This is the "Tea Chest" -
Some items posted in Harbor Tea are posted as text entries and so there is no comment space. Anyone who wants to comment on a text entry is welcome to post their comments here. Just be sure to indicate what story/article you are commenting on.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
And just when you think all's well on the home front . . .
Court: Montana law violated church's rights
HELENA - A federal appeals court says a Montana election law was unconstitutionally applied to a church in East Helena that supported a 2004 ballot initiative to define marriage.The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday that the state violated the First Amendment rights of the Canyon Ferry Road Baptist Church.
The case arose out of the church's efforts in support of CI-96, the 2004 amendment to the Montana Constitution, approved by voters, that defined marriage as between a man and a woman.
The court found that Montana unconstitutionally sought to require the church to register as an incidental ballot committee. The 9th Circuit said the law violated the church's constitutional rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Montana loading another shot for state's rights with proposal to eliminate background checks
Posted on Feb. 22
By KAHRIN DEINES of the Associated Press
HELENA - Montana lawmakers are betting the words ‘Made in Montana’ might be able to trigger a court showdown with the federal government, while also freeing some gun owners and dealers from background checks and licensing requirements.
Under a proposed law before the Legislature, firearms, weapons components and ammunition made in Montana and kept in Montana would be exempt from federal regulation, potentially releasing some Montanans from national gun registration and licensing laws. The legislation could also free gun purchasers in the state from background checks. Still, the bill’s proponents say the measure has much bigger prey in its sights.
“Firearms are inextricably linked to the history and culture of Montana, and I’d like to support that,” said Republican 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.”
Gun rights and state’s rights both play well in Montana. The state’s leading gun rights organization boasts it has moved 50 bills through the Legislature in half as many years. And bills bucking federal control over wolf management, marijuana and wetland protection are also being considered. Unlike these others, though, the ‘Made in Montana’ measure has been intentionally drafted to draw the feds into court.
“The primary purpose is to set up a legal challenge, but also to say we have a lot of really good people in Montana who do the right thing,” said Gary Marbut of the Montana Shooting Sports Association.
Montana gun manufacturers, known for specialty rifles that mirror models used in the 1800s to settle the West, are welcoming the bid for independence. The House has endorsed it with a 64-36 vote, and the Republican-controlled Senate could pass it easily.
State police associations, though, are watching this latest effort to thwart federal regulation with quiet concern. While they are not opposing the measure in a risky political stance in a gun-loving, big-sky, open-space kind of place n they are wondering just when the authorities the bill spurns might take a stand.
“I think the local elected officials I work for would certainly like to hear from the federal agency with responsibility in this area,” said Jim Smith, director of the Montana Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has not offered a position on the bill and did not return calls for comment.
“The bill clearly raises constitutional issues,” said Kevin O’Brien of the state attorney general’s office. “I think that’s something that both proponents and opponents can agree on.”
The measure would require the office to file a one-time declaratory judgment representing the new law on behalf of a Montana manufacturer. At issue in any such court case would be federal authority over interstate commerce, the legal basis for gun regulation in the United States. Through the Constitution, Congress has authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the states. The U.S. Supreme Court has handled past efforts to bypass what’s known as the Commerce Clause, most recently in 2005 when the court upheld federal authority to regulate marijuana in California, even if its use is limited to noncommercial purposes n such as medical reasons n and it is grown and used within a state’s borders.
Montana’s current bid for sovereignty over guns, however, could fare better with the added firepower of being linked to a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear firearms, say its proponents.
“It’s only done because the firearms are a stronger case than, say, making doilies,” Boniek said. “Knitting is not a constitutionally protected right.”
However, Randy Barnett, the lawyer and constitutional scholar who represented the plaintiff in the California case, said gun rights may not have much bearing on the bill’s constitutional mettle. More important, he said, may be the “Made in Montana’ stamp and stay in Montana guideline that lawmakers are proposing for the state’s firearms.
