The folks in Montana may have created a real problem for themselves this time. The state of Montana has signed an act into law which is purely constitutional, and by being so flies in the face of eighty years of tyrannical behavior by the federal government. As Voltaire wrote in 1764, “It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.” The good people of Montana may soon discover how true that still is.
The Bill in question is the Montana Firearms Freedom Act. This act explicitly exempts the territory of the State of Montana from the federal governments abusive misinterpretation of the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.
The Commerce Clause, Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, reads:
Section Four of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act begins:
In 1928, Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis wrote “The makers of the Constitution conferred, as against the government, the Right to be let alone; the most comprehensive of rights, and the right most valued by civilized men.” That’s all the citizens of Montana are asking for — the right to live free from the tyrannical actions of an overreaching and power-mad federal government.
Unfortunately, Thomas Jefferson predicted this failure of our nation as early as 1821, when he wrote “When all government, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the Center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.”
That’s the situation we are in today. It’s unconstitutional and it may be unstoppable — short of violent revolution.
The Bill in question is the Montana Firearms Freedom Act. This act explicitly exempts the territory of the State of Montana from the federal governments abusive misinterpretation of the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.
The Commerce Clause, Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, reads:
“ [The Congress shall have power] To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;”
Since Roosevelt’s threat to take over the Supreme Court in 1936 forced the justices into acquiescing to his unconstitutional demands, the states and the people have slowly lost freedom to the expanding powers of the federal government.Section Four of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act begins:
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.
The Montana Firearms Freedom Act draws on Constitutional authority to make these statements:(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.
This bill has been passed into law and goes into effect on 1 October. After that date, the citizens of the state of Montana will legally have rights which were guaranteed to them under the United States Constitution and later stolen from them by the federal government.In 1928, Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis wrote “The makers of the Constitution conferred, as against the government, the Right to be let alone; the most comprehensive of rights, and the right most valued by civilized men.” That’s all the citizens of Montana are asking for — the right to live free from the tyrannical actions of an overreaching and power-mad federal government.
Unfortunately, Thomas Jefferson predicted this failure of our nation as early as 1821, when he wrote “When all government, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the Center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.”
That’s the situation we are in today. It’s unconstitutional and it may be unstoppable — short of violent revolution.
No comments:
Post a Comment