BATFE Goes on the Offensive

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by Dillinger, May 5, 2010.

  1. Dillinger

    Dillinger New Member

    23,972
    1
    0
    PLEASE NOTE: I do not agree with all the statements in this recent e-mail, but I am posting for informational and discussionary purposes. JD

    ATF Tries to Revoke "Montana Made" State Sovereignty Laws

    We all predicted this would happen.

    In a move typical for that fear-mongering organization with an ever-swelling acronym, the BATFE has written gun dealers in the states of Montana and Tennessee to let them know the BATFE will be disregarding the states' sovereign gun laws.

    The "Montana Made" law, just like Tennessee's Firearms Freedom Act, is very simple.

    Much of the claimed federal authority to regulate firearm sales and transfers stems from a liberal interpretation of every American tyrant's favorite subterfuge, the "interstate commerce" clause. In essence, this is what gives the BATFE its nasty teeth.

    With this in mind, Montana correctly understood that any weapon made in Montana by Montana residents and sold in Montana to Montana residents is Montana's business and Montana's business alone.

    Montana thus sought to take charge of its firearms industry with the application of a simple truism: Any gun made in Montana by Montana residents and sold in Montana to Montana residents is intrastate commerce, not "interstate commerce," and thus does not full under the purview of the federal government.

    Potentially, the state would be able to say goodbye to NICS checks; Brady background checks; NFA taxes, bans and NFA databases -- and most importantly, federal "assault weapons" bans, which Montana and Tennessee rightly anticipated.

    In effect, the "Montana Made" law would have permitted Montana gun companies to manufacture any kind of weapon banned by federal law -- including so-called "assault weapons" -- and sell them to fellow Montana residents.

    Moreover, in this scenario, no one -- neither the manufacturer nor the dealer nor the buyer -- would have to kowtow to the BATFE by paying them a $200 tax and surrendering one's privacy to their notoriously inaccurate and oft-abused National Firearms Registry.

    It was a new day for freedom -- and other states besides Tennessee were thinking of following suit: Alaska, Colorado, Oklahoma and Texas.
    Well, the BATFE -- never one to have its power downplayed (or acronym belittled)-- has written letters to both Montana and Tennessee gun dealers letting them know that they proceed at their own risk.

    We can only guess what new horrors those words portend -- probably more dead housewives and children as disgruntled ATF thugs shoot-to-kill anyone suspected of perhaps owning a firearm not properly taxed and regulated by Washington, D.C., power brokers.

    What else would be new?

    A few of our members expressed interest in contacting the BATFE to vent some righteous anger -- the same thing we did when the Department of Defense said they were going to ban all once-fired military brass for resale.
    Remember how the DoD reneged on that commitment after just a few days due to the widespread backlash from gun owners and law enforcement?
    Well, this is a bit different. Writing the ATF and providing them with your information is akin to giving thieves your home address and the hours you won't be home.

    We're going to take a different, less dangerous approach.
    We've been talking to state officials from both Montana and Tennessee today to try to figure out the best way we can help these state laws succeed.

    Please stay tuned to updates on this supremely important issue in our future emails.


    In Liberty,

    Dudley Brown
    Executive Director
    National Association for Gun Rights
     
  2. CA357

    CA357 New Member Supporter

    19,847
    3
    0
    The daily incursions that curtail our liberty are endemic and intolerable. They have increased exponentially in this past year or so. I have no idea what the tipping point may be, or, if in fact it will ever happen,. But I would think that at some point, there may well be unintended consequences.

    The frustration and anger at the trampling of good Citizens rights cannot go on much longer without some form of response. At least that's the way I see things.
     

  3. NGIB

    NGIB New Member

    7,143
    1
    0
    Soon, very soon, I think we're going to see some epic court cases all centering around the 10th Amendment and states rights. Many of the states are getting very tired of the feds taxing, regulating, and providing nothing. The Arizona illegal immigrant situation is a classic example. Gov Perry of Texas has "joked" about secession - but I'm not so sure it isn't doable (in the near future) given the current political climate...
     