In the Gonzalez v. Raich case argued by Barnett, the court said that because marijuana produced within and outside of California are essentially indistinguishable, the government must regulate both to enforce national drug laws. Montana, though, could potentially argue that its guns are sufficiently unique and segregated as to lie outside of overarching federal regulatory schemes, Barnett said. The actual economic impact of the bill, pitched in part as a stimulus, is uncertain. The number of firearms made here lock, stock and barrel are limited, as are the number of Montanans available to buy them. For example, the gunmaker Shilo Sharps Rifles in Big Timber estimates that of the 800 or so custom guns it builds in a year, only between 20 and 30 are sold to state residents. But the proponents say no matter n unregulate it, and they will come. “We tend to break trail here in Montana,” Marbut said.
Posted on Feb. 22
By KAHRIN DEINES of the Associated Press
HELENA - Montana lawmakers are betting the words ‘Made in Montana’ might be able to trigger a court showdown with the federal government, while also freeing some gun owners and dealers from background checks and licensing requirements.
Under a proposed law before the Legislature, firearms, weapons components and ammunition made in Montana and kept in Montana would be exempt from federal regulation, potentially releasing some Montanans from national gun registration and licensing laws. The legislation could also free gun purchasers in the state from background checks. Still, the bill’s proponents say the measure has much bigger prey in its sights.
“Firearms are inextricably linked to the history and culture of Montana, and I’d like to support that,” said Republican 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.”
Gun rights and state’s rights both play well in Montana. The state’s leading gun rights organization boasts it has moved 50 bills through the Legislature in half as many years. And bills bucking federal control over wolf management, marijuana and wetland protection are also being considered. Unlike these others, though, the ‘Made in Montana’ measure has been intentionally drafted to draw the feds into court.
“The primary purpose is to set up a legal challenge, but also to say we have a lot of really good people in Montana who do the right thing,” said Gary Marbut of the Montana Shooting Sports Association.
Montana gun manufacturers, known for specialty rifles that mirror models used in the 1800s to settle the West, are welcoming the bid for independence. The House has endorsed it with a 64-36 vote, and the Republican-controlled Senate could pass it easily.
State police associations, though, are watching this latest effort to thwart federal regulation with quiet concern. While they are not opposing the measure in a risky political stance in a gun-loving, big-sky, open-space kind of place n they are wondering just when the authorities the bill spurns might take a stand.
“I think the local elected officials I work for would certainly like to hear from the federal agency with responsibility in this area,” said Jim Smith, director of the Montana Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has not offered a position on the bill and did not return calls for comment.
“The bill clearly raises constitutional issues,” said Kevin O’Brien of the state attorney general’s office. “I think that’s something that both proponents and opponents can agree on.”
The measure would require the office to file a one-time declaratory judgment representing the new law on behalf of a Montana manufacturer. At issue in any such court case would be federal authority over interstate commerce, the legal basis for gun regulation in the United States. Through the Constitution, Congress has authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the states. The U.S. Supreme Court has handled past efforts to bypass what’s known as the Commerce Clause, most recently in 2005 when the court upheld federal authority to regulate marijuana in California, even if its use is limited to noncommercial purposes n such as medical reasons n and it is grown and used within a state’s borders.
Montana’s current bid for sovereignty over guns, however, could fare better with the added firepower of being linked to a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear firearms, say its proponents.
“It’s only done because the firearms are a stronger case than, say, making doilies,” Boniek said. “Knitting is not a constitutionally protected right.”
However, Randy Barnett, the lawyer and constitutional scholar who represented the plaintiff in the California case, said gun rights may not have much bearing on the bill’s constitutional mettle. More important, he said, may be the “Made in Montana’ stamp and stay in Montana guideline that lawmakers are proposing for the state’s firearms.
In the Gonzalez v. Raich case argued by Barnett, the court said that because marijuana produced within and outside of California are essentially indistinguishable, the government must regulate both to enforce national drug laws. Montana, though, could potentially argue that its guns are sufficiently unique and segregated as to lie outside of overarching federal regulatory schemes, Barnett said. The actual economic impact of the bill, pitched in part as a stimulus, is uncertain. The number of firearms made here lock, stock and barrel are limited, as are the number of Montanans available to buy them. For example, the gunmaker Shilo Sharps Rifles in Big Timber estimates that of the 800 or so custom guns it builds in a year, only between 20 and 30 are sold to state residents. But the proponents say no matter n unregulate it, and they will come. “We tend to break trail here in Montana,” Marbut said.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Texas State Senator Dan Patrick Interview with Glenn Beck
What Happens to the U.S. if Mexico Collapses?
