Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty Digest™ News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty Digest™ 

Gun-rights groups unite to challenge federal law

August 26, 2009 by  

Gun-rights groups unite to challenge federal law The Montana Shooting Sports Association (MSSA) and the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) have formed an alliance in order to advance the principles of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act (MFFA), recently passed by the state’s legislature and signed into law by Governor Brian Schweitzer, in a federal court.

The MFFA declares that any firearms made and retained in Montana are not subject to federal authority, and its supporters want to use the bill to mount a legal challenge to federal power under the interstate commerce clause.

The two organizations are planning to file the lawsuit for a declaratory judgment in federal court on October 1st.

"We’re excited to get the MFFA into court to articulate and argue the principles of freedom and states’ rights," says Gary Marbut, president of MSSA, an organization which works to advance pro-gun and pro-hunting bills in the Montana legislature.

"It’s especially encouraging that people in so many other states are getting tickets to ride this particular freedom train," he adds, referring to the fact that 19 other states have passed, or are planning to pass, similar legislation.

Founded in 1974, SAF is the nation’s oldest and largest education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the constitutional right to privately own and possess firearms.

ADNFCR-1961-ID-19333387-ADNFCR

Filed Under: Conservative Politics, Liberty News
Personal Liberty News Desk

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Gun-rights groups unite to challenge federal law”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • Jim Kizer

    I am 75 years old, and have carried a weapon for hunting or protection whenever I felt the need for one. I was putting meat on our table at the age of 6 with a single shot 22 in Alaska.This was during the depression, and was necessary for my family’s subsistence. I have never held a permit carry in any state, but have lived in many. The constitution guaranties my right to bear arms. I carry mine openly as needed. If it offends gun control advocates, so be it. My constitution states I have this Right, and do not need any other justification for doing so. If I carry a weapon openly those that wish to attack my family or me know there will be consequences. Therefor this suppresses any desire for them to commit a crime against us. If I carry concealed, criminals will not know there is danger for them and then they will have a greater chance of being killed or wounded. If you want to carry a weapon do it in the open and your rights are guaranteed. Laws passed by states and cities that state anything other than that, are a violation of your rights. States cities, counties,or any other bureaucratic entities do not have the right to abridge the constitution. Jim Kizer, Alamogordo NM

    • James

      Jim Kizer, well said! Your New Mexico Constitution, Art. II, Sec. 6 reads: “No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons.”
      Thus, your last statement: “States cities, counties, or any other bureaucratic entities do not have the right to abridge the constitution,” is mostly true but see my above comment, earlier today.

  • Paul

    As we were fighting for in the 1860′s States rights vs federal intrusion , Especially if the goverment of obama and cohorts have in mind for us that would take all our basic rights and freedoms from us
    this law is one of the first tests to determine if judges will aplly the law oe the obama law We all must be careful our rights have already been misused and violated and Changed we must be one to over come the down fall of THE GREAT REPUBLIC

  • Dickie

    We, Have the best military in the world, So would someone explain to me why,Hussein Obama,Started with 30,000. Troops & added 50,000 more for special training for economic’s in GEORGIA,A special camp for America Home Security, And the way Holder,& Obama,In trying to Destory The CIA,Like pelosi did when she lied on them,And called American People nazi’s,reid calling American’s Anti-Americans,Franks said,I QUOTE[The U.S.Constitution is nothing but a piece of paper to hold congress back that's all]. And if congress can sneek in some kind of law for gun control,These tryants will!.All you have to do is open your eyes,Look at how they have already broke the law,Look at the deck hussein has stacked,Instead of building America,They are tearing down America,Spending more of our tax dollars,Trying to destory the past adminstration,What good is this going to do,NOTHING, But tell terroist we are not going to do anything to you,If they try to take our guns,Them we WILL BE,at the mercy to the goverment,& The rest of the terroist in the world.They even want us to rat on each other if we disagree with them,These thugs dont care about us or our rights,They still will not answer people’s questions at the town hall meetings,If you think they care about the CONSTITUTION of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,And the good of the people,You better open your eyes.

  • Bender

    Let’s remember that the people who are likely to threaten your life, your body, or anyone you are responsible for don’t obey laws. They take any gun they want to any place and use it for any reason they may have. They are “outlaws” and normal citizens must be prepared to defend themselves and those they are responsible for at a moments notice. You will not get a notice of an upcoming assault. You can be prepared or you can be a statistic. That choice is the one we must fight for if necessary. I am very encouraged by these actions.

  • Rod

    The responsible use of firearms is well understood by people who have
    concealed carry permits It.s people who do not respect the law and the
    rights of others who all you lefties need to worry about. The criminals would be very happy if “WE THE PEOPLE” were unarmed. I might
    add, so would the present people who have come into power in our
    government! BUT, WE ARE ARMED!

