[quote]pushharder wrote:
Missoula is definitely the hotbed of liberalism in Montana.[/quote]
But there are some big plusses to liberal towns. While their politics may suck, you do get stores like the Co-op where you can get yoru elk and buffalo as well as art buildings and theatre and stuff like that. Plus you get a more alcohol friendly environment. There are some redeeming qualities to liberal towns, don’t you think?
mike
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Missoula is definitely the hotbed of liberalism in Montana.
But there are some big plusses to liberal towns. While their politics may suck, you do get stores like the Co-op where you can get yoru elk and buffalo as well as art buildings and theatre and stuff like that. Plus you get a more alcohol friendly environment. There are some redeeming qualities to liberal towns, don’t you think?
mike[/quote]
Now I’m confused. Do conservatives in the Northwest tend not to look at art, attend theatrical performances, drink alcohol, or eat elk and bison?
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Missoula is definitely the hotbed of liberalism in Montana.
But there are some big plusses to liberal towns. While their politics may suck, you do get stores like the Co-op where you can get yoru elk and buffalo as well as art buildings and theatre and stuff like that. Plus you get a more alcohol friendly environment. There are some redeeming qualities to liberal towns, don’t you think?
mike
Now I’m confused. Do conservatives in the Northwest tend not to look at art, attend theatrical performances, drink alcohol, or eat elk and bison?
[/quote]
They do, it just isn’t a fixture you would find in towns primarily populated by conservatives. And sure, they eat elk and bison, but you don’t find it at the supermarket.
mike
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
And sure, they eat elk and bison, but you don’t find it at the supermarket.
mike[/quote]
Mike, you may have hit upon one of the primary differences between the two ideologies. As Ted Nugent says, “before ya grill it, ya gotta kill it.”
Conservatives are comfortable doing their own killing, whereas liberals would rather someone else do their killing for them.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
And sure, they eat elk and bison, but you don’t find it at the supermarket.
mike
Mike, you may have hit upon one of the primary differences between the two ideologies. As Ted Nugent says, “before ya grill it, ya gotta kill it.”
Conservatives are comfortable doing their own killing, whereas liberals would rather someone else do their killing for them.[/quote]
Funny you mention that. Although I’d always been pro-gun (even though I didn’t own any up to about 05 or so) I’d been anti-hunting. In my head it wasn’t sporting. Mind you this was from someone who had never hunted before.
Than one day I’m channel surfing and saw the Nuge on TV talking to a guy about hunting who had my attitude. So Nuge says to the guy, “Do you eat meat?”
“Yeah”
“Well, then you’re just hiring an assassin to do your job for you.”
All of a sudden a lightbulb went off in my head. It wasn’t a CFL either, those take a second. So I decided that if I were to be a meat eater I had the responsibility to kill my food at least once. Otherwise I had no business eating meat. Besides, I figured that a deer running around in the woods before I shoot it was a lot happier than some pathetic cow.
Since then I’ve gone out hunting every year. I’ve yet to bag anything. Hell I’ve only even see game once out of all the hours I spent out hunting. I’ve quickly learned that it’s a hell of a lot more work and more sporting than I’d figured.
mike
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
… So Nuge says to the guy, “Do you eat meat?”
“Yeah”
“Well, then you’re just hiring an assassin to do your job for you.”
All of a sudden a lightbulb went off in my head. It wasn’t a CFL either, those take a second. So I decided that if I were to be a meat eater I had the responsibility to kill my food at least once. Otherwise I had no business eating meat. …
mike[/quote]
Not necessarily.
Everything I eat has died of natural causes.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
… So Nuge says to the guy, “Do you eat meat?”
“Yeah”
“Well, then you’re just hiring an assassin to do your job for you.”
All of a sudden a lightbulb went off in my head. It wasn’t a CFL either, those take a second. So I decided that if I were to be a meat eater I had the responsibility to kill my food at least once. Otherwise I had no business eating meat. …
mike
Not necessarily.
Everything I eat has died of natural causes.[/quote]
That doesn’t sound very healthy.
While this is a noble effort, anyone that knows the history of the courts interpretation of interstate commerse knows this has no chance of succeeding. If they can regulate a farmer’s production of wheat to feed his own cattle, they can regulate anything they choose to regulate under the intersate commerse clause.