Tuesday, February 17, 2009 What Happens to the U.S. if Mexico Collapses?
EXCERPT . . . .
SEN. DAN PATRICK (R), TEXAS STATE SENATOR: . . . . . . Well, Glenn, we had hearings a couple of weeks ago. And I asked our Homeland Security Director Steve McCraw of Texas if he feared the collapse of Mexico and did we have a plan. And he didn't deny the fact that it is a concern. . . . . . . . .The United States has a plan called "mass migration" as opposed to the collapse of Mexico. And we need a plan here in Texas because there are two scenarios, Glenn. One is a slow collapse, an economic collapse of Mexico in which hundreds of thousands would come here over a period of time. The second is what I call a Colombian collapse of Mexico, an assassination of the president, the drug cartels taking over the country, civil war breaking out on the streets, people fleeing for their lives, not for a job. . . . .We have to be prepared in the United States for both and Texas must be prepared. . . . .We're already seeing violence on the border, on our side. . . . . .we found 1,000 bodies on the border in our last reporting year, by the way, Glenn. And what we're going to do is - what we need to do is we need the Federal Government to do their job and enforce the border, number one. . . . . . . . We have 19 border crossings with Mexico. Number two, Texas - we should be calling out our national guard. We should be calling out Texas guard. We should be beefing up our sheriffs on the border. We should be beefing up our Department of Public Safety on the border. . . . . . . . . . READ the Complete Transcript or watch the Interview Video (click here)
Saturday, February 21, 2009
A Primer on the Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms
If you're looking for talking points or background information on the Second Amendment so you can address issues from a Constitutional viewpoint, check out the following:
A Primer on the Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms
It's put online by the Virginia Institute for Public Policy.
A Primer on the Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms
It's put online by the Virginia Institute for Public Policy.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Federal Land Anti-Gun bill on the move
Here's a Federal bill that needs following expecially
while Montana's state legislature is considering HB 246 and HC 228 and joint house HJ 26 (see these items in postings below this one.)
Federal Land Anti-Gun bill on the move
while Montana's state legislature is considering HB 246 and HC 228 and joint house HJ 26 (see these items in postings below this one.)
Federal Land Anti-Gun bill on the move
Lost in all the news of the massive bailout bill that just passed the Senate is another enormous bill, one that increases federal control of public and private land.
Of particular concern to gun owners is that the bill, S. 22, will greatly expand the amount of land controlled by the National Park Service. NPS land is currently subject to a gun ban.
While President Bush took steps in the waning days of his presidency to reverse the ban, the new regulations apply to persons who carry a concealed firearm with a permit. Non-permit holders and open carry are not explicitly addressed.
Another eyebrow-raising aspect of this bill is that it is actually a compilation of over 150 separate pieces of legislation that never passed out of Congress on their own merits.
Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) successfully held up over 100 of these bills, until anti-gun Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid rolled all of the bills into one so-called Coburn Omnibus and forced it through the Senate in January on a vote of 73-21.
As the House prepares to take up the bill, the Democrat leadership has taken procedural steps to ensure that the measure cannot be amended or altered in any way. That means that if it passes the House, it goes right to President Obama’s desk, where it will be signed into law.
Here are a few of the more troubling aspects of the bill:
· It authorizes the federal government to buy private land adjacent to national parks and trails. Such land would be controlled by the NPS, and thus be subject to the gun ban.
· The bill federalizes the Washington-Rochambeau Route, a 650 mile trail that stretches from Rhode Island to Virginia and includes sections of major thoroughfares such as Interstate 95 and U.S. Route 1, and passes through cities like Boston and Philadelphia. The entire trail would fall under the NPS and the gun ban.