  • christine

    Once you start any regulation, the operative word here is start, then,the piles of paperwork mount. Soon you begin to see the loss of accountability. For me, the fact is no gun regulation is acceptable. Rather, deal with those crimes committed using any weapon as a violent act and should the victim die, then he/she is a murderer. If the victim is raped, whether male or female, young or old, that is a act of violence and strict housing would be in order. Not 3 sqwares with dental coverage– a strict environment. Should the perpetrator be mentally challenged, then what? I haven’t seen or heard all the answers, but I haven’t seen these “perfect” answers either. Wish I could find one. Violence must be dealt with swiftly and permanently.I wish it were not so but having a liberal attitude is intolerable in a violent environment. They do not mix. Nor does the idea that regulations mixes with accountability. But then, human life is not repected by all either. Consequently, these issues of violence would assuredly not be paramount on everyone’s agenda. Sad but true…

  • Rod

    The people that have concealed carry permits are people that respect
    the law. I have had mine for 11 years and have never had to use that
    permit because of an act that required me to use it. I will continue
    to carry concealed and will not hesitate to use it if circumstances
    require it!
    The problem is, the lefties don’t get it (until it’s to late).

  • Rod

    athere are states that have reciprocal laws with other states. If you
    have a concealed carry in one state, there are other states that honor
    that states concealed carry permits. It is up to you to know which
    states have those laws and don’t forget, there may be states between
    those states that do not have reciprocal laws.

    To those people who do not understand why concealed carry is so very
    important for everyone, when you get into a life and death struggle
    with some felon the good old Government has let out of the GRAY BAR,
    and the Cops aren’t there to help, PLEASE let out a big scream telling
    us you don’t want our help!

  • WILDDOG

    We have lost almost all freedoms in this country. How many of you nay sayers know what the articles of the CONSTITUTION say. Or the way it was framed and what it pertained to. We the PEOPLE are the ones that the goverment is supposed to fear. But with all the LIBERAL ANAL POSIONING that has gone on.The Gov is not fearing its PEOPLE. GUN RIGHTS ARE A MUST.IF ONE wants a FREE COUNTRY. If the PEOPLE give in and let there guns be confiscated. Well then its all over. The Federal Gov has run amuck and totally out of control. It needs to get back to the WE THE PEOPLE. Not we the GOV and the sickness of the LIBERAL mind set.

  • Scott A Johnson

    I am a God fearing Christian and I do my best to follow the 10 Commandments. One being, Thou Shal Not Committ Murder, often mistranslated into Thou Shal Not Kill. I believe that it is my right as an American lawabiding citizen to carry a loaded firearm when I feel I need to protect my self or my family. If our government weren’t so full of criminals then I guess they wouldn’t be so afraid of us owning and carrying a gun. As a believer I would never purposely harm anyone unless fearing for the lives of any of my family, friends, or myself. I would gladly defend my country as well.

  • Devaron

    I find it interesting that most people do not understand the full meaning of the First and Second Amendment to Constitution as noted in the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment outlines your basic freedoms (Freedom of Speech, freedom of the Press, Freedom of Religion etc)… and the Next Amendment, the 2nd Amendment is the freedom to bear arms (to own and carry weapons). The point is, the founders and creators of the Constitution and this nation tied these two amendments together for a very specific reason… the first talks about your freedom and the second talks about your ability to keep your freedom.
    Those institutes and people who attempt to create laws or input negative propaganda against the 2nd Amendment are not interested in YOUR freedom, only their own. This includes State and Federal Government. The 2nd Amendment was deliberately created for the very purposes you now see in this nation… to defend yourself against those who would take your freedom from you, including the federal government itself.

    • Brian Rawls

      Bravo!!!

    • James

      Devaron, You do not understand the purpose for the Bill of Rights. The Preamble to the Bill of Rights reads: “THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added.”
      The Bill of Rights starts with “Congress shall make no law respecting…prohibiting…or abridging” the five rights mentioned therein. Then “the right…to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,” etc. The 9th Amendment says this restrictive theme applies to all rights whether enumerated therein or not. And the 10th Amendment reminds Congress that powers not delegated to them are reserved to the States or to the people.
      The Bill of Rights is all one document it does not grant or secure rights, its sole purpose is to prevent the federal government from exercising any power over rights. And every Supreme Court decision, including last year’s D.C. v. Heller, has held the Second Amendment’s restriction does not apply to state law, only federal.
      Rights are secured (and regulated) by state constitutions and laws.

      • eyeswideopen

        Hot damn James, finally!!!! thank you, but they won’t believe you.

    • Smilee

      Devaron

      The first ten amendments came into being by the amendment clause process in the constitution and was not added as you say (see below), and it leaves your analysis suspect as well as it is based partly on that premise.

