Wednesday, January 21, 2009

An interesting Tenth Amendment wrinkle

Check this out.


triptyx said...

I'm trying to recall right now why I don't live in Montana.

Sounds like a number of folks in the State Government have their heads screwed on correctly.

idahobob said...

As Frank Zappa crooned... "Movin' to Montana soon....


FrozenSquid said...

Can fire two or more projectiles with a single pull of the trigger can mean either an automatic weapon - or a shotgun.

Johnny said...

I like it. Pity they baulked at including full-autos. It's not like the Fedgov would let them get away with it so, IMHO, it dilutes the message in that they didn't include full-auto.

Anonymous said...

Whoa. Montana rules.

CorbinKale said...

I wish people would quit playing lawyer games with our freedom. "Shall not be infringed" means that ALL arms regulation is unconstitutional. The very second that a 'so-called' advocate for freedom begins adding exceptions and exclusions, they have started us right back down the same road that led us to where we are today.

The 2nd Amendment specifies the 'Right of the People'. That means that neither the Feds, Montana or anyone else have shit to say about it. I'll damned sure never beg another man for permission to exercise my God given, Constitutionally protected Rights. I'll have whatever arms I deem necessary for myself, under the 2nd Amendment.

idahobob said...

I find that this phase, that is repeated more than once, to be quite interesting:

"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".

Does this mean that if the FEDGOV violates the right, it violates or abrogates the contract between the FEDGOV and the People and State of Montana?

Hmmmmmmm.... some VERY interesting food for thought.


tom said...

I'm proud of where I was hatched from a LARGE LIBERTARIAN PUGNACIOUS GUNNY egg.

Like dad always has said about me, "you can take the kid out of Montana but you can't take being born in Montana out of the kid".

I'm gonna send that fellow some campaign money even if I live in Texas now. Gotta keep the good ones on top or else the scum float to the top and take over like in DC.

O.K. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

I do believe that I will be forwarding the link to the Montana legislation to my state legislator and Senator. They are both firearm friendly (this IS Texas) and I think that there's a reasonable chance that it can get put up for a vote.

I urge ALL people who read this post to do the same with their respective state representatives.

Oh, by the way, if a large state (or several) do something like this, it'll mean a whole lot more than if Montana does it. Not to take anything away from Montana, but it has such a small population that the gun grabbers would probably dismiss or ignore this. Not so if the 2nd largest state draws a line in the sand - and how much better if several continguous states (like, say, those roughly equivalent to the old Confederacy) were to do so - THAT would be noticed, and would effectively kill any attempt to pass AWB II or something worse. If, as an example, Texas passed such a law (regardless of Constitutionality), EVERY SINGLE TEXAS CONGRESSMAN AND SENATOR would be on notice not to aid & abet the gun grabbers. That would include a lot of Democrats. Congressmen from neighboring states would also take notice.

Please, folks, do what you can to bring this to the attention of your state reps - it has the potential to hold off the grabbers and any potential "civil disturbances."

Anonymous said...

Why do they have to add the "Made in Montana" bit? What are they going to do if somebody doesn't want to print that on their guns? Confiscate them?

Anonymous said...

Bob said:

"Does this mean that if the FEDGOV violates the right, it violates or abrogates the contract between the FEDGOV and the People and State of Montana?"

YES. That was no accident, and it is there for a reason.

For another example, see this:

In early 2008 a group of 42 Montana state legislators, joined by Montana Secretary of State Brad Johnson, and by Congressman Denny Rehberg, signed a resolution declaring that “any ‘collective rights’ holding in [the then pending] D.C. v. Heller will violate Montana’s compact with the United States, the contract by which Montana entered the Union in 1889.”

Clause 4 of that resolution stated:

4. Montana reserves all usual rights and remedies under historic contract law if its Compact should be violated by any "collective rights" holding in Heller;

It is commonly understood in contract law that when one party commits a material or total beach of the contract, the non-violating party is entitled to cancel the contract, and is no longer bound. Thus that was a very thinly veiled threat of secession, much akin to the threat in the Kentucky Resolves.

You can read the full text and supporting documents at

Anonymous said...

Forgotten Raich already?

The Feds will simply stretch the interstate commerce clause until it fits, just like they did in that case. An example: if any machine tools from outside of Montana are used to make these firearms, it's "interstate commerce".

Or if any of the designs came from out of state, it's "interstate commerce".

Or hell, if the metalworking involves any water that might have flowed into the state in a river, or even came in via a raincloud that formed in another state, it's interstate commerce. (I have no idea what happens if the air and water come in from Canada).

I wholeheartedly support this move, but the Ninth and Tenth Amendments have been effectively stripped of their original purpose -- a catch-all "if we didn't give it to the feds somewhere, it belongs to the people" Amendment -- by the lawyers. They do it with the bogus "construction argument". So, sadly, I'm not betting on it going anywhere.