Governor Brian Schweitzer (D), signs revolutionary new gun law in Montana
posted at 7:19 am on May 6, 2009 by Keemo
printer-friendly
From the AP:
The state of Montana has signed into power a revolutionary gun law. 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.
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.
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. As a note silencers were first used before the 007 movies as a device to enable one to hunt without disturbing neighbors and scaring game. They were also useful as devices to control noise when practicing so as to not disturb the neighbors. Silencers work best with a bolt-action rifle. There is a long barrel and the chamber is closed tight so as to direct all the gases though the silencer at the tip of the barrel. Semi-auto pistols and revolvers do not really muffle the sound very well except on the silver screen. The revolvers bleed gas out with the sound all over the place. The semi-auto pistols bleed the gases out when the slide recoils back. Silencers are maybe nice for snipers picking off enemy soldiers even though they reduce velocity but not very practical for hit men shooting pistols in crowded places. 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 !
Let us see what Obama does. If he hits Montana hard they could 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.
Governor Schweitzer is very popular with Montanans, and this is an example of how he has built his popularity. It’s a breath of fresh air to see a politician run on a platform of promises, and back up those promises with action. Governor Schweitzer promised to protect the 2nd amendment rights of the citizens. With the signing of this bill, he has lived up to the billing. I don’t care about the (D) or and (R) in front of the name, say what you mean and mean what you say. Good for you Brian Schweitzer!
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
Sources: KVPI Channel 6 (Montana) – Associated Press
For more on this story, go here
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Greenroom Feed
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
This … could get interesting.
Mew
acat on May 6, 2009 at 8:16 AM
Awesome. I just wish other states would move in the same direction. Flood the zone with 2nd Ammendment AND 10th Amendment assertive laws.
.
Montana FTW!
common sensineer on May 6, 2009 at 9:13 AM
http://www.gunlaws.com/GunLawUpdate5-CIFTA.htm
Stuff in this link will make you squirm. Obama is trying to backdoor his anti-gun agenda one way or the other.
Looks like I’m moving to whatever state takes the strongest stand.
Thanks Keemo. Great work!
katy on May 6, 2009 at 9:20 AM
I am PROUD to be a Montanan!
Jewel on May 6, 2009 at 9:45 AM
I’m proud of you, as you come to places like hotair.com to get your news!!!
Good for you Jewel!
Keemo on May 6, 2009 at 9:52 AM
Dude. Is this for real?
TheUnrepentantGeek on May 6, 2009 at 10:20 AM
If it works there it is time for the UP of Michigan to break away from the LP and declare itself the 51st state: The Great State of Superior. Extreme northern Wisconsin might join us. Then we could enact the same kind of laws.
The new state would probably have between 300,000 and 350,000 in total population and 3 or 4 million firearms.
Yoop on May 6, 2009 at 12:06 PM
Keemo, can you link to the AP source?
RushBaby on May 6, 2009 at 12:14 PM
Agreed, RushBaby. That quoted text is extremely amateurish, and I strongly doubt that you’ll see any AP writer openly cheering on a pro-gun bill, much less pro-secession talk.
I’ve seen this on one or two other sites, in verbatim form, so obviously there is some source…I just doubt that the ostensible professionals in the AP network wrote it.
Most likely, it’s a gunblogger who is the original source.
Flyover Country on May 6, 2009 at 12:27 PM
Found the sourcing for the AP-specific article (or at least one of them). It says nothing like what Keemo posted.
Perhaps this is the source of Keemo’s post?
The website from whence this originates is a veritable cornucopia of far-Right conspiracy theories (see the content about Zionism and a quote from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion) and ads for “holistic healing devices” (I assume that they are “orgone generators” or some nonsense). Keemo, it’s probably a good idea to change your post to reflect this information, in the interest of accuracy and not looking like you source from the Paulian Fringe of our galaxy.
Flyover Country on May 6, 2009 at 12:35 PM
This is absolutely awesome!!!!!! Montana…. true American state
MNDavenotPC on May 6, 2009 at 1:55 PM
Earlier post about this.
