10th amendment to the United States constitution guarantees to the states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in the constitution and reserves to the state and people of Montana certain powers as they were understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889. The guaranty of those powers is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889. (2) The ninth amendment to the United States constitution guarantees to the people rights not granted in the constitution and reserves to the people of Montana certain rights, as they were understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889. The guaranty of those rights is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889. (3) The regulation of intrastate commerce is vested in the states under the 9th and 10th amendments to the United States constitution, particularly if not expressly preempted by federal law. Congress has not expressly preempted state regulation of intrastate commerce pertaining to the manufacture on an intrastate basis of firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition. (4) The second amendment to the United States constitution reserves to the people the right to keep and bear arms as that right was understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889, and the guaranty of the right is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889. (5) Article II, section 12, of the Montana constitution clearly secures to Montana citizens, and prohibits government interference with, the right of individual Montana citizens to keep and bear arms. This constitutional protection is unchanged from the 1889 Montana constitution, which was approved by congress and the people of Montana, and the right exists, as it was understood at the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.
Section 3. Definitions. As used in [sections 1 through 6], the following definitions apply: (1) "Borders of Montana" means the boundaries of Montana described in Article I, section 1, of the 1889 Montana constitution. (2) "Firearms accessories" means items that are used in conjunction with or mounted upon a firearm but are not essential to the basic function of a firearm, including but not limited to telescopic or laser sights, magazines, flash or sound suppressors, folding or aftermarket stocks and grips, speedloaders, ammunition carriers, and lights for target illumination. (3) "Generic and insignificant parts" includes but is not limited to springs, screws, nuts, and pins. (4) "Manufactured" means that a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition has been created from basic materials for functional usefulness, including but not limited to forging, casting, machining, or other processes for working materials.
Section 4. Prohibitions. 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. It is declared by the legislature that those items have not traveled in interstate commerce. This section applies to a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured in Montana from basic materials and that can be manufactured without the inclusion of any significant parts imported from another state. Generic and insignificant parts that have other manufacturing or consumer product applications are not firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition, and their importation into Montana and incorporation into a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured in Montana does not subject the firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition to federal regulation. It is declared by the legislature that basic materials, such as unmachined steel and unshaped wood, are not firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition and are not subject to congressional authority to regulate firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition under interstate commerce as if they were actually firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition. The authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce in basic materials does not include authority to regulate firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition made in Montana from those materials. Firearms accessories that are imported into Montana from another state and that are subject to federal regulation as being in interstate commerce do not subject a firearm to federal regulation under interstate commerce because they are attached to or used in conjunction with a firearm in Montana.
Section 5. Exceptions. [Section 4] does not apply to: (1) A firearm that cannot be carried and used by one person; (2) A firearm that has a bore diameter greater than 1 1/2 inches and that uses smokeless powder, not black powder, as a propellant; (3) ammunition with a projectile that explodes using an explosion of chemical energy after the projectile leaves the firearm; or (4) a firearm that discharges two or more projectiles with one activation of the trigger or other firing device.
Section 6. Marketing of firearms. A firearm manufactured or sold in Montana under [sections 1 through 6] must have the words "Made in Montana" clearly stamped on a central metallic part, such as the receiver or frame.
Section 7. Codification instruction. [Sections 1 through 6] are intended to be codified as an integral part of Title 30, and the provisions of Title 30 apply to [sections 1 through 6].
Section 8. Applicability. [This act] applies to firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition that are manufactured, as defined in [section 3], and retained in Montana after October 1, 2009.
Wow, nice post, thanks for the info. Now I hope other states will follow suit, but it is interesting and scary to consider what the Federal Government might do in response to this.
I wanted to share this and thought this would be an appropriate place:
College Student Shoots, Kills Home Invader
Posted: 4:53 pm EDT May 4, 2009Updated: 9:09 am EDT May 7, 2009
COLLEGE PARK, Ga. -- A group of college students said they are lucky to be alive and they’re thanking the quick-thinking of one of their own. Police said a fellow student shot and killed one of two masked me who burst into an apartment.
Channel 2 Action News reporter Tom Jones met with one of the students to talk about the incident.
“Apparently, his intent was to rape and murder us all,” said student Charles Bailey.
TOM JONES: College Student Shoots, Kills Home Invader
Bailey said he thought it was the end of his life and the lives of the 10 people inside his apartment for a birthday party after two masked men with guns burst in through a patio door.
