locogringo ..."Gun LIMITING control and the radical gangs all fall in place, from the Black Panthers, to the Chicago gangs, to Ayers and his bomb happy friends, and Farrakhan and his heavily armed Black Militias."....
Some are attempting to fight back?
REBELLION IN AMERICA
9th Circuit judges asked: 'Will you choose tyranny?'
Montanans say fight over gun law to determine Washington's 'powers'
June 10, 2011
By Bob Unruh
© 2011 WND
wnd.com
Montanans protecting their state's Firearms Freedom Act have filed a brief with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals asking whether the judges there will choose a "tyrannical" Washington or a federal government restrained by the Constitution.
Quoting Alexander Hamilton's statement that the federalism system was intended to suppress "attempts of the government to establish tyranny," the brief filed by the Montana Shooting Sports Association, the Second Amendment Foundation and MSSA President Gary Marbut of Missoula states:
"The government may argue that it is not, in its current incarnation, tyrannical. The national government usually abides by the law, typically protects its citizens' rights, and always celebrates in its peaceful transfers of power. Whatever fear appellants or anyone else may have of its becoming tyrannical, the government may argue, is no more than disingenuous alarmism," the brief explains.
"Such an argument would be wrong."
The brief explains the federal government already has proven that it is tyrannical.
"The wholesale stripping of independent sovereignty from the states has destroyed the balance of power, and given the federal government advantages it demonstrably tends to abuse. The outrage that is our $14.5 trillion national debt may be the worst example. The borning cry of the American Revolution was 'no taxation without representation.' By borrowing more money than the current generation can repay in our lifetimes, Congress leaves a legacy of debt for future generations. Our progeny did not vote for the monumental hole their parents are digging for them. Still they will certainly be saddled with the duty to make good. This is tyranny."
Learn what you can do about your nation. Get "Taking America Back," Joseph Farah's manifesto for sovereignty, self-reliance and moral renewal
The case at the center fo the dispute isn't complicated: It's the state law that "declares that any firearms, ammunition and firearm accessories made and retained in Montana are not subject to any federal authority under the Commerce Clause," because those items are not in "interstate commerce."
The plan was launched in Montana, but has been very popular nationwide.
"Following Montana's enactment, virtually identical versions of the MFFA were adopted in Tennessee (SB1610); Utah (SB11); Wyoming (HB95); South Dakota (SB89); Arizona (HB2307); Idaho (HB589); and Alaska (HB1860). Representing a consensus among the states on the limits of federal power, virtually identical copies of the MFFA have also been introduced in the legislatures of 23 other states, for a total of 31 jurisdictions where it has been enacted or introduced," the brief explains.
After Montana adopted the law, it went to court to obtain a verdict that the federal government could not interfere with the state law's provisions. As the plaintiffs expected, a federal judge in Montana disagreed with them, and the case now has been elevated to the 9th Circuit.
Montana officials have told WND they expect the appeals court to agree with the district court because they are asking in their case for the Supreme Court's handling of the Commerce Clause to be re-evaluated, and only the Supreme Court can do that. An appeal to that court appears inevitable no matter what the 9th would rule.
"We've known all along that the district court will not provide what we seek, the reversal of a half-century of bad Commerce Clause precedent," said Marbut. "We need to get to the U.S. Supreme Court for that.
"This … appeal puts us at the 50-yard line in our quest to get to the Supreme Court – it is a big step in the direction we want to go," Marbut told WND earlier.
Briefs in support of the state law have been filed by the state of Utah and other states, the Goldwater Institute, the Paragon Foundation of New Mexico, several groups of state lawmakers, the Weapons Collectors Society of Montana, the state of Montana itself, and others.
"It is totally obvious from the positions of federal participants, both lawyers and judges for the U.S.," Marbut said, "that the federal establishment definitely, almost desperately, wishes to prevent this issue from having a trial on merit."
He said the 9th Circuit could order a trial, among its other options. But whatever results come about there is likely to be appealed to the Supreme Court, Marbut said.
The ultimate results of the case could undercut the authority of the federal government on issues not only including guns, but marijuana, REAL ID, health care, the national guard, taxes and other issues.
It was U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy who affirmed the "findings" of Magistrate Jeremiah Lynch in dismissing the case.
The Montana Firearms Freedom Act has been described as part of a growing national effort by states to reject federal authority and control when that authority is not included in the Constitution.
Officials at the Tenth Amendment Center, in fact, have a long list of issues over which there currently are campaigns to "nullify" or void Washington interference.
Those include firearms regulations, medical marijuana laws, REAL ID, health care, the use of the National Guard, taxes, the authority of sheriffs and others.
The magistrate who assembled the district court's determination in the case, in fact, stooped to name-calling, describing the plaintiffs as "myopic."
After the gun law was adopted, the federal government wrote gun dealers in Montana, as well as in Tennessee, that warned against following the state law.
Alaska was the eighth state to declare that firearms made, sold and owned in the state are beyond the reach of the federal bureaucrats along the Potomac. When South Dakota's law was signed by Gov. Mike Rounds, a commentator said it addresses the "rights of states which have been carelessly trampled by the federal government for decades."
Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center said Washington likely is looking for a way out of the dispute.
"I think they're going to let it ride, hoping some judge throws out the case," he told WND earlier. "When they really start paying attention is when people actually start following the [state] firearms laws."
WND reported when Wyoming joined the states with self-declared exemptions from federal gun regulation. Officials there took the unusual step of including penalties for any agent of the U.S. who "enforces or attempts to enforce" federal gun rules on a "personal firearm."
The costs could be up to two years in prison and $2,000 in fines for an offender.
The appeal notes that the Supreme Court's Commerce Clause interpretations have "improvidently altered the very form of American government" and have stripped from states "all independence of policy or action."
The high court's rulings, in fact, even have found that Congress can control "intrastate" functions should they "affect" interstate commerce.
"This arrogation of power in the national government robs the states of their constitutional role maintaining the promise of liberty," the brief says. "Because the jurisprudence opens the door to tyranny, it should be overruled, and dual sovereignty restored to the American form of government."
It explains the Founders of the nation set up a federalism form of government, individual sovereign states allocating certain powers such as national defense to an overarching government, and limited the federal government's powers through the Constitution.
"One of the powers the Constituions was said to delegate to Congress was the regulation of what the Framers called commerce 'among the several states.' … But this is no longer the law. Despite the original understanding, and the jurisprudence or the first century and a half of the Republic, federal courts now insist the commerce power is 'plenary, unsusceptible to categorical exclusions.'"
"Thus under current case law, 'everything is subject to federal regulation under the Commerce Clause'" – or tyranny, the brief argues. |
