Montana Firearms Freedom Act

Last updated

The Montana Firearms Freedom Act [1] is a state statute (since held invalid by Federal courts) that sought to exempt firearms manufactured in Montana from federal regulation under the interstate commerce and supremacy clauses of the United States Constitution.

Contents

Provisions

The law declares that firearms manufactured in the state of Montana after October 1, 2009, and which remain in the state, are exempt from United States federal firearms regulations, provided that these items are clearly stamped "Made in Montana" on a central metallic part.

It applies to all firearms other than fully automatic weapons, firearms that cannot be carried and used by one person, and firearms with a bore diameter greater than 1½ inch which use smokeless powder. It also applies to ammunition (except exploding projectiles), and accessories such as suppressors. [2]

The law has no requirements for registration, background checks or dealer licensing.

Legislative history

The bill was introduced January 13, 2009, by Joel Boniek, Gerald Bennett, Edward Butcher, Aubyn Curtiss, Lee Randall and Wendy Warburton. It was signed into law by Governor Brian Schweitzer on April 15, 2009, and became effective on October 1, 2009. However, as noted below, the law never had the intended effect on federal regulation of firearms.

This law was codified at Chapter 205 in Title 30, of the Montana Code Annotated. [3]

Rationale

The legislature declared that the authority for this law is derived from the Second, Ninth and Tenth amendments from the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution. This act reaffirmed the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It guarantees to the people rights not mentioned in the constitution, as well as to the states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in the constitution. The law also stated that Article II, section 12, of the Montana constitution prohibits government interference with the right of individual Montana citizens to keep and bear arms.

Some supporters asserted that the legislation was also about curbing excessive Federal regulation in areas such as education, animal management and intrastate trade. [4]

The drafters of the law intended that it would form a legal challenge to the federal regulation of firearms by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. [4]

Other similar legislation

Similar laws were subsequently passed in Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, South Dakota, Utah, Tennessee, Kansas, and Wyoming. [5] Attempts to do so have also been made in Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia and Washington. [4]

ATF response to Montana proposing Firearms Freedom Act

On July 16, 2009, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives published an open letter to Montana Federal Firearms Licensees, clarifying the bureau's position on the Montana Firearms Freedom Act. According to this letter, "...because the Act conflicts with Federal firearms laws and regulations, Federal law supersedes the Act, and all provisions of the Gun Control Act and the National Firearms Act, and their corresponding regulations, continue to apply." The letter then summarizes ATF requirements for FFL holders. [6]

On August 24, 2009, the Montana Shooting Sports Association and the Second Amendment Foundation announced that they were planning on filing a lawsuit on October 1, 2009 — the date that the Montana Firearms Freedom Act became effective — to stop federal regulations from being enforced for the firearms covered under the new state law. [7]

Based on the Montana law, plaintiffs challenged the continued enforcement of federal gun laws, in federal district court, on October 1, 2009. These plaintiffs are the Montana Shooting Sports Association, the Second Amendment Foundation, and MSSA president Gary Marbut. The legal complaint states that Marbut "wishes to manufacture and sell small arms and small arms ammunition to customers exclusively in Montana, pursuant to the MFFA, without complying with the NFA or the GCA, or other applicable federal laws." [8] [9] [10] [11]

On September 29, 2010, U.S. District Court Judge Donald Molloy dismissed the suit "for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim." [12]

The Plaintiffs filed an appeal [13] with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In a decision [14] issued on August 23, 2013, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the U.S. District Court erred in concluding that the Plaintiff's lacked standing but, after considering the merits of the case, affirmed the dismissal of the action for failure to state a claim. Relying on the United States Supreme Court's decision in Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005), and the court's own precedent in United States v. Stewart, 451 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. 2006), the Ninth Circuit panel unanimously ruled that Congress could regulate the internal manufacture of firearms within Montana because the creation and circulation of such firearms could reasonably be expected to impact the market for firearms nationally. A majority of the panel, over the dissent of Judge Bea, went further to hold that the Montana Firearms Freedom Act was preempted by the federal licensing law. Two petitions for a writ of certiorari sought to bring the matter before the United States Supreme Court, but the writ was denied in both instances. [15] [16]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Second Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1791 amendment protecting the right to keep and bear arms

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right to keep and bear arms. It was ratified on December 15, 1791, along with nine other articles of the Bill of Rights. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court affirmed for the first time that the right belongs to individuals, for self-defense in the home, while also including, as dicta, that the right is not unlimited and does not preclude the existence of certain long-standing prohibitions such as those forbidding "the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill" or restrictions on "the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons". In McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) the Supreme Court ruled that state and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing upon this right. New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen (2022) assured the right to carry weapons in public spaces with reasonable exceptions.

The Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban, often called the "Lautenberg Amendment", is an amendment to the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997, enacted by the 104th United States Congress in 1996, which bans access to firearms for life by people convicted of crimes of domestic violence. The act is often referred to as "the Lautenberg Amendment" after its sponsor, Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ). Lautenberg proposed the amendment after a decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, involving underenforcement of domestic violence laws brought under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. President Bill Clinton signed the law as part of the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1997.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">National Firearms Act</span> 1934 US law regulating firearms including machine guns

The National Firearms Act (NFA), 73rd Congress, Sess. 2, ch. 757, 48 Stat. 1236 was enacted on June 26, 1934, and currently codified and amended as I.R.C. ch. 53. The law is an Act of Congress in the United States that, in general, imposes an excise tax on the manufacture and transfer of certain firearms and mandates the registration of those firearms. The NFA is also referred to as Title II of the federal firearms laws, with the Gun Control Act of 1968 ("GCA") as Title I.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gun Control Act of 1968</span> US federal law

The Gun Control Act of 1968 is a U.S. federal law that regulates the firearms industry and firearms ownership. Due to constitutional limitations, the Act is primarily based on regulating interstate commerce in firearms by generally prohibiting interstate firearms transfers except by manufacturers, dealers and importers licensed under a scheme set up under the Act.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives</span> U.S. law enforcement agency

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE), commonly referred to as the ATF, is a domestic law enforcement agency within the United States Department of Justice. Its responsibilities include the investigation and prevention of federal offenses involving the unlawful use, manufacture, and possession of firearms and explosives; acts of arson and bombings; and illegal trafficking and tax evasion of alcohol and tobacco products. The ATF also regulates via licensing the sale, possession, and transportation of firearms, ammunition, and explosives in interstate commerce. Many of the ATF's activities are carried out in conjunction with task forces made up of state and local law enforcement officers, such as Project Safe Neighborhoods. The ATF operates a unique fire research laboratory in Beltsville, Maryland, where full-scale mock-ups of criminal arson can be reconstructed. The ATF had 5,285 employees and an annual budget of almost $1.5 billion in 2021. The ATF has received criticism over its handling of the Ruby Ridge siege, the Waco siege and other incidents.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gun politics in the United States</span>

Gun politics is defined in the United States by two primary opposing ideologies concerning the private ownership of firearms. Those who advocate for gun control support increasingly restrictive regulation of gun ownership; those who advocate for gun rights oppose increased restriction, or support the liberalization of gun ownership. These groups typically disagree on the interpretation of the text, history and tradition of the laws and judicial opinions concerning gun ownership in the United States and the meaning of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. American gun politics involves these groups' further disagreement concerning the role of firearms in public safety, the studied effects of ownership of firearms on public health and safety, and the role of guns in national and state crime.

United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that involved a Second Amendment to the United States Constitution challenge to the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA). The case is often cited in the ongoing American gun politics debate, as both sides claim that it supports their position.

<i>Silveira v. Lockyer</i>

Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052, is a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruling that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution did not guarantee individuals the right to bear arms. The case involved a challenge to the constitutionality of the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 (AWCA), California legislation that banned the manufacture, sale, transportation, or importation of specified semi-automatic firearms. The plaintiffs alleged that various provisions of the AWCA infringed upon their individual constitutionally-guaranteed right to keep and bear arms.

Gun laws in the United States regulate the sale, possession, and use of firearms and ammunition. State laws vary considerably, and are independent of existing federal firearms laws, although they are sometimes broader or more limited in scope than the federal laws.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Firearm Owners Protection Act</span> 1986 United States federal gun control law

The Firearm Owners' Protection Act (FOPA) of 1986 is a United States federal law that revised many provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968.

A Federal Firearms License (FFL) is a license in the United States that enables an individual or a company to engage in a business pertaining to the manufacture or importation of firearms and ammunition, or the interstate and intrastate sale of firearms. Holding an FFL to engage in certain such activities has been a legal requirement within the United States since the enactment of the Gun Control Act of 1968. The FFL is issued by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bump stock</span> Gun stocks that can be used to assist in bump firing

Bump stocks or bump fire stocks are gun stocks that can be used to assist in bump firing, the act of using the recoil of a semi-automatic firearm to fire cartridges in rapid succession.

