Montana’s Firearms Freedom Act Battle Against Obama’s Power Grab

Many conservative Americans and those who still understand and cherish the United States Constitution as the glue that keeps our nation free, cheered at the signing of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act, an act signed by Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer and set to take effect on October 1, 2009. The Act essentially declares that any guns or certain parts manufactured in Montana and remain in Montana are not subject to the strong arm of the federal government. It’s an ambitious battle that could have sweeping consequences for Americans and derail the Statists’ progressive, manipulative, incrementalism aimed at total control over free citizens of this country.

Much of the basis for formulating this act has been the attempted revival of the 10th Amendment.

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.

A major roadblock facing the Montana Firearms Freedom Act is the Commerce Clause.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:
“[The Congress shall have power] To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;“

In seeking a “declaratory judgment” the Montana Shooting Sports Association and the Second Amendment Foundation are intending to file a lawsuit on October 1, 2009 in order that a ruling can be made and hopefully Montanans can move forward in implementing their new Act.

In the Missoulian yesterday, Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation, said that if guns are manufactured in Montana and stay in Montana, then there is no “interstate commerce”.

If it were only that simple but the reality is we have to deal with the courts and all too often the courts are more interested in activism than interpreting the Constitution. They also closely follow precedence. In Mark Levin’s new book, “Liberty and Tyranny“, in his chapter on federalism he speaks of a major Supreme Court ruling, Wickard v. Filburn, that sets the stage for doling unconstitutional power over to the federal government. Here’s what Levin said:

The Constitution’s interstate commerce clause had as its purpose the promotion of commerce and trade among the states. However, in 1942 the Supreme Court ruled in Wickard v. Filburn that a farmer growing wheat on his own land and for his own use was still subject to federal production limits, even though none of his wheat ever left the state, the Court “reasoned” that by withholding his wheat from commerce, the farmer was affecting interstate commerce, even though there was no commerce, let alone interstate commerce. This meant that private economic activity conducted for the sole purpose of self-consumption and occurring wholly within a state’s borders would now be subject to federal regulatory authority under the Agricultural Adjustment Act. Wickard swept away 150 years of constitutional jurisprudence, decentralized governmental authority, and private property rights protection.

Shortly after the passage of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act, Obama’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives sent out open letters to firearms dealers in Montana and Tennessee informing them that federal law trumps state law when it comes to gun regulation. It appears the Obama administration is getting their ducks in a row with the intention of fighting the states wishing to restore their sovereignty. This has to be a thorn in the side of an administration that has systematically since taking office worked to destroy what is left of our Constitution.

One could argue the differences between the Montana Firearms Freedom act and Wickard v. Filburn and see a major difference. The farmer wishing to grow wheat on his own land for his own consumption, while rational thought tells us this is what America is all about, there is no amendment that directly spells out that a farmer is guaranteed that right. With our Second Amendment, one could also argue that this Amendment clearly stands alone and cannot be infringed.

There are of course distinct differences between possessing a gun and manufacturing a gun.

Recently Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller. His ruling reaffirmed what most Americans believed, that the Second Amendment was a guarantee to keep and bear arms by individuals. His opinion declared the District of Columbia’s ban on guns unconstitutional. What this ruling did not do is clarify the powers in gun regulations between those of the several states and the federal government.

To complicate matters even further, the Ninth District Court ruled recently that the “due process” clause of the 14th Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment, therefore forcing the states to apply the Second Amendment and not create gun laws that supersede federal law.

If we could clear up the Second Amendment issue it might help in the fight for sovereignty and the Firearms Freedom Act. We face a two-edged sword. State’s want to regain sovereignty and yet cheer the ruling that state’s can’t create stricter gun laws than those at the federal level. Who is right? Why can’t the Second Amendment stand alone, guaranteed to every individual American citizen? Federalism reserved power to the states, those not given in the U.S. Constitution.

Needless to say, state sovereignty has been shoved out the window for a very long time. I can guarantee you that this administration has no intention of allowing any kind of power to be given back to the states. One very large obstacle that stands in Obama’s way of total control is the Second Amendment. His record has proven to us that he has no respect for our right to keep and bear arms and will do whatever possible to strip us of them.

Our future does not lie in the hands of President Obama or Congress. It lies with we the people. Many have said the Montana Firearms Freedom Act, along with several other states proposing similar legislation, is a waste of time and effort. I disagree. By saying such you are claiming defeat and that the people no longer have a say.

It is a difficult battle but it has to start somewhere. In this case it begins in Montana and it’s stretching across the land. It tells me there are still Americans who remember the Constitution and the America our ancestors fought and died for. We want it back. We’ll be damned if we are going to sit idly by and watch a group of 60s anti-establishment radicals take it away.

Incrementalism works both ways.

Tom Remington