· The National Landscape Conservation System groups together millions of acres of federal land and places it under one new umbrella agency. The NLCS was created during the Clinton administration and run administratively since then. S. 22 will codify the system, which raises concerns for hunters and sportsmen. Much of this land is consolidated from the BLM and the Forest Service, which have always allowed hunting and recreational shooting. It is unclear what rules will be promulgated by the new agency and if gun owners’ rights will be protected.
· S. 22 strips out small concessions won by pro-gunners in the House last year that would allow state and local law to govern firearms possession and hunting on certain land.
· S.22 allows for NO amendments. Pro-gun members who want to offer an amendment to fully repeal the NPS gun ban are prevented from doing so by the anti-gun leadership.
The full House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on the bill this Wednesday or Thursday.
Unless the NPS gun ban is repealed and the rights of gun owners are protected, Gun Owners of America opposes the bill in its entirety.
ACTION: Urge your US Representative to repeal the NPS gun ban in S. 22, or to vote against the entire bill. You can use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center (© 2008 by Gun Owners of America) pre-written e-mail message below to send your Representative or compose your own letter:
__________________
Dear Representative:
I urge you to oppose S. 22, a bill that will greatly expand the amount of land controlled by the National Park Service (NPS).
NPS land is currently subject to a gun ban. While President Bush took steps in the waning days of his presidency to reverse the ban, the new regulations apply to persons who carry a concealed firearm with a permit. Non-permit holders and open carry are not explicitly addressed. Which is why S. 22 raises so many concerns:
* It authorizes the federal government to buy private land adjacent to national parks and trails. Such land would be controlled by the NPS, and thus be subject to the gun ban.
* The bill federalizes the Washington-Rochambeau Route, a 650 mile trail, and places it under the NPS gun ban.
* S. 22 will codify the National Landscape Conservation System, which raises concerns for hunters and sportsmen. Much of this land is consolidated from the BLM and the Forest Service, which have always allowed hunting and recreational shooting. It is unclear what rules will be promulgated by the new agency and if gun owners’ rights will be protected.
* S. 22 also strips out small concessions which were won in the House last year that would allow state and local law to govern firearms possession and hunting on certain land. But the anti-gun House leadership is preventing any amendments to fully repeal the NPS gun ban.
If these concerns are not corrected in S. 22, I would strongly urge you to vote against it.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
____________
Montana Legislature - HJ 26
Here's a letter from Montana Shooting Sports Association (MSSA) that sums House Joint Resolution HJ 26 introduced by Rep. Mike More.
If you want to read the resolution yourself, click on the highlighted HJ 26 in the letter.
Email your state legislators (BOTH your House and Senate representatives since this is a JOINT resolution). To find who your legislators are and their emails, click the appropriate link in the gray box on the right side of this page.
___________________
Dear MSSA Friends,
A Resolution asserting state sovereignty has been introduced by Rep. Mike More as HJ 26.
This is the Montana version of a similar Resolution that is being introduced in a number of other states, including New Hampshire.
Remember, the Montana Constitution says, at Article II, Section 2, "The people have the exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent state."
Some will say that these are just words on paper and don't really mean anything. I disagree.
These words are a part of the contract by which Montana was engendered as a socio-political entity. The very existence of the construct called the "State of Montana" is dependent upon this contract among Montana people, a contract giving the state defined and limited powers.
One of these limitations is the terms of Article II. Section 2, which limits the authority of the State to contract with the other states. That is, by its very charter, the State is not authorized to lock itself politically into being a mere administrative region of that creature of the several states, the federal government, nor may the state surrender the rights and prerogatives of individuals to the federal government.
HJ 26 addresses these issues and relationships.
Gary Marbut, president
Montana Shooting Sports Association
http://www.mtssa.org
author, Gun Laws of Montana
http://www.mtpublish.com
If you want to read the resolution yourself, click on the highlighted HJ 26 in the letter.
Email your state legislators (BOTH your House and Senate representatives since this is a JOINT resolution). To find who your legislators are and their emails, click the appropriate link in the gray box on the right side of this page.
