Posted by MountainDoc on 05/11/09
Last updated 05/10/09

      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.

Simply Put,  WAY TO GO MONTANA!

Posted 05/11/09 USAF Rugy Anchorage, AK

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.

Posted 05/11/09 filosophia Columbus, OH

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 EdwardRBurgess 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.

Posted 05/11/09 MountainDoc Lewisburg, WV

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 minnesotachris Shakopee, MN

Great job Montana! By the way, the Tom Woods lecture embedded above can be watched in its entirety at the address below, and is worth the 90 minutes to do so: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2833064339712731418

Posted 05/11/09 danielbier8 Medford, NJ

hell yeah!

Posted 05/11/09 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!

Posted by MountainDoc on 09/04/09
Last updated 09/25/09

      United States Congressman Nick J. Rahall II of the West Virginia 3^rd Congressional District was present at a townhall meeting hosted by the West Virginia School of Osteopathic Medicine in Lewisburg W.Va. on September 2, 2009.  This was the 4^th in a series of 5 townhall meetings Congressman Rahall would be present at during the August recess.  Approximately 200-300 citizens were present with a notable vocal majority in favor of government option and / or single payer government healthcare with an equally passioned minority against any such legislation being passed by congress.  With such an opportunity to discuss liberty and the Constitution with an elected representative, the Greenbrier County Campaign for Liberty was present.

     We met together an hour before hand for lunch and to pen out questions to ask Congressman Rahall.  Our hope was to either receive a verbal committment to cosponsor HR 1207 or pose a question designed to discuss the Constitutional provisions allowing for national health care legision to be passed by the congress.  The C4L members that made it were all medical students at WVSOM.  Andy and Marc grabbed seats in the assembly while I went closer to the stage to help in the opening ceremonies.  Having taken the initiative earlier in the week to request permission from a dean at the medical school to hand out C4L pocket Constitutions on Constitution Day (September 17th), I had been given the privilage of opening the townhall meeting with a prayer.  After the blessing / reflection, Congressman Rahall came in and stood off to the side with me while he was introduced by the President of the Medical School.  During this time, I was able to thank him for coming and hand him a C4L pocket Constitution with a personal inscription and a promise to pray for him.

     Things got underway and questioneers were allowed to come up by row.  The majority of the stories were personal and the crowd was ready to shout down anyone who ventured too far off the subject of health care.  A spot decision was made to focus on the Constitutional aspects of healthcare rather than HR 1207.  Most of the stories were personal, and all were passionate.  Doctors were present in scrubs, individuals went so far as to bring up the personal medical history of the congressman, and many people had signs.  To Congressman Rahall's credit he was very patient and always civil with any speaker regardless of their hostility towards him or the legislation or the crowds reaction to those same speakers.

      After about 45 minutes, our turn came up, and I was able to have the following discussion with the Congressman (and the body):

Thanks to Tom Woods and his training in St. Louis I was able to anticipate the answers to the intial question and prepare quotes from James Madison and Thomas Jefferson that shut down the usual misinterpretations of the General Welfare Clause and Interstate Commerce Clause.   *Update* - Nancy Pelosi is now using the interstate commerce clause to justify the legislation.  If you read the subtitles of the video you'll see that Congressman's Rahall's answers can be summarized as follows:

1.  The General Welfare Clause, The Interstate Commerce Clause, The Preamble. I'm not an expert on the Constitution.

2.  I represent the will of my electorate first and foremost.

3.  Even if I did something unconstitutional in Congress, the lawyers are protection against any unconstitutional outcome.

4.  The federal government can mandate and demand compliance to the states on any issue whether a right is granted to Washington under the Constitution or not.

5.  An amendment is too hard, and so although unconstitutional it would be easier - and hence legal - to just pass a law enacting federal healthcare reform.

      Although put on the spot, the Congressman's answers show ignorance of his Constitutional powers and duties at best, and willful override of his Constitutional limitations at worst.  For anyone desiring to know more about the enumerated powers or role of the federal government with relationship to the states I strongly encouraging picking up The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History by Thomas E. Woods, Jr., Ph.D.  I also need to offer a quick apology to those who understand Natural Rights as well.  During the discussion I incorrectly attributed our liberties as coming from the Constitution.  That is not the case, the document merely protects what is ours regardless of government.