“They just came in and separated the men from the women and said, ‘Give me your wallets and cell phones,’” said George Williams of the College Park Police Department.
Bailey said the gunmen started counting bullets. “The other guy asked how many (bullets) he had. He said he had enough,” said Bailey.
That’s when one student grabbed a gun out of a backpack and shot at the invader who was watching the men. The gunman ran out of the apartment.
The student then ran to the room where the second gunman, identified by police as 23-year-old Calvin Lavant, was holding the women.
“Apparently the guy was getting ready to rape his girlfriend. So he told the girls to get down and he started shooting. The guy jumped out of the window,” said Bailey.
A neighbor heard the shots and heard someone running nearby.
“And I heard someone say, ‘Someone help me. Call the police. Somebody call the police,’” said a neighbor.
The neighbor said she believes it was Lavant, who was found dead near his apartment, only one building away.
Bailey said he is just thankful one student risked his life to keep others alive.
“I think all of us are really cognizant of the fact that we could have all been killed,” said Bailey.
One female student was shot several times during the crossfire. She is expected to make a full recovery.
Police said they are close to making the arrest of the second suspect.
Copyright 2009 by WSBTV.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Posted 05/11/09 10:29 AM Edward Burgess Saint Albans, WV
MountainDoc strikes at the heart of the matter!
Nullification is the single most effective tool available to the governments of we the people of the States. That Utah, Tennessee, and Texas are considering Nullification, and that Montana has enacted this Nullification legislation into law, is evidence of an effort worthwhile.
Working for, and supporting, Nullification legislation in the States is a work in concert with our work in Congress. And holds a promise of victory for the effort made.
Justin at first glance it would seem that way. It's only empty platitude if you are looking specifically at our constitutional liberties with guns discussed under the 2nd amendment.
If you view it as challenging the "interstate commerce" clause as currently interpreted, it is much more dangerous to expansive government. Under that challenge it goes well beyond guns into agriculture, manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, health care, education, etc. A court case could have implications in how the FDA regulates food and drugs - or marijuana if that's your thing.
Posted 05/11/09 4:18 PM WinstonSmith1984 Oceania, United Kingdom
If these states keep it up, they just might get some new libertarian citizens to go with it! Talk about stimulating a local economy!
How cool would that be for one of these states to actually challenge and nullify a whole slew of these draconian laws! They could use it as an experiment of the success of a truly libertarian state versus the failures of a nanny federal government. I could easily see new business being created in the midst of a recession everywhere else, all because the hand of government regulation has been nullified.
Wouldn't it be nice to have some empirical evidence to support what we've been saying all along? Keep the ball moving!
This is clearly a challenge to expansive interpretations of the Commerce Clause. It is much farther reaching than if it were based on the Second Amendment. A victory on this issue would affect every area of our lives that the feds now control.
I don't have a lot of hope that the Supreme Court will uphold Montana on this. For the last 70 years, the Court has almost exclusively upheld central government power. The real issue to me is what Montana will do if this goes to the Court and Montana loses: will they continue to assert their right to nullification, will they vote to secede, or will they tuck their tail between their legs and comply?
Everybody in every State needs to stand up against the Federal Governments oppressive behavior, We must push back against them and regain true sovereignty.
Mike the best way to find out is to pass similar laws in other states to force the issue in more than one appellate court district and all the way up to the Supreme Court.
Given the tendency of the justices on recent cases, we would definitely see Justices Thomas & Scalia rule on our side. Justices Roberts, Alito, & Kennedy have a strong chance of ruling with us as well, giving us the necessary votes to overturn Wickard v. Filburn, the case that gave us the nasty precedent we have now.
MountainDoc, achieving a split among circuits would indeed make it likely that the Supreme Court would hear the case. I think Thomas, Scalia, and Alito would come down on the right side, but have less confidence about Justices Roberts and Kennedy. I sure do hope you're right about them.
If Wickard v. Filburn were overruled, the unconstitutional foundation of much of the central government would be exposed. I don't see the swing votes on the Court being willing to do that.
Lets start raising money for the Liberty Ammunition Company of Montana!
Ever since ammo started disappearing from the shelves I've been half joking that ammo would be a good business to get into if not for the threat of the government shutting you down / regulating you out of profitability...