      YOU WROTE:
      The point is, the founders and creators of the Constitution and this nation tied these two amendments together for a very specific reason…

  • jane

    Do you paranoids not read the law? The Supreme Court SAID that individuals can own guns, period. The real problem is that in a city guns are for killing people- they are weapons. In the rural and hunting worlds they are TOOLS, like saws and hammers. There is no way to write a sensible federal policy and there is no way for a state to do it either- Michigan has Detroit and the U.P. The gun nuts (pro) are always crying (untruly) that their guns will be taken away. Please. If “they” were going to, “they” would have. The other gun nuts (anti) are convinced (supreme idiocy) that regulation of guns will stop something (they don’t even know what). Reasonable gun regulation will do one thing and one thing only- it will keep the guy who is insanely furious from running into a store, buying a gun, and killing someone. It will not keep criminals from using them. It will not keep the mentally ill from getting them. It would carry a hell of a lot more weight if you people would stop catastrophizing and make rational arguments against regulation instead of fairly childish rants about getting your toys taken away. And yes, I am a lifetime member of the NRA.

    • eyeswideopen

      Jane,
      well said, but I’m afraid it fell on deaf ears.I’m also NRA member, however after reading most of these blogs, I fear many people are equiped with guns who have no respect for them or others and many un-necessary deaths will be the outcome. I see road rage everyday with cars and am silently thankful that more people don’t carry.

    • Philip, from Oregon

      Obamas’ admin. and the libs. in general, has been trying to get some legislation passed in favor of gun control for a long time now. I am sure that the Germans, Italians, French, And Russians, believed that just “a little gun control” wouldn’t hurt anything. The people need to exercise their rights or they will loose them, there just like your body, you loose what you don’t use. And I don’t think that people, like myself, are paranoid, we’re just being realist and expecting the worst from an already corrupt government.

    • DaveH

      Paranoid, my rear. Did you think a year ago that the government would take over GM? Did you think they would be trying to ram a nationalized health care bill down our throats a year ago? Did you think a year ago that an avowed Communist would be appointed as a “Green Jobs” czar? Or that an FCC diversity advisor would be appointed who has made the statement that “In Venezuela, with Chavez, really an incredible revolution — a democratic revolution — to begin to put in place saying that we’re going to have impact on the people of Venezuela the property owners and the folks who were then controlling the media in Venezuela rebelled — work frankly with folks here in the U.S. government worked to oust him and came back and had another revolution. And Chavez then started to take the media very seriously in this country.”?

      • DaveH

        Please Liberals, don’t attack me on my spelling and sentence structure. That quote was taken verbatim from a Mark Lloyd speech.

      • RobertP

        It’s really incredible how it now seems all the true socialists, fascists, and communists are now coming out of the woodwork and showing their true colors. Here’s another recent example on Aug 27th, at a town hall meeting where Rep. Diane Watson (D-LA) praises Fidel Castro (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FN8xPJyAkEE&NR=1). She seems quite in awe of this man!! Apparently, Mrs. Watson dreams of a day when this country will follow in his footsteps.

        Has anyone really thought about how this administration refused to condemn the Iranian government (saying they did not want to appear as “meddlers”) while its people were protesting and dying for their courage to speak out against the police state that is now Iran, and the likely fraudulent elections that maintained the status quo of a ruthless dictator?

        And compare this to how the Obama regime has taken the exact opposite tact when the Democratic country of Honduras kicked out a would-be dictator in a recent attempt by their current President to side step their constitution and make his term unlimited (http://www.kansascity.com/273/story/1383819.html). In this case, our worldly government leader Obama believes that the would-be dictator should be re-installed, and this attitude is inconceivably right in lock-step with the Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez!!! It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see what is behind these actions on both cases!! The writing is on the wall but those that put him in power either want to believe that this can’t be true, or they actually want this country to go the way of Cuba or Venezuela. People had better wake up and take this country back before it’s too late!!

    • James

      Jane, right on! However your “Supreme Court SAID individuals can own guns,” isn’t quite correct. In D.C. v. Heller (2008) the Court said individuals ‘have’ the right to own handguns. That decision affected a gun law in the District of Columbia (and possibly other federal territories) but not the States. Citizens in States have always possessed handguns.

      • eyeswideopen

        Could you speak louder please, they are screaming so loud they can’t hear you, or don’t want to hear you, they want to be mad and upset.

  • ONTIME

    THe elitist and the libs of politick are moving into every backroom form of justice they can find in order to control the gun issues. They are making up law to force unfair burdens on those who want to legally own firearms, to carry them and to maintain or fire them, Califronia and Mark Leno is a fine example of this type action, Eric Holder is another by his consistent ulterior ways of achieving his kind of justice. The Libs are not going to do anything upfront or by concensus because they know they cannot win, like every other issue they hold dear they will be as deceptive and dishonest as always when it comes to their agenda. Vote their leadership out of office as fast as possible and guard your rights as a American.