MadisonConservative on May 6, 2009 at 2:09 PM
good stuff! i just wonder why this hasn’t happened before… or has it?
i heard something like this about texas somewhere recently, too.
homesickamerican on May 6, 2009 at 2:10 PM
damn I’m moving to montana!!!
first democrat since MILLER I could support.
right4life on May 6, 2009 at 2:12 PM
Damn. That’s hardcore.
What are the chances of New York following suit?
(Okay. You can stop laughing now. …Sigh.)
Daddy-O on May 6, 2009 at 2:15 PM
As a Montanan, make no mistake about our resolve to cling to our darned old guns and God. Schweitzer, however, is a typical political hack and was dragged kicking and screaming to this issue. If he refused, he would lose the next election by a landslide. This way, he can save face by standing up to Obama only to knuckle under at the last minute with the old “well, we gave ‘em hell for awhile anyways fellas”. It’s a parlor trick that the MSM will turn around to make us all look like a bunch of redneck crackers that hate that poor black man and his fabulous wife in the White House.
Wyznowski on May 6, 2009 at 2:17 PM
Congrats to Montanans! Leading by example!
james23 on May 6, 2009 at 2:20 PM
i may have to move back to Montana.
cpr on May 6, 2009 at 2:21 PM
No, it’s not.
RightOFLeft on May 6, 2009 at 2:22 PM
I don’t think this is an AP article. That said, without knowing too much about the bill this looks like a giant federalism play, extending beyond guns, that seeks to undo SCOTUS’s broad interpretation of what constitutes commerce that Congress, under the Commerce Clause, can regulate. Not a giant step from this anyway. This may be big if it changes SCOTUS’s interpretation of the Clause. If not, then not.
Patrick on May 6, 2009 at 2:24 PM
I missed the note that i was supposed to like schweitzer! But I am happy that MT congress has gone ahead with this.
akerralls on May 6, 2009 at 2:26 PM
Montana has moved up to #2 behind Utah on the states I would like to live in.
Utah, as some of you may know, is the only state that allows concealed carry permits on college campuses.
jimmy the notable on May 6, 2009 at 2:36 PM
I just want concealed carry. Stupid Gov. Doyle.
BadgerHawk on May 6, 2009 at 2:38 PM
Way to go Montana!…
But…
does this mean shotguns are not covered? As the discharge multiple projectiles with a single trigger pull? (I know this is meant for full autos… but words do have meanings sometimes unintended…).
Romeo13 on May 6, 2009 at 2:40 PM
Fantastic! My kind of State…..Load up!
saiga on May 6, 2009 at 2:40 PM
Sorry… still laughing ….
Chainsaw56 on May 6, 2009 at 2:40 PM
Way to go Montana!!!!
Great post Keemo.
This issue,along with taxes and paying for abortions internationally, is one of the issues that people I know that voted for Obama are complaining about the most.
I have a lot of democratic friends that have asked me to get them guns because they are concerned that Obama is going to break his promise not to go after gun ownership the same way he did with no lobbyist,no earmarks,bills gone through line by line,transparency,no signing statements,responsible spending…on…and …on..and…on.
Most of my guns are not registered also.
The game California played years ago by sending out letters to gun owners to register their guns (tech 9’s I think) just so they would be legally on the books then turning around and demanding that they turn them in or they will be charged with felonies is an example of why I don’t like to register guns.
Some of my AR’s,2 of my 45’s,1 of my 357’s and only one of my 44’s are registered because I bought them from a licensed dealer.
I could turn them in as “stolen” but I don’t want to risk being caught with one if an officer runs the number during a traffic stop or while I have it on me working late at night.
Democrats have already pissed off a lot of people in NC. with the Tobacco tax,the fantasy middle class tax cut,lottery money not going to education,and the constant leaking that gun restrictions are on the way(combined with a huge increase in the cost of ammo now).