There are very few states’ rights recognized by the courts. This is the problem. States’ reaccerting rights they should already have is a waste of time. Especially given the future prospect of the court make-up.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
… So Nuge says to the guy, “Do you eat meat?”
“Yeah”
“Well, then you’re just hiring an assassin to do your job for you.”
All of a sudden a lightbulb went off in my head. It wasn’t a CFL either, those take a second. So I decided that if I were to be a meat eater I had the responsibility to kill my food at least once. Otherwise I had no business eating meat. …
mike
Not necessarily.
Everything I eat has died of natural causes.
That doesn’t sound very healthy.[/quote]
I don’t think the good doctor is admitting to eating carrion.
Cessation of brain function due to rapid blood loss, organ failure due to massive trauma, and massive neural shock are all totally natural causes. They are the natural consequence of hitting an animal with a high-velocity projectile.
Of course, a pneumatic cattle knocker will also do the job, but it just feels cheap to eat an animal so stupid and docile as to allow its killer to get close enough to use such a weapon (full disclosure: I eat beef, but I vastly prefer wild venison, bison and boar).
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
… So Nuge says to the guy, “Do you eat meat?”
“Yeah”
“Well, then you’re just hiring an assassin to do your job for you.”
All of a sudden a lightbulb went off in my head. It wasn’t a CFL either, those take a second. So I decided that if I were to be a meat eater I had the responsibility to kill my food at least once. Otherwise I had no business eating meat. …
mike
Not necessarily.
Everything I eat has died of natural causes.
That doesn’t sound very healthy.
I don’t think the good doctor is admitting to eating carrion.
Cessation of brain function due to rapid blood loss, organ failure due to massive trauma, and massive neural shock are all totally natural causes. They are the natural consequence of hitting an animal with a high-velocity projectile.
Of course, a pneumatic cattle knocker will also do the job, but it just feels cheap to eat an animal so stupid and docile as to allow its killer to get close enough to use such a weapon (full disclosure: I eat beef, but I vastly prefer wild venison, bison and boar).[/quote]
Well, you are what you eat. From carrion I came and unto road-kill I return.
I have it on good authority that the father of the late Bella Abzug (D-NY, of course) was a kosher butcher. But he was so religious that he became a vegetarian. The name of his butcher shop was the “Live and Let Live Meat Market.”
[quote]pushharder wrote:
dhickey wrote:
While this is a noble effort, anyone that knows the history of the courts interpretation of interstate commerse knows this has no chance of succeeding. If they can regulate a farmer’s production of wheat to feed his own cattle, they can regulate anything they choose to regulate under the intersate commerse clause.
There are very few states’ rights recognized by the courts. This is the problem. States’ reaccerting rights they should already have is a waste of time. Especially given the future prospect of the court make-up.
Funny how the commerce clause always trumps the Ninth and Tenth Amendment.
In fact, the few words in that clause effectively have become the most powerful words in the entire Constitution. Every other consideration must bow before it. Like I said, despite their explicit language even the Ninth and Tenth Amendments must be subservient.
Fuckin judicial branch is so busy legislating from the bench that they don’t have time to put the commerce clause in its place.[/quote]
Whats funny is that with a simple majority, congress can explicitly deny the courts from hearing cases on specific subjects. Abortion, gun rights, specific commerse, ect. The we would only have to deal with activist state courts.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
While this is a noble effort, anyone that knows the history of the courts interpretation of interstate commerse knows this has no chance of succeeding. If they can regulate a farmer’s production of wheat to feed his own cattle, they can regulate anything they choose to regulate under the intersate commerse clause.
There are very few states’ rights recognized by the courts. This is the problem. States’ reaccerting rights they should already have is a waste of time. Especially given the future prospect of the court make-up.[/quote]
California recently tried to de-regulate medicinal marijuana and the courts reasoning to reject it? There is no distinction between marijuana grown in California and marijuana grown anywhere else.
There is most definately a distinction in guns “Made in Montana.”