     After a bit we left the event and discussed what had transpired.  It was our first event as a group and we were proud to take part in the process.  While buried in the labors of medical school, The Greenbrier County C4L enjoy the discussion of liberty, sound money, and free markets, and look forward to getting together for another event.

Posted by MountainDoc on 05/11/09

Alaska just took a big step in joining Montana to Nullify federal gun laws.  House Bill 186, introduced by Rep. Mike Kelly, passed the Alaskan House by a vote of 32-7.  The bill now moves onto the Alaskan Senate.

Source Material

Alaska's combined with Montana's efforts will probably push towards a federal showdown in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.  Should Texas, Utah, or South Carolina - who have all now introduced similiar nullification legislation - pass nullification laws we might see a direct challenge to the current interpretation of the "Interstate Commerce Clause" set forth by Wickard v. Filburn in 1946.

Posted 05/12/09 EdwardRBurgess Saint Albans, WV

way to go Alaska! Nullification gaining steam!

Posted 05/12/09 venango Oil City, PA

Don't forget Tennessee has introduced similiar legeslation.

Posted by MountainDoc on 05/07/09

We picked up another 10 cosponsors - including 3 democrats, one of whom (John Adler NJ) is on the financial services committee).

Here's today's new additions:

Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. [IL-9] - 5/6/2009 Democrat
Rep Linder, John [GA-7] - 5/6/2009 Republican (Leader of the Fairtax)
Rep Aderholt, Robert B. [AL-4] - 5/6/2009 Republican
Rep Davis, Geoff [KY-4] - 5/6/2009 Republican
Rep Dent, Charles W. [PA-15] - 5/6/2009 Republican
Rep Radanovich, George [CA-19] - 5/6/2009 Republican
Rep Schock, Aaron [IL-18] - 5/6/2009 Republican
Rep Herseth Sandlin, Stephanie [SD] - 5/6/2009 Democrat
Rep Austria, Steve [OH-7] - 5/6/2009 Republican
Rep Adler, John H. [NJ-3] - 5/6/2009 Democrat (House Financial Services Committee Member)

Posted 05/07/09 Scott D Chicago, IL

OMG Schakowsky! Now that's a pleasant surprise! Congrats Justin Kapacinskas!

Posted 05/07/09 ckellyhurst Las Vegas, NV

Still no dina titus! Here is a phone call to Dina Titus Office. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CDsLa5-IN0

Posted 05/07/09 RobPepe , PA

Great work everyone!

Posted 05/07/09 MichaelBarry Sebring, FL

They aren't seeing the light, they are feeling the heat!

Posted 05/07/09 WhitWT columbus, OH

Fantastic! Keep up the pressure folks. This is starting to snowball and is actually getting a hint of media attention. Good signs fo' sho'.

Posted 05/07/09 smashysmashy dover, NH

Can anyone from NH meet up sometime soon and take a trip over to our two rep's offices?? I am sick of looking at the HR 1207 map and seeing New England empty. My phone calls, faxes and emails have not been getting any responses.

Posted 05/07/09 Steele Haslet, TX

With the Washington Times article we may see a majority soon. I know there has to be a lot of represenatatives on the ropes. Dan Lungren's (CA-3) staff recommended he Co-Sponsor, but I am still waiting...

Posted 05/07/09 Sproge Gilbert, AZ

I live in NJ 4th district (Chris Smith) and actually called John Adler's office to thank him for supporting HR 1207 when my republican congressman hasn't yet haha!!

Posted 05/07/09 libertyspirit Modesto, CA

Finally, George Radonovich of CA-19 co-sponsored! YEA! I called to thank him for it. Now let's work on Dennis Cardoza of CA-18.

Posted 05/07/09 Oscar DeGrouch Sunnyside, NY

Just 11 more to go for one THIRD of the House!