What happens in Montana will certainly resonate here and it will not be good for the democrats.
Baxter Greene on May 6, 2009 at 2:40 PM
Howbout us sitting ducks in New Jersey??
kayo on May 6, 2009 at 2:42 PM
http://www.star-telegram.com/news/story/1355073.html
I don’t think this will pass in Texas just yet, but at least someone is talking about it here.
Asher on May 6, 2009 at 2:42 PM
That is fantastic. We’ll need to support Montana anyway we can.
darwin on May 6, 2009 at 2:43 PM
Wrong. Supressors increase muzzle velocity, as they act as a “barrel” does, by allowing gas to expand behind the bullet.
pseudonominus on May 6, 2009 at 2:46 PM
This governor is a democrat? Wow.
mountaineer for liberty on May 6, 2009 at 2:46 PM
I just got mine several months ago.
You would not believe the cross section of people at the sheriff’s dept. that I saw.
Ages ranged from men and women in their 80’s all the way up to the 20’s,all races,rich,middle class,(guessing by appearances),pretty much everybody I talked to wanted to be able to defend themselves.
I think there is something in the Constitution about that,hard to say since democrats ignore our constitutional rights when it comes to gun ownership.
Maybe they could try reading it instead of swiss cheesing it.
Baxter Greene on May 6, 2009 at 2:47 PM
No. I believe it covers full auto firearms.
Weight of Glory on May 6, 2009 at 2:48 PM
First it was Montana… now it’s possibly Texas..
This is serious business!
I feel like it’s the 1840-1850 era. I really do.
Chaz706 on May 6, 2009 at 2:48 PM
I want to believe.
LincolntheHun on May 6, 2009 at 2:49 PM
Dear Montana,
You magnificent bastads!
Love,
Texas
Limerick on May 6, 2009 at 2:50 PM
That’s great to hear. For those interested, here’s the progress on the Texas 10th amendment bill.
Weight of Glory on May 6, 2009 at 2:51 PM
Dear Montanan’s:
You want to loan us your governor?
Best wishes,
Kalifornia
GarandFan on May 6, 2009 at 2:53 PM
This looks like old news…
Patrick on May 6, 2009 at 2:54 PM
Are you talking about Congressman Miller in NC.
If so, I have to agree.
His office is helping me try to get into the Army(didn’t get through MEPES because of severe hearing loss) since I am having surgery to correct hearing but am now 42.
They have been very prompt,supportive,and energetic to help
even though they know I am a Republican.
We don’t agree on several issues,but it has not stopped us from working together.
So if that is who you are talking about,I second it.
Baxter Greene on May 6, 2009 at 2:54 PM
This is a “GREAT” plan. I just may have to move to Montana!!!
bucko36 on May 6, 2009 at 2:55 PM
If Montana plans to secede, I’m moving there before they do.
Daggett on May 6, 2009 at 2:58 PM
Good stuff there, Keemo….keep us informed, buddy!
Patrick S on May 6, 2009 at 3:00 PM
That isn’t an AP article. It’s poorly written with an obvious slant in favor of we gun owners.
Too bad. We could use that kind of nad from our state capitols.
pugwriter on May 6, 2009 at 3:01 PM
OT: For Ed or AP. Is there a way to change the format of stories linked to from the main page to the “Greenroom” so that the comments made in the “Greenroom” show up in the Headlines link on the main page? I know, it’s kind of nitpicky, but some of these stories could garner more comments if the casual passerby would see that there are 20 comments rather than none. Just a suggestion.
Weight of Glory on May 6, 2009 at 3:02 PM
This text isn’t, but it is an AP story, as pointed out by another commenter. Here’s the link again.
Weight of Glory on May 6, 2009 at 3:05 PM
Is somebody paying you to be a snarky @$$wipe, or do you just to it for $h!ts and giggles?
Dark-Star on May 6, 2009 at 3:05 PM
Yoop on May 6, 2009 at 12:06 PM
Lived in Upper Michigan for 7 months, loved it. Real people up there.
