Parental Rights and gun owners read

Parental Rights Amendment to Protect Gun Owners’ Rights

May 12, 2009

ParentalRights.org today released The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child: The Impact on Private Gun-Ownership in America, a carefully considered legal analysis of the impact this United Nations treaty will have on Americans’ Second Amendment Rights. In it, author Michael Farris, J.D., establishes that ratification of the UNCRC poses a significant threat to the right of the American people to keep and bear arms:

• The U.N. believes all children have a right to grow up in a community without guns.
• The U.N. holds that the UNCRC is applicable to this issue.
• They also hold that the idea that guns are beneficial is itself harmful to children.
• The UN believes guns should never be accessible to children.

Read the full article here. Also, be sure to pass this on to any friends and family members who value their Second Amendment rights.

I am more grateful now than before to be a resident of Montana...hopefully Texas follows MT and gets their state law passed concerning gun laws.

Homeschooler Alert

Now I am not a huge fan of HSLDA but do get updates now and then from friends that are members to help me stay on top of certain things that need to be watched and I felt this was important to pass on.

Is Congress Moving Toward Nationalized Standards?

HSLDA's Federal Relations Department

May 11, 2009

On Wednesday, April 29, the U.S. House of Representative’s Education and Labor Committee held the 111th Congress’s first hearing on the potential reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (also known as the No Child Left Behind Act). Entitled “Strengthening America’s Competitiveness through Common Academic Standards,” the hearing could foreshadow a serious threat to the freedom of homeschoolers nationwide and America’s constitutional tradition of limited government.

While not connected with any bill yet proposed in Congress, the U.S. representatives on the committee dedicated the hearing to the discussion of a plan to potentially eliminate virtually all state control over the education system, and centralize education in Washington, D.C. through nationalized standards, which would lead to nationalized curriculum tests, and textbooks.

The committee heard from various expert witnesses. Some, like Ken James, who is the commissioner of education for the Arkansas Department of Education, stressed that any plan should not be mandatory, or require the federal government to establish its own national standards: “First and foremost, this is a voluntary, state-led effort to establish a common core of standards across the states. Let me be clear, this is not an effort to establish federal standards,” said Mr. James.

Other expert witnesses, however, seemed to desire the federal government to be more involved in establishing academic standards, and possibly even testing and curricula. One witness, David Levin, who is the co-founder of KIPP Schools, made an ambiguous comment at the end of his testimony that left HSLDA wondering if he wanted Congress to regulate all education: “Before the Civil War, when talking about our country people would say, ‘The United States are….’ After, it became ‘The United States is….’ It is time that we do the same in education and adopt one set of common standards.”

Other witnesses called for “common national standards that are rigorous and relevant,” and urged Congress to take action.

In the face of these calls, HSLDA is closely monitoring Congress’s actions. If groups of states on their own want to establish common standards for public schools, that is one thing. HSLDA firmly believes that educational decisions should be left up to the states and local school boards, not Washington, D.C. However, we believe that any attempts by Congress to create nationalized standards, curriculum, or testing would be unconstitutional, and harmful to students and families. Homeschool families have demonstrated that parents, not bureaucrats in Washington, best know their children and what they need to learn.

Congressman Buck McKeon (CA), the ranking member on the House Education and Labor Committee recognized this when he said during the hearing, “Some people in Washington seem to think that the federal government created the states to administer its far-reaching programs and policies. But that’s not the case. History tells us that the states created the federal government.”

Congressman Mark Souder (IN) also shared his concerns about calls for Congress to create national standards. He asked some of the witnesses, “By the way, how do homeschoolers fit into this? How do Christian schools fit into this? How do colleges fit into this?” His question was never answered.

Mr. Souder soundly called any plans for centralized top-down education “a straitjacket which will be politically manipulated,” which will be exploited by special interests, and which will not advance education, but rather “advance whatever the political agenda is of those who are in power.”

For the past several decades, America’s education system has become more centralized and more disconnected from parents and local control. This has weakened academic quality as the federal government’s grip on the education system grows tighter. Local control over education is always better than centralized federal control. We are extremely concerned by any calls for nationalized standards, especially since it is unclear what room would be left for educational freedom, or how homeschoolers will be affected.