  4. masterPsmith

    masterPsmith New Member

    1,346
    1
    0
    I just wish I could afford to move to Montana, Arizona or Texas to get out of the communist state of Kalifornia. It's only a matter of time before the S.H.T.F.................

    Jim.........
     
  5. bkt

    bkt New Member

    6,964
    0
    0
    Originally, the interstate commerce clause was concocted because goods coming across state lines under the Articles of Confederation had tariffs imposed from other states. It impeded growth and the Framers were concerned. They wanted to ensure there were no insidious barriers to trade. So the Federal government was granted the authority, by the Constitution, to regulate interstate commerce. That is, to make sure that goods flowed freely across state borders, and certainly not to impose further impediments on trade.

    In the 1930's, the interpretation of this clause changed.

    In Wicker v. Filburn, the question was raised: Does Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce extend to activities which are not interstate and not commerce? The answer would seem to be self-evident, but the answer was not self-evident to the Supreme Court.

    Mr. Filburn grew crops on his own farm. He didn't buy his food, he grew it. He didn't sell the food he grew, he ate it and used what was left over to feed his livestock. But the Roosevelt administration wanted to curtail personal production to boost prices during the depression, and Filburn was told, basically, "you have to cut back on your production of crops".

    Filburn asked "Under what authority?"

    The government responded: "Interstate commerce regulation."

    Filburn, quite sensibly, said "This isn't interstate -- it's all on my farm, and by the way, it's not 'commerce' -- there's no buying or selling. I'm not buying, I'm growing. And I'm not selling, I'm eating."

    The Supreme Court said, basically, "Filburn, you don't get it. If you weren't out there growing, you would have had to buy food. And if you weren't eating everything you grew, you'd have something left over to sell. So by not buying and not selling, you're obviously having an adverse impact on the supply and demand of crops on the interstate market."

    And if they can get away with crap like that, don't doubt for a second that they'll do whatever they can to shaft states that are legally playing by the rules, like Tennessee and Montana, with regard to firearms.
     
  6. notdku

    notdku Administrator Staff Member

    6,288
    8
    38
    That's circuitous logic. Using the argument to support the argument. Amazing.
     
  7. bkt

    bkt New Member

    6,964
    0
    0
    Exactly right. So never underestimate the power of any branch of government to get what they want, logic, reason and law be damned.

    If there was ever a period in the history of this country where the line above was a superfluous understatement, this is it.
     
  8. dunerunner

    dunerunner New Member

    8,411
    3
    0
    That all depends on what your definition of is, is.

    Thanks JD, please post what their plan of action will be.
     
  9. Car54

    Car54 New Member

    2,103
    0
    0
    Regarding what NGIB wrote;

    Last month I went to a Republican Party Dinner in Michigan, and the guest speaker was Mike Bouchard, who is running for Governor. In the first part of his speech he made reference to supporting the 2nd amendment and then he went on and referenced the 10th and the specific reason was that the Federal Government is overstepping their authority and infringing upon the rights of the individual states to set rules, laws, and policies on their own. I firmly believe that should he be elected, he will indeed push for reform to allow the states to govern themselves.

    He also had some very good ideas to help the poor economy along. After his speech was done, I approached him, introduced myself and offered my thanks for both the support of the 2nd and 10th amendment.

    I'm hoping with Arizona stepping up, and Alabama Gov. wanting to put the state driving exam in English only, maybe others will have the strength to fight back for the people and not back down.

    To anyone from Michigan in the FTF community, I urge you to research the candidates but take special heed to Mike Bouchard and his goals.

    PS: This was not intended to be a political thing, it was only in response to support of the 10th amendment. I apologize if taken in the wrong pretense.
     
  10. KalashnikovJosh

    KalashnikovJosh New Member

    1,156
    0
    0
    Gun control was first justified by the misinterpretation of government power under the commerce clause.
    Now because of Heller,the government will justify gun control based on the Second Amendment itself,which they say is 'not absoloute' to the point that GCA68 and all the other federal gun control schemes that follow are legal.

    The only recourse is nullification.

    Tenth Amendment Center