In the United States, the right to keep and bear arms is modulated by a variety of state and federal statutes. These laws generally regulate the manufacture, trade, possession, transfer, record keeping, transport, and destruction of firearms, ammunition, and firearms accessories. They are enforced by state, local and the federal agencies which include the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. It ruled that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms—unconnected with service in a militia—for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense within the home, and that the District of Columbia's handgun ban and requirement that lawfully owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee. It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that certain restrictions on guns and gun ownership were permissible. It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense or whether the right was only intended for state militias.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">California Department of Justice</span> Statewide investigative law enforcement agency

The California Department of Justice is a statewide investigative law enforcement agency and legal department of the California executive branch under the elected leadership of the Attorney General of California (AG) which carries out complex criminal and civil investigations, prosecutions, and other legal services throughout the US State of California. The department is equivalent to the state bureaus of investigation in other states.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gun laws in Maryland</span> Marylands gun law

Gun laws in Maryland regulate the sale, possession, and use of firearms and ammunition in the U.S. state of Maryland.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Privately made firearm</span> Firearm made by a private individual

A privately made firearm is a legal term for a firearm produced by a private individual as opposed to a corporate or government entity. The term "ghost gun" is used mostly in the United States by gun control advocates, but it is being adopted by gun rights advocates and the firearm industry because of recent regulations adopted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

<i>Miller v. Bonta</i> 2021 pending federal appellate court case regarding Californias assault weapon ban

Miller v. Bonta is a pending court case before Judge Roger Benitez of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California concerning California's assault weapon ban, the Roberti–Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 (AWCA). Judge Roger Benitez struck down the ban in a ruling on June 5, 2021. A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit issued a stay of the ruling on June 21, 2021, which left the ban in place as appeals were litigated. The panel then vacated Judge Benitez’s ruling and remanded it back down after [] was decided. The case was known as Miller v. Becerra before Rob Bonta succeeded Xavier Becerra as Attorney General of California in April 2021.

<i>Garland v. VanDerStok</i> United States federal court case

VanDerStok v. Garland is a federal court case brought by several plaintiffs from the firearms parts industry challenging the 2021 Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) regulatory revisions of the Gun Control Act definitions of firearm, firearm frame and receiver. On June 30, 2023, federal district court judge Reed O'Connor granted a motion for summary judgment against the ATF, vacating the receiver rule nationwide on the grounds that the agency had exceeded its statutory authority.

References

  1. ↑ CL2246 (2009-04-03). "2009 Montana Legislature, HB 246". Data.opi.mt.gov. Archived from the original on 2011-05-14. Retrieved 2011-03-28.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  2. ↑ Hancock, Ernest (May 4, 2009). "Montana Governor Signs Revolutionary New Gun Law". Republic Magazine. Archived from the original on 2009-06-15. Retrieved 2009-05-09.
  3. ↑ "LAWS Detailed Bill Information Page, HB 246". Laws.leg.mt.gov. Retrieved 2011-01-02.
  4. 1 2 3 Deines, Kahrin (April 29, 2009). "Montana fires a warning shot over states' rights". Independent Record . Associated Press. Retrieved May 8, 2009.
  5. ↑ "Firearms Freedom Act". Firearms Freedom Act. 2010-06-03. Retrieved 2011-01-02.
  6. ↑ "Open Letter to All Montana Federal Firearms Licensees", Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, July 16, 2009
  7. ↑ McKee, Jennifer (24 August 2009). "Missoula Gun Rights Group Will Challenge Feds over Montana Firearms Freedom Act". The Missoulan.
  8. ↑ , Complaint (PDF)
  9. ↑ Gouras, Matt (October 1, 2009). "Montana to Feds: We Don't Want Your Gun Control". ABC News . Retrieved January 25, 2010.
  10. ↑ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2017-11-18. Retrieved 2009-10-04.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link) Montana News Station: "Gun groups file suit supporting Montana law"
  11. ↑ McCullagh, Declan (October 1, 2009). "Montana Gun Suit Challenges Federal Authority". CBS News.
  12. ↑ http://firearmsfreedomact.com/updates/107%20Order%20Adopting%20Findings%20&%20Recommendations%20-%2009%2029%2010.pdf [ bare URL PDF ]
  13. ↑ "NOTICE OF APPEAL" (PDF). United States Montana Missoula District Court. 2 December 2010. Retrieved 2011-03-28.
  14. ↑ "OPINION" (PDF). United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 23 August 2013. Retrieved 2013-08-26.
  15. ↑ "Montana Shooting Sports Ass'n v. Holder, 134 S.Ct. 955, (January 13, 2014)".
  16. ↑ "Montana v. Holder, 134 S.Ct. 1335 (February 24, 2014)".
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.