___________________
Dear MSSA Friends,
A Resolution asserting state sovereignty has been introduced by Rep. Mike More as HJ 26.
This is the Montana version of a similar Resolution that is being introduced in a number of other states, including New Hampshire.
Remember, the Montana Constitution says, at Article II, Section 2, "The people have the exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent state."
Some will say that these are just words on paper and don't really mean anything. I disagree.
These words are a part of the contract by which Montana was engendered as a socio-political entity. The very existence of the construct called the "State of Montana" is dependent upon this contract among Montana people, a contract giving the state defined and limited powers.
One of these limitations is the terms of Article II. Section 2, which limits the authority of the State to contract with the other states. That is, by its very charter, the State is not authorized to lock itself politically into being a mere administrative region of that creature of the several states, the federal government, nor may the state surrender the rights and prerogatives of individuals to the federal government.
HJ 26 addresses these issues and relationships.
Gary Marbut, president
Montana Shooting Sports Association
http://www.mtssa.org
author, Gun Laws of Montana
http://www.mtpublish.com
Montana House shoots down federal gun controls
This article has made the blogs of several states, all posting citizens support of this move in Montana. I've copied/pasted it here for readers. If you are a voting resident of Montana, please contact your state representative to support and vote yes on HB 246. Scroll to the bottom of this article to link to a site that should help you find an email address for your state representative.
HELENA (AP) - Montana lawmakers fired another shot in battles for states’ rights as they supported letting some Montana gun owners and dealers skip reporting their transactions to the federal government.
Under House Bill 246, firearms made in Montana and used in Montana would be exempt from federal regulation. The same would be true for firearm accessories and ammunition made and sold in the state.
“What we need here is for Montana to be able to handle Montana’s business and affairs,” Republican Rep. Joel Boniek told fellow lawmakers Saturday. The wilderness guide from Livingston defeated Republican incumbent Bruce Malcolm in last spring’s election.
Boniek’s measure aims to circumvent federal authority over interstate commerce, which is the legal basis for most gun regulation in the United States. The bill potentially could release Montanans from both federal gun registration requirements and dealership licensing rules. Since the state has no background-check laws on its own books, the legislation also could free gun purchasers from that requirement.
“Firearms are inextricably linked to the history and culture of Montana, and I’d like to support that,” Boniek said. “But I want to point out that the issue here is not about firearms. It’s about state rights.”
The House voted 64-36 for the bill on Saturday. If it clears a final vote, the measure will go to the Senate.
House Republicans were joined by 14 Democrats in passing the measure.
“I would hope that our U.S. Supreme Court would begin to retreat from what I think is an abusive interpretation of our interstate commerce clause,” said Rep. Deborah Kottel, a Democrat from Great Falls who supports the measure.
That clause in the U.S. Constitution grants Congress authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the states. The Supreme Court has handled cases seeking to limit the clause’s application in recent years. In 2005, the court upheld federal authority to regulate marijuana under the clause, even when its use is limited to noncommercial purposes n such as medical reasons n and it is grown and used within a state’s borders.
The Montana bill follows fears here and elsewhere that the election of Barack Obama as president will trigger more gun regulation. In the months before Obama’s inauguration, Montanans rushed to stock up on guns, pushing gun sales beyond normal benchmarks despite the recession.
Opponents of the measure worry lax regulations in the state could lead to a similar surge in both gun sales and gun manufacturing.
“Who are we bringing in and is this the kind of business we want to have in this state?” asked Rep. Sue Malek, D-Missoula. “I want our state to be recognized as a state that cares about people, and that cares about the environment.”
The bill is one of a number the Legislature is considering that may extend gun rights in Montana.
Earlier in the week, the House passed another measure, HB228, that would let Montanans carry concealed weapons in city limits without having permits.
On Saturday the House Judiciary Committee narrowly passed a resolution that affirms Montanans’ right to carry weapons in national parks and wildlife refuges.
Here's the link to find your Montana representative's email/contact info:
http://www.leg.mt.gov/css/find%20a%20legislator.asp
There you'll see on the left column where you can type in your postal zip code to find your representatives.