So now that Montana is a safe haven, I'd say it's time to put together a business plan and start looking to raise capital... I'd be surprised if there wasn't a freedom loving Angel investor or two that can see the profit potential for a commodity that is sold out and back-ordered!
A cautionary note on the expanded commerce clause:
The basis of the interstate commerce clause expansion is a case called Wickard v. Fillburn. It held that Congress could regulate wheat farming... even where a man grows wheat on his own farm for his own personal consumption (i.e. the wheat never crossed state lines and was never in commerce). The Supreme Court faced almost exactly the same situation in Gonzales v. Raich a couple years ago (substitute marijuana for wheat). The Supreme Court essentially upheld Wickard v. Fillburn (and I think it was 6-3).
ZERO laws were struck down as beyond the scope of the commerce clause between the New Deal and 1995. In short, don't put much faith in the Supreme Court changing course.
Posted 05/11/09 7:54 PM Darkwolfe Independence, MO
This was discussed on Glenn Beck's show on Fox last week. Judge Napolitano was on as were reps from Utah and Texas. Both States are going to pursue similar legislation and seek to drive the Federal Government back into its Constitutional box.
That's got me thinking about a little custom gun making in my own home state. :)
Posted 05/11/09 7:56 PM Darkwolfe Independence, MO
Almost forgot.. Judge Napolitano predicted the SCOTUS would support the State by either 5-4 or 6-3. This would seriously derail the Progressive agenda. (Which isn't so progressive if you want to be real accurate about it.)
Upon watching the embedded video on Mr. Woods' lecture, it seems fairly obvious to me that we should be making it a point to see that the Principles of 98 ARE commemorated.... that these issues become common knowledge among the populace.
Posted 05/12/09 08:12 AM BrendonDeMeo North Chelmsford, MA
Yay Montana =) and Alaska, and soon Texas and others.
Good luck to Montana, but the SCOTUS has already ruled that the commerce clause allows the feds to regulate growing wheat on your own property for your own use and which is never even sold in any market at all (Wickard v. Filburn)- and has upheld an even looser interpetation than that under Gomez v. Raich.
Claiming the commerce clause won't apply because the guns are only sold only in the state in which they're made isn't likely to get very far. It would require overturning longstanding precedent- which would be great of course, but I'm not holding my breath. If Montana wants to tell the Feds to shove it, that's great, but don't think for a second that the SCOTUS will back them up by limiting the commerce clause.
Next will be to actually restrict the federal government to the 2nd amendment. Arms mean "power" not simply guns. In the revolutionary war, individuals owned cannon with "exploding shells" (after they left the barrel) on ships and on land with the intent and ABILITY of defeating ANY opposing force; The intent of the Founders was that the citizens would have "overwhelming force" over any standing army, Even their own: ----------
James Madison who wrote the Constitution together the Bill of Rights establishes the percentages with regard to the balance of power:---
James Madison: "The >>>"highest number" to which a "standing army" can be carried in any country does not exceed one hundredth part of the souls, or ONE TWENTY-FIFTH (1/25th) part of the number able to bear arms.---
This >>>"PORTION" would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men.---
To "THESE" would be >>>>>>"OPPOSED" (APP NOTE: Here is a very important point, in that the Militia of Citizens would be an "OPPOSITION FORCE" to a "standing army" and the Citizen Militia should be "FAR" GREATER) a MILITIA amounting to near half a million "CITIZENS" with arms in their >>>"HANDS", "officered by men chosen from "AMOUNG THEMSELVES" (Not governments), fighting for "their" common liberties and united and "conducted" by government"S" (Local Governments) possessing their (the Citizen Militia's) affections and confidence.---
It may well be doubted whether a militia "THUS" circumstanced could ever be conquered by >>>>"SUCH A PROPORTION" of "regular troops".---
Besides the advantage of being armed, it forms a barrier against the enterprises of "ambition", more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.---
The governments of Europe are afraid to trust "THE PEOPLE" with arms.---
If they did, the people would surely shake off the "yoke of tyranny", as America did.---
Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in "ACTUAL POSSESSION" than the "debased subjects" of "arbitrary power" would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors."---
Understanding this, should guide Montana and ALL OTHER STATES to lift "ALL" Restrictions. ---AMERICAN PATRIOT PARTY.CC
Posted 05/12/09 09:35 AM Edward Burgess Saint Albans, WV
@JustinMurray, Philip, et alii
it's not about faith in the Supremes, it's about deciding to not be bullied anymore, standing up, pushing back - a verifiable demonstration that we the people of the States are more.
a good thing - actions taken in the right direction long overdue.