HSLDA urges you to contact your representative, as well as the representatives on House Education and Labor Committee, and tell them to oppose any calls for nationalized stabdardsm testing, or curricula. You can find your representative on HSLDA’s Legislative Toolbox. A list of members of the House Education and Labor Committee can be accessed here.

Montana gun law targets states’ rights clash

Montana is trying to trigger a battle over gun control – and perhaps make a larger point about what many folks in this ruggedly independent state regard as a meddlesome federal government.

In a bill passed by the Legislature earlier this month, the state is asserting that guns manufactured in Montana and sold in Montana to people who intend to keep their weapons in Montana are exempt from federal gun registration, background check and dealer-licensing rules because no state lines are crossed.

That notion is all but certain to be tested in court.

The immediate effect of the law could be limited, since Montana is home to just a few specialty gun makers, known for high-end hunting rifles and replicas of Old West weapons, and because their out-of-state sales would automatically trigger federal control.

Still, much bigger prey lies in Montana’s sights: a legal showdown over how far the federal government’s regulatory authority extends.

“It’s a gun bill, but it’s another way of demonstrating the sovereignty of the state of Montana,” said Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer, who signed the bill.

Carrie DiPirro, a spokeswoman for the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, had no comment on the legislation. But the federal government has argued that it has authority under the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution to regulate guns because they can so easily be transported across state lines.

Guns and states’ rights both play well in Montana, the birthplace of the right-wing Freemen militia and a participant in the Sagebrush Rebellion of the 1970s and ’80s, during which Western states clashed with Washington over grazing and mineral extraction on federal land.

Montana’s leading gun rights organization, more hard-core than the National Rifle Association, boasts it has moved 50 bills through the Legislature over the past 25 years. And lawmakers in the Big Sky State have rebelled against federal control of everything from wetland protection to the national Real ID system.

Under the new law, guns intended only for Montana would be stamped “Made in Montana.” The drafters of the law hope to set off a legal battle with a simple Montana-made youth-model single-shot, bolt-action .22 rifle. They plan to find a “squeaky clean” Montanan who wants to send a note to the ATF threatening to build and sell about 20 such rifles without federal dealership licensing.

If the ATF tells them it’s illegal, they will sue and take the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, if they can.

Similar measures have also been introduced in Texas and Alaska.

“I think states have got to stand up or else most of their rights are going to be buffaloed by the administration and by Congress,” said Texas state Rep. Leo Berman.

Critics say exempting guns from federal laws anywhere would undermine efforts to stem gun violence everywhere.

“Guns cross state lines and they do so constantly, and this is a Sagebrush Rebellion-type effort to light some sort of fire and get something going that’s pleasing to the gun nuts and that has very little actual sense,” said Peter Hamm, communications director for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

In a 2005 case, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the enforcement of federal laws against marijuana in California, even if the drug is for medical purposes and is grown and used within the state. The court found that since marijuana produced in California is indistinguishable from pot grown outside the state, the federal government must have the authority to regulate both to enforce national drug laws.

Randy Barnett, the lawyer and constitutional scholar who represented the plaintiff in the California case, said that Montana could argue that its “Made in Montana”-stamped guns are unique and sufficiently segregated as to lie outside federal regulation.

Supporters of the measure say the main purpose is not extending gun freedoms, but curbing what they regard as an oppressive interpretation of the interstate commerce clause and federal overreach into such things as livestock management and education.

“Firearms are inextricably linked to the history and culture of Montana, and I’d like to support that,” said Montana state Rep. Joel Boniek, the bill’s sponsor. “But I want to point out that the issue here is not about firearms. It’s about state rights.”

Source: SF Gate

Gov Brian Schweitzer on the new MT gun law

I will be one of the first to admit Schweitzer isn't top of my list of favorite people in the world, BUT when Bozeman had the gas explosion he was here didn't go to a renaming ceremony he was scheduled to be at, he went to where there was a tragedy. And now he did what is right not maybe his political counterparts said he should do...he did was was right for the people of Montana. For this I say thank you Brian for not letting your own political agenda get in the way just because you are democrat, but looked out for our state, please continue to do so.