And here are just a few of the links I found to some of the other blogs/sites around the country that are buzzing word about the Montana legislature move:
Firing Line
Alaska Outdoors Directory
http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum4/20986.html (this one gives the whole text of the bill)
Oklahoma Shooters
Now then, all that said---are you ready for some "you've gotta be kidding" news?
Here's what's happening at the "other end of the spectrum" in some places in the nation.
This is in South Carolina: "Trade a gun for roses" (It's okay to puke after your read it.)
HELENA (AP) - Montana lawmakers fired another shot in battles for states’ rights as they supported letting some Montana gun owners and dealers skip reporting their transactions to the federal government.
Under House Bill 246, firearms made in Montana and used in Montana would be exempt from federal regulation. The same would be true for firearm accessories and ammunition made and sold in the state.
“What we need here is for Montana to be able to handle Montana’s business and affairs,” Republican Rep. Joel Boniek told fellow lawmakers Saturday. The wilderness guide from Livingston defeated Republican incumbent Bruce Malcolm in last spring’s election.
Boniek’s measure aims to circumvent federal authority over interstate commerce, which is the legal basis for most gun regulation in the United States. The bill potentially could release Montanans from both federal gun registration requirements and dealership licensing rules. Since the state has no background-check laws on its own books, the legislation also could free gun purchasers from that requirement.
“Firearms are inextricably linked to the history and culture of Montana, and I’d like to support that,” Boniek said. “But I want to point out that the issue here is not about firearms. It’s about state rights.”
The House voted 64-36 for the bill on Saturday. If it clears a final vote, the measure will go to the Senate.
House Republicans were joined by 14 Democrats in passing the measure.
“I would hope that our U.S. Supreme Court would begin to retreat from what I think is an abusive interpretation of our interstate commerce clause,” said Rep. Deborah Kottel, a Democrat from Great Falls who supports the measure.
That clause in the U.S. Constitution grants Congress authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the states. The Supreme Court has handled cases seeking to limit the clause’s application in recent years. In 2005, the court upheld federal authority to regulate marijuana under the clause, even when its use is limited to noncommercial purposes n such as medical reasons n and it is grown and used within a state’s borders.
The Montana bill follows fears here and elsewhere that the election of Barack Obama as president will trigger more gun regulation. In the months before Obama’s inauguration, Montanans rushed to stock up on guns, pushing gun sales beyond normal benchmarks despite the recession.
Opponents of the measure worry lax regulations in the state could lead to a similar surge in both gun sales and gun manufacturing.
“Who are we bringing in and is this the kind of business we want to have in this state?” asked Rep. Sue Malek, D-Missoula. “I want our state to be recognized as a state that cares about people, and that cares about the environment.”
The bill is one of a number the Legislature is considering that may extend gun rights in Montana.
Earlier in the week, the House passed another measure, HB228, that would let Montanans carry concealed weapons in city limits without having permits.
On Saturday the House Judiciary Committee narrowly passed a resolution that affirms Montanans’ right to carry weapons in national parks and wildlife refuges.
Here's the link to find your Montana representative's email/contact info:
http://www.leg.mt.gov/css/find%20a%20legislator.asp
There you'll see on the left column where you can type in your postal zip code to find your representatives.
And here are just a few of the links I found to some of the other blogs/sites around the country that are buzzing word about the Montana legislature move:
Firing Line
Alaska Outdoors Directory
http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum4/20986.html (this one gives the whole text of the bill)
Oklahoma Shooters
Now then, all that said---are you ready for some "you've gotta be kidding" news?
Here's what's happening at the "other end of the spectrum" in some places in the nation.
This is in South Carolina: "Trade a gun for roses" (It's okay to puke after your read it.)
Sunday, February 15, 2009
The Power to control Money is the ultimate oppressive power
More food for thought, here's an interesting video. Don't let the title YouTube stuck over the top of it color your vision. Watch it. Think about it. The video is dated 1983. (And for those of you too young to know it, our paper money used to be backed by the gold standard--that's what Ron Paul is referring to.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