Tom Woods expresses good points of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions;---
However, the idea of "Nullification" was not created solely by Thomas Jefferson in 1798; In fact this was established as the intent in the Constitutional Debates and most clearly in the Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788;
In this Convention Edmond Pendleton, James Madison and George Nicholas, all Federalists at the time, presented their intent as to the meaning of the Constitution;
The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions simply reaffirmed what was "intended" in the "Constitutional Debates 1788" which define the Constitution:-------
Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788:---
George Nicholas: "...But, says he, "WHO" is to determine the extent of such powers?---
I say, the same power which, in >>>"ALL" well-regulated communities, determines the >>>"EXTENT" of "LEGISLATIVE" powers.---
>>>If they exceed these powers, the >>>"JUDICIARY" will declare it >>>"VOID", or else "the PEOPLE" will have a >>>"RIGHT" to >>>DECLARE it "VOID"..."-------
Edmond Pendleton (same Constitutional Day Debate):---
Mr. Chairman, this clause (sweeping clause i.e. supreme law of the land) does "NOT" give Congress power to impede the operation of >>>ANY PART of the Constitution, (N)OR to make >>>"ANY" "REGULATION" that MAY affect the interests of the citizens of the Union AT LARGE. (READ THAT AGAIN!!!)---
But it gives them power over the >>>>"LOCAL" Police of THE PLACE, so as to be secured from any interruption in their proceedings. Notwithstanding the violent attack upon it, I believe, sir, this is the >>>"fair CONSTRUCTION of the clause". It gives them power of exclusive legislation in any case within >>>THAT district. ---
What is the meaning of this? What is it opposed to? Is it opposed to the general powers of the federal legislature, or to those of the state legislatures? I understand it as opposed to the legislative power of that state where it shall be.---
>>>>What, then, is the power? It is, that Congress shall exclusively legislate THERE, in order to preserve {440} serve the POLICE of >>>THE PLACE and their OWN personal independence, that they may not be overawed or insulted, and of course to preserve them in opposition to any attempt by the state where it shall be this is the "FAIR CONSTRUCTION".---
Why oppose this power? Suppose it was contrary to the sense of their constituents to grant exclusive privileges to citizens residing within that place; the effect would be directly in opposition to what he says. >>>>It could have no operation "without the limits" of "that district". Were Congress to make a law granting them an exclusive privilege of trading to the East Indies, it could have >>>NO effect the >>>MOMENT it would go >>>"without that place"; for their "exclusive power" is CONFINED to >>>"THAT" district.---
Were they to pass such a law, it would be >>>"NUGATORY" (There is that word again!); and every "member" of the community "at large" could trade to the East Indies as well as the citizens of that district.---
This "exclusive power" is >>>"LIMITED" to THAT place >>>"SOLELY", for their "OWN preservation", which all gentlemen allow to be necessary."--------
James Madison: "....I cannot comprehend that the power of legislating over a "small district", which CANNOT EXCEED ten miles square, and may not be more than one mile, will involve the dangers which he apprehends. If there be any knowledge in my mind of the nature of man, I should think it would be the last thing that would enter into the mind of any man to grant exclusive advantages, in a very "CIRCUMSCRIBED" district, to the prejudice of the "community at large" (APP: James Madison was a little naive at this date and time)....Let me remark, if not already remarked, that there must be a cession, by particular states, of "the district" (10 miles square) to Congress ("NOT" THE STATES to congress), and that the "states" may settle the terms of the cession. The states may make what stipulation they please in "it", and, if they apprehend >>>"ANY" danger, they may >>>"REFUSE it ALTOGETHER"."-------
....The honorable member asks, Why ask for this power, and if the subsequent clause be not fully competent for the same purpose. If so, what new terrors can arise from this particular clause? It is only a superfluity. If that "latitude" of construction which he contends for were to take place with respect to the "sweeping clause", there "would" be room for those horrors.
But it gives no supplementary power. It only enables them to execute the "DELEGATED" powers". "If" the "delegation" of their powers be "safe", no possible inconvenience can arise from this clause. It is at most "but" explanatory."