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Text of the New Law
HOUSE BILL NO. 246
INTRODUCED BY J. BONIEK, BENNETT, BUTCHER, CURTISS, RANDALL, WARBURTON
AN ACT EXEMPTING FROM FEDERAL REGULATION UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES A FIREARM, A FIREARM ACCESSORY, OR AMMUNITION MANUFACTURED AND RETAINED IN MONTANA ; AND PROVIDING AN APPLICABILITY DATE.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MONTANA :
Section 1. Short title. [Sections 1 through 6] may be cited as the “Montana Firearms Freedom Act”.
Section 2. Legislative declarations of authority. The legislature declares that the authority for [sections 1 through 6] is the following:
(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.
Section 3. Definitions. As used in [sections 1 through 6], the following definitions apply:
(1) “Borders of Montana " means the boundaries of Montana described in Article I, section 1, of the 1889 Montana constitution.
(2) “Firearms accessories” means items that are used in conjunction with or mounted upon a firearm but are not essential to the basic function of a firearm, including but not limited to telescopic or laser sights, magazines, flash or sound suppressors, folding or aftermarket stocks and grips, speedloaders, ammunition carriers, and lights for target illumination.
(3) " Generic and insignificant parts” includes but is not limited to springs, screws, nuts, and pins.
(4) “Manufactured” means that a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition has been created from basic materials for functional usefulness, including but not limited to forging, casting, machining, or other processes for working materials.
Section 4. Prohibitions. 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. It is declared by the legislature that those items have not traveled in interstate commerce. This section applies to a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured in Montana from basic materials and that can be manufactured without the inclusion of any significant parts imported from another state.
Generic and insignificant parts that have other manufacturing or consumer product applications are not firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition, and their importation into Montana and incorporation into a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured in Montana does not subject the firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition to federal regulation. It is declared by the legislature that basic materials, such as unmachined steel and unshaped wood, are not firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition and are not subject to congressional authority to regulate firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition under interstate commerce as if they were actually firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition.
The authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce in basic materials does not include authority to regulate firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition made in Montana from those materials. Firearms accessories that are imported into Montana from another state and that are subject to federal regulation as being in interstate commerce do not subject a firearm to federal regulation under interstate commerce because they are attached to or used in conjunction with a firearm in Montana .
Section 5. Exceptions. [Section 4] does not apply to:
(1) A firearm that cannot be carried and used by one person;
(2) A firearm that has a bore diameter greater than 1 1/2 inches and that uses smokeless powder, not black powder, as a propellant;
(3) ammunition with a projectile that explodes using an explosion of chemical energy after the projectile leaves the firearm; or
(4) a firearm that discharges two or more projectiles with one activation of the trigger or other firing device.
Section 6. Marketing of firearms. A firearm manufactured or sold in Montana under [sections 1 through 6] must have the words "Made in Montana " clearly stamped on a central metallic part, such as the receiver or frame.
Section 7. Codification instruction. [Sections 1 through 6] are intended to be codified as an integral part of Title 30, and the provisions of Title 30 apply to [sections 1 through 6].
Section 8. Applicability. [This act] applies to firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition that are manufactured, as defined in [section 3], and retained in Montana after October 1, 2009. [/quote]
Now all you need is some brave soul to risk becoming the test case…
[quote]Section 5. Exceptions. [Section 4] does not apply to:
(4) a firearm that discharges two or more projectiles with one activation of the trigger or other firing device. [/quote]
I don’t like the wording of this clause. It’s obviously meant to exempt fully-automatic weapons from the protection provided in section 4., but an asshole lawyer could point out, rightly, that it would also exclude shotguns, rifles that can fire duplex rounds, and pistols which can fire shot shells. In other words, practically all firearms.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Section 5. Exceptions. [Section 4] does not apply to:
(4) a firearm that discharges two or more projectiles with one activation of the trigger or other firing device.
I don’t like the wording of this clause. It’s obviously meant to exempt fully-automatic weapons from the protection provided in section 4., but an asshole lawyer could point out, rightly, that it would also exclude shotguns, rifles that can fire duplex rounds, and pistols which can fire shot shells. In other words, practically all firearms.[/quote]
yep. should read cartridge or primer or something like that. i doubt anyone would challenge muzzle loaders.
Again, this will not hold up if it reaches the federal courts. Not unless there is a new make-up and they are willing to overturn precedence.
i would not want to test this.