“It’s a gun bill, but it’s another way of demonstrating the sovereignty of the state of Montana,” Democrat Schweitzer said.

House Bill 246, the Montana-made gun bill, cleared the Legislature easily before reaching the governor’s desk.

Its supporters next plan to find a “squeaky clean” Montanan who wants to send a note to the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives threatening to build and sell about 20 rifles without federal dealership licensing. If the ATF says it’s illegal, the gun bill’s backers plan to file a lawsuit in federal court with the goal of launching a legal showdown that lands in the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Montana Shooting Sports Association, which drafted the bill, has said it will raise the money to pay for any legal costs.

“It doesn’t cost us any money and I like guns,” Schweitzer said after signing the bill.

“I like big guns, I like little guns, I like pistols, I like rifles, and I would like to buy a gun that’s made in Montana,” Schweitzer said.

Rest of the mid April article in the Helena paper

Montana Firearms Freedom Act

WOOHOO WTG MONTANA!!!!

Ok now that I said that. and noticing there isn't a lot of national news on our new fabulous law yes I am blogging on it so there is more in the google search! Yes I am pleased with the new Montana law it is needed to protect our states citizens from the Federal Government's BS anti gun laws trying to be passed. I hear Texas is in the process of passing similar law to our new gun law here in MT. I am pleased to hear this since TX is my birth state and a pending state in which we could end up in for medical attn for our daughter. Too bad they don't have permn license plate options like we have here in MT.

Now I am sure there are many upset over our new law, but guess what....MT does not want people like you here in our state! If you want the Fed running your life go back to CA,NY,MA or DC. MT wants people that take responsibility for their own lives and defense! If you want to be sheep, go ahead. We aren't the only state with this law others are now pending...Montana just happened to have the balls to go first! Now if the rest of the state legislatures will stand up and be counted, maybe the nuts in Washington will begin to get the message and be backed down..Obama is forcing a revolution as much as he is pushing this recession into full swing. This law re-affirms the 2nd, 9th and 10th amendments.

The state of Montana has signed into power a revolutionary gun law. I mean REVOLUTIONARY.

The State of Montana has defied the federal government and their gun laws. This will prompt a showdown between the federal government and the State of Montana . The federal government fears citizens owning guns. They try to curtail what types of guns they can own. The gun control laws all have one common goal - confiscation of privately owned firearms. I am guessing this is one of those challenges Obama is not liking;0)

Montana has gone beyond drawing a line in the sand. They have challenged the Federal Government. The fed now either takes them on and risks them saying the federal agents have no right to violate their state gun laws and arrest the federal agents that try to enforce the federal firearms acts. This will be a world-class event to watch.

Montana could go to voting for secession from the union, which is really throwing the gauntlet in Obama's face. If the federal government does nothing they lose face. Gotta love it...win win in Montana's court.

Important Points - If guns and ammunition are manufactured inside the State of Montana for sale and use inside that state then the federal firearms laws have no applicability since the federal government only has the power to control commerce across state lines. Montana has the law on their side. Since when did the USA start following their own laws especially the constitution of the USA , the very document that empowers the USA .

Silencers made in Montana and sold in Montana would be fully legal and not registered. Now this was added in there more as a political issue I am sure as the law even mentions the screws and such to hold the gun together. I laughed at first, but then realized they were trying to cover all gray areas the best they could. Silencers were useful tools for gun enthusiasts and hunters.

There would be no firearm registration, serial numbers, criminal records check, waiting periods or paperwork required. So in a short period of time there would be millions and millions of unregistered untraceable guns in Montana . Way to go Montana! I am sure just like the no speed limit we use to have regulations will be put into affect at some point for guidelines so to speak.

Let us see what Obama does. If he hits Montana hard they will probably vote to secede from the USA. The governor of Texas has already been refusing Federal money because he does not want to agree to the conditions that go with it and he has been saying secession is a right they have as sort of a threat. Things are no longer the same with the USA. Do not be deceived by Obama acting as if all is the same, it is not.


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.

Ernest Hancock's website

Offered by John C.