So We see that in 1798, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison simply reaffirmed what was already established in the Constitutional Debates which defines both the intent of the Federalist Papers and the Constitution:---
Nullification has been "explicitly" established by the authors of both the Declation of Independence and Constitution Thomas Jefferson and James Madison as the "RIGHTFUL Remedy" to ALL undelegated powers. Period.---
Kentucky Resolution 1798 - Thomas Jefferson: "... that in cases of an abuse of the "delegated powers", the members of the general government, being chosen by the people, a change by the people would be the constitutional remedy; but, where powers are assumed which have >>>>>"NOT BEEN DELEGATED", a >>>>>>"NULLIFICATION" of the act is the >>>>>"RIGHTFUL REMEDY":---
that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, (casus non fśderis) to >>>"NULLIFY of their OWN AUTHORITY" >>>"ALL"--- assumptions of power by others within their limits:
that >>>"without this right", they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them: ..."---
Virginia Ratifying Convention Full Day Debate: 6-16-1788: http://www.pacificwestcom.com/americanpatriotpartynewsletter ---
Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions (approximately 2 pages) Read Full (scroll right on arrival- wide web page): http://www.pacificwestcom.com/candidates
---AMERICAN PATRIOT PARTY.CC
Posted 05/12/09 11:48 AM MountainDoc Lewisburg, WV
How could I forget the Virginia Ratifying convention? Great point.
In each of those cases it was an individual challenging the federal government's power.
This is a case of a state challenging it. Gonzales v. Raich is really the only other example we have of the current court and how they would rule. California acted alone in G v. R if I remember correctly. We already have an emerging consensus among the states here.
Ahem...I have not read all the entries, but does it occur to anyone else that the Nullification argument could be applied to the Federal Reserve Act and a state could return to a gold and silver standard if it chose to do so or issue its own currency backed by some basket of commodities? Or at least a competing accepted currency with the Federal Reserve note for intrastate use?
Kudos to the people of Montana.
I think this thing would have a good chance if it made it to the SC. While Scalia and Kennedy sided with the feds in Gonzales v. Raich, they went against them in United States v. Lopez (which had to do with guns as well).
As for the Supremes willingness to violate the Constitution, well, you have to start stopping them somewhere, do you not?
Any rational person who has ever taken the time to sit down and read the gyrations and twistings of meaning the Supreme Court and courts in general have undertaken the MAKE the Constitution mean what they want it to mean knows that Congress has no legal right to regulate wheat grown on your own land for your own use. Just because they have the guns and the courts in their pocket like Chicago style politicians does not mean they are carrying out legal acts.
I mean, at some point, someone has to enforce the law and someone has to be willing to stand up to an unjust law. If there are too few willing to enforce an unjust law and too many UNwilling to submit to an unjust law then we will win.
But to expand on my last post, it seems to me that much of the unrest and trouble in the country can be lain at the feet of activist judges. We have a government composed of three branches balanced off against the other three. They are even different not just in function, but in composition.
The Executive and Legislative have both been all too happy to let the judiciary do their dirty work for them and then cry outrage that their hands are tied when they are not. The courts can only enforce what the legislature is willing to fund and the Executive can only fight wars likewise funded. Congress chooses to be the willing slave of the courts and the president chooses to act as though compromise is the only course of action.
One of the three branches of government needs to bow up and sit down in the middle of the road like a mule that has had enough. Seems to me that Congressional support of these State nullification actions is where this needs to go.
Too many judges moral consciences have been stripped away. Their morals and principles have been replaced by ethics and legalities.
I certainly didn't mean to disparage these actions. I think they're great. I'm just saying that the Supreme Court ultimately decides these issues in the eyes of the federal government. And considering the federal government's exactly who we're trying to stop, the Supreme Court becomes hugely important.
I was also responding to Judge Napolitano's assertion that the Court will reverse Wickard. I'm pretty sure they will not.
I realize I'm a Johnny come lately but the SCOTUS upheld that case because there is no way to distinguish between "home grown" wheat and wheat grown in another state. They're betting that having "Made in Montana" stamped on the firearm will moot that argument.
"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."
—Thomas Jefferson
Campaign for Liberty is a 501(c)4 lobbying organization which neither supports nor opposes candidates for public office and claims no responsibility for the actions of individuals or groups of individuals who use the Campaign for Liberty logo or name or who may claim to act as representatives of the Campaign for Liberty without prior written consent of the Campaign for Liberty. [?]
