FEDS RESPOND TO FIREARMS FREEDOM ACT LAWSUIT

[100-10x]

Received this from the Second Amendment Foundation:

MISSOULA - The United States has made its first response to a lawsuit filed in federal district court in Missoula to test the Montana Firearms Freedom Act (MFFA), passed by the 2009 Legislature and signed into law by Governor Schweitzer.

The MFFA declares that any firearms, ammunition or firearms accessories made and retained in Montana are not subject to federal regulation under the power given to Congress in the U.S. Constitution to regulate commerce "among the several states." The MFFA is a states' rights challenge on Tenth Amendment grounds, with firearms serving as the vehicle for the challenge.

This lawsuit to validate the MFFA was brought by the Montana Shooting Sports Association (MSSA) and Second Amendment Foundation (SAF). The suit names U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder as defendant, and is referred to as MSSA v. Holder.

The first response to the lawsuit by the United States is a Motion to Dismiss, submitted January 19th and considered to be a standard procedural maneuver in lawsuits against the U.S government . This motion seeks to avoid the legal merits by asserting that the Plaintiffs lack standing to sue, that a justiciable controversy does not exist, and that prevailing case law is against Plaintiffs.

MSSA President Gary Marbut, also a Plaintiff in the lawsuit explained, "The first import of this response is that the legal game is now on. There was some concern that the defendants would forfeit the game with no response in an effort to prevent this important issue from being adjudicated properly. We are now beyond that hurdle." However, the Motion to Dismiss by Washington also seeks to sidestep proper adjudication.

SAF Founder Alan Gottlieb said, "We are disappointed but not surprised that the government would try to kill this suit on standing, rather than arguing about the merits of the case."

The MFFA concept has gained traction across the Nation since its passage in Montana. Tennessee has enacted a clone of the MFFA, and other clones have been introduced in the state legislatures of 19 other states, including: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming. . Ten or more additional states are expected to introduce yet more MFFA clones in the next few weeks. (See: http://www.FirearmsFreedomAct.com)

The U.S.'s Motion to Dismiss and Brief in Support are viewable at: http://FirearmsFreedomAct.com/montana-lawsuit-updates/

MSSA and SAF have assembled a litigation team for this effort consisting of three attorneys from Montana, one from New York, one from Florida and one from Arizona. Lead attorney for the Plaintiffs is Quentin Rhoades, partner the Missoula firm of Sullivan, Tabaracci and Rhoades. Other interested parties from both in and out of Montana are preparing to weigh in on this issue of national interest and national importance as amicus curiae (friends of the court).

Marbut commented, "The FFA concept has created a firestorm of interest nationwide. Lots of people and other states are watching carefully to see how Montana fares in this challenge to overbearing federal authority and to Washington's attempt to control every detail of commerce in the Nation, especially including activity wholly confined within an individual state. That level of micro management certainly was not the intent of our founders when they gave Congress limited power in the Constitution to regulate commerce 'among the states'." (See: http://FirearmsFreedomAct.com/what-i...mmerce-clause/)

[God's Country]

This could quite possibly be the most important issue in my lifetime.

Tearing down the reckless use of interstate commerce is a big step to rebuilding America.

[knight0334]

True and proper use of the Commerce Clause is one thing, but the extent of abuse that our Federal government goes to is almost reason enough for another 1776.

[YllwFvr]

This could quite possibly be the most important issue in my lifetime.

Tearing down the reckless use of interstate commerce is a big step to rebuilding America.

^ THIS X 1000
rep sent!!!

[dc dalton]

This could quite possibly be the most important issue in my lifetime.

Tearing down the reckless use of interstate commerce is a big step to rebuilding America.

Damn straight! All I can say is thank god someone has the balls to tell the Feds to fuck off. They have gotten away with throwing their weight around for too long ... a lone HAS to be drawn in the sand and held.

I wish them all the luck in the world and will follow this case closely

[mjfletcher]

My only problem with this is that the FFA legislation being passed by the states basically says "OK, if there's interstate commerce involved its ok to infringe on 2A rights but only then" and actually gives anti's ammo because it basically supports the the feds use of the interstate commerce clause to do an end run around the 2A and ignore a limit placed on it.

I'm all for states reasserting their rights, but doing so in a manner that puts individuals rights at risk is not the way to go about it.

[Warpt762x39]

My only problem with this is that the FFA legislation being passed by the states basically says "OK, if there's interstate commerce involved its ok to infringe on 2A rights but only then" and actually gives anti's ammo because it basically supports the the feds use of the interstate commerce clause to do an end run around the 2A and ignore a limit placed on it.

I'm all for states reasserting their rights, but doing so in a manner that puts individuals rights at risk is not the way to go about it.

Baby steps my good man. This is the first in what I hope is a long line of "fuck offs" regarding the Feds throwing their weight around.

[mjfletcher]

Baby steps my good man. This is the first in what I hope is a long line of "fuck offs" regarding the Feds throwing their weight around.

Yeah, but is it a step in the right direction? If the States (and through them the people) support violating individual rights in the name of interstate commerce it strengthens the govt's claim that interstate commerce allows them to violate individual rights. Do we really want to give that kind of power to the fed?

Newspapers and magazines get shipped all over the country and television and radio are broadcast coast to coast. If the fed loses and the FFA's are held up how long do you think it'll be till interstate commerce is used to pass media control laws? Laws which of course wouldn't apply to media produced and readable/viewable only in the state its produced in.

If I said this was a slippery slope i'd be seriously understating it. This is more like "Fox Keys Henhouse."

[Warpt762x39]

Yeah, but is it a step in the right direction? If the States (and through them the people) support violating individual rights in the name of interstate commerce it strengthens the govt's claim that interstate commerce allows them to violate individual rights. Do we really want to give that kind of power to the fed?

Newspapers and magazines get shipped all over the country and television and radio are broadcast coast to coast. If the fed loses and the FFA's are held up how long do you think it'll be till interstate commerce is used to pass media control laws? Laws which of course wouldn't apply to media produced and readable/viewable only in the state its produced in.

If I said this was a slippery slope i'd be seriously understating it. This is more like "Fox Keys Henhouse."

So the Interstate Commerce Clause trumps the rest of the Constitution?

[beefcakeb0]

all I have to say is I can hear some tax free suppression coming soon (or lack thereof(sound that is))