I just may move to Montana, on this reason alone.
Conservative Voice on May 6, 2009 at 3:10 PM
Nice to see some American men still have a pair. Need to start looking at Montana real estate, now.
Alden Pyle on May 6, 2009 at 3:12 PM
The text is lifted directly from here. It’s a law firm website. They specialize in asset protection and offshore tax shelters for corporations and individuals.
That said, go Montana! We need more states to challenge the commerce clause in other ways too. In particular, land use and environmental protection regs. Let locals protect their own environment. Their the one’s who live there.
The Apologist on May 6, 2009 at 3:17 PM
I bet it would (will).
Vashta.Nerada on May 6, 2009 at 3:18 PM
Awesome! Can’t wait for AZ to pass this law. I can finally own a machinegun! Sweet!
Tim Burton on May 6, 2009 at 3:19 PM
It’s nice to know that I was born where testicular fortitude still reigns verses the treasonous antics of that vile Stalin-imitating douche bag Barry Soetero.
babylonandon on May 6, 2009 at 3:20 PM
Obama should be looking in the rearview mirror at Schweitzer in 2012.
Who wouldn’t vote for him?
This is a precursor of things to come and no one can stop it.
This reflects the Federalist form of government that the founders of our country envisioned and that will soon experience a resurgence in popularity.
Obama, Pelosi and Reid, and their strong-armed bureaucrats (who run banks, automobile manufacturers, etc), had better tread very carefully with respect to this matter, because it will resonate strongly with many millions of people.
The 55+ million people who didn’t vote for Obama, and many of the 62+ million who did, would vote for this guy in 2012 over Obama and whatever oaf the Republicans select in a New York minute.
All of which is for the better, because our country needs a viable third party.
molonlabe28 on May 6, 2009 at 3:29 PM
To quote a song by Frank Zappa “I might be moving to Montana soon” and it won’t be “to raise a crop of dental floss”.
GO MONTANA
darwin-t on May 6, 2009 at 3:31 PM
They threatened to secede just before Heller was decided. They really believe in gun rights, as they should.
Also, please take some tips from the others Keemo on formatting your posts.
Free Constitution on May 6, 2009 at 3:40 PM
Montana & Texas to manufacture its own guns and tell the feds to shove it concerning registration since they will be marked “made in Montana” “made in Texas” for in state use only ?? STATE SOVERIGNTY !! what if EVERY state did this? up urs feds!!?
This was on sodahead blogs three days ago.
try again later on May 6, 2009 at 3:44 PM
New York won’t follow…but this New Yorker is looking hard at MT as my next home.
Jed1899 on May 6, 2009 at 3:55 PM
The text of the “AP” story is obviously bogus – the style is wrong, much less the content. However, the underlying bill is real and it was signed into law on April 15. Take that, D.C.!
This is a link to a Montana state page showing the legislative history – and showing it was signed into law on Tax Day.
BananaSlug on May 6, 2009 at 3:56 PM
How that living in Montana working out fer ya there Tom Brokaw, you liberal prick.
try again later on May 6, 2009 at 4:05 PM
Original Source. It’s not the AP, they’re a little more discreet with their support.
Keemo, fair use is your friend.
Free Constitution on May 6, 2009 at 4:05 PM
Oops, not original source, but one of many copy and paste jobs.
Free Constitution on May 6, 2009 at 4:09 PM
Are the women good looking in Montana on average? I could marry one then move there.
keep the change on May 6, 2009 at 4:23 PM
Perhaps someone should delete this post and have it rewritten by someone who knows what they are doing. This is not an AP article, and the information within is completely unsourced.
Either write responsibly or not at all…
Tomblvd on May 6, 2009 at 4:40 PM
OH man…it’s on!
vsunited on May 6, 2009 at 4:40 PM
I may move to Monatana
CaCa on May 6, 2009 at 4:41 PM
BTW, thanks to the posters immediately above who took the time to get the actual facts.
Tomblvd on May 6, 2009 at 4:42 PM
I want to say, if this is true, this is the most incredible slap in the face to the Liberals and the Federal government I have ever seen.
Remember Ladies and Gents, 93 died at Waco over not paying the $200 transfer tax to own weapons covered under the Gun Control act of 1934. The BATF is going to pass a bloody brick if this is real. Even if this is law for 3 days, you are going to have every gun guy in Montana firing up their lathe to turn out silencers and full auto triggers, short barreled rifles, stocked pistols (Yes, putting a stock on a pistol is against Federal law). Just all kinds of interesting stuff.
99% of the innovations of the past 100 years have come down to a handful of inventors, Garand, Maxim, Browning, Luger, Bouchart, Colt, Armalite and a few others. All of these men working in their little shops developed these designs and the U.S. government got this development for FREE. After 1934, the inventions stopped because of the Federal Laws. What have we developed since then? The AR which is a worthy but flawed design, and the MAC, which was driven out of business. Now we buy our guns from “other countries”. Think about it, in WWII every weapon for the GI was American made and developed by an American. The M1 Garand, the Browning .45 Auto, the Browning .30 Machine gun, the Browning .50 caliber Heavy machine gun. All those are gone except the .50, replaced by weapons that either are old American designs (AR-15) or completely foreign designs (Beretta 9mm pistol, MAG-58 machine gun). Gun guys have been talking about new designs, innovations, new experiments, etc but no one could build them because it would get you 10 years (I’m not kidding), First Amendment be damned. Years of pent up inventions just waiting to explode!
Example:
How about a silenced downward ejecting bullpup 308 based on the reliable M1A action but with a straight, overhead short piston that loads mags from either side (For lefty or right hander) and is reliable with 240gr subsonic but can reach out to 800 yards with 168gr Match ammo?
God Bless Montana!
GunRunner on May 6, 2009 at 5:07 PM
Now THAT is a REAL Tea Party!
ronsfi on May 6, 2009 at 5:14 PM
Always wanted to be a dental floss tycoon.
ronsfi on May 6, 2009 at 5:14 PM
Too bad this has no chance of holding up to court challenge, thanks to the modern interpretation of the “interstate commerce” clause.
The Supreme Court effectively repealed the 10th Amendment all on their own by re-defining “interstate commerce” as “almost anything the federal government wants to regulate”.
Hollowpoint on May 6, 2009 at 5:22 PM
By my reading of this, a version of the M-388 Davy Crockett would be legal, so long as black power is used to propel the warhead, if it is made in Montana.
hicsuget on May 6, 2009 at 5:30 PM
Techically no, since the warhead requires the use of chemical energy to create the explosions to drive the fissionable material into critical mass.
wv619 on May 6, 2009 at 5:37 PM
http://waronyou.com/forums/index.php?topic=8586.0
For those who were asking…
Montana Governor Sign
Stunning New Gun Law
KVPI Channel 6 (Montana)
Associated Press – April 15, 2009 5:24 PM ET
The actual AP link has been removed.
Keemo on May 6, 2009 at 6:03 PM
Governor Schweitzer signed this into law 5/4/2009. We Montanans have been sitting on pins & needles waiting to see if the Governor would sign this bill, or would he cave to the Liberal wing of his party. We have been partying here in Montana since we got the good news Monday night.
I’m always willing and able to report the bad news that Democrats bring us on a regular basis; I am also willing and able to report when a Democrat politician stands up to his own party and does the right thing for the people he/she represents. This is one of those cases.
Keemo on May 6, 2009 at 6:25 PM
Damn. That’s hardcore.
What are the chances of New York following suit?
(Okay. You can stop laughing now. …Sigh.)
Daddy-O on May 6, 2009 at 2:15 PM
Same thought occured to me but like yourself reality kicked in.
heshtesh on May 6, 2009 at 8:40 PM
http://vociferation.net/holyh/?p=963
Nicely stated! Like your blog as well…
Keemo on May 7, 2009 at 8:32 AM