    • DaveH

      Yes, and they certainly don’t care about whether we live or die. Witness the “Your Life, Your Choices” book posted on the VA website by the Obama administration:
      http://www.ethics.va.gov/YLYC/YLYC_First_edition_20001001.pdf

      So, it is disingenuous for them to say they want to ban guns for safety purposes.

  • Right wing extremist

    For the record Wayne, it wasn’t the SOCCER MOMS who were terrified of YOU being able to have weapon.

    It was Liberals, who now say they are Progressives … which means they are still Communist, and Facist radicals.

    And if you need to ask a ‘soccer mom’. You can ask me! I’m a ‘SOCCER MOM’. So please don’t lump all of US with the facist radicals!

    • DaveH

      Well said Extremist. Sorry to hear about your tremors.

  • Right wing extremist

    I do not own a weapon due to the fact that I have uncontrollable tremors in my hands. Due to the same tremors I went from being a Expert on the M 16, and a sharp shooter on the gernade launcher; to barely being able to get a marksman on my final year in the service.

    But you can bet your bottom dollar that I support upholding and protecting our second admendment rights!

    And Lucki Levittino, thank you for your service to this great nation.

    And for the record, our ‘esteemed’ President stands for COMMUNISM, FACISM, and NAZISM.

    • The Insurgent

      Comment removed for offensive content.

  • http://www.srtsupply.com LUCKIE LEVITTINO

    I HAD THE PLEASURE OF SPENDING TIME WITH Ted Nugent AT A SHOT SHOW 6 YEARS AGO. HE IS RIGHT ON THE MONEY.HAVING SERVED MANY YEARS IN THE US NAVY AND 10 YEARS IN LAW ENFORCEMENT AND NOW 77 YEARS YOUNG, I WILL FIGHT THE WASHINGTON, DC HILL MOB, AND NEVER LET THEM TAKE AWAY MY “AMERICAN RIGHT” TO OWN AND CARRY A GUN. SEEING WHO THE “MAN IN THE WHITE HOUSE” RUBS SHOULDERS WITH, HAS MADE ME AND A LOT OF AMERICANS WONDER WHAT HE REALLY STANDS FOR. MY FATHER IN 1918 DID THE AMERICAN DREAM, 50 YEARS LATER HE WAS VP OF A VERY LARGE AMERICAN COMPANY.
    LUCKIE LEVITTINO, RETIRED USN

  • Scott

    I believe that as long as we are law abiding citizens, we should be able to carry open or concealed ANYWHERE in the country.

    • Brian Rawls

      Thats right Scott, Wayne. I feel the same way.

  • Wayne

    I am firmly a beleiver in “An armed society is a polite society”. The federal government should not be allowed to interfere with our constitutional right to bear arms. You have less chance of being injuered in a gun incident than you do going to the hospital. More deaths are caused by medical errors than guns. This country needs to take back our rights from the “soccer moms” who are terrified that little Johnyy is going to skin his knee on the playground.
    History has shown that gun control does not make a safer society, it just makes a weak society that allows predators and despots to prey on the people.

  • Brian Rawls

    Comment removed for offensive content

  • Brian Rawls

    And yes we should be able to carry anytime anywhere without a permit. Do you think the founding fathers followed silly laws like that.

    • uniteas1

      They didn’t have silly politicians like we have now. Politicians that are more interested in bowing down or catering to money and ILLEGAL ALIEN support groups. Some of these politicians would sell this country out,if they haven’t already.

  • Brian Rawls

    Hey everyone, Obama wants death panels in the healthcare bill because the old are considerd a burden to everyone. Well does that mean that the gov will start killing all the trash thats in our jails and prisons too? These scum bags cost everyone more money than the seniors. Plus that will lower gun-related crimes.

    • Robert P

      Brian,

      On the contrary. Liberals believe that they should be let out of jail for a second chance, unless they have conservative viewpoints of course.

      • DaveH

        Right on the nail, Robert. It is all about who they think will vote for them.

    • BOE

      No Brian he will not…those are his bro`s. Hell he will most likely let them out early. Obama and Eric Holder will decide we white folks put them in jail ..oh I don`t know ..because we don`t like them.What the HELL have we got ourselves into??

  • Philo Beddoe

    It all comes down in a big way to National Security. Without 2nd Amendment we have none. Do you think the Russians weren’t aware of 62 million gun owners in this country when they were seriously thinking of invading the USA in the early 60′s?

  • http://www.tbarkcustomknives.com Tank Fisher

    I believe like Ted Nugent The 2nd Ammendment is My Right to carry permit , even though I have a CHL just for legality purposes I believe as a citizen of the USA Afforded all rights an privleges thereof the law should Have No Authority to disarm me if I am Not breaking the Standard laws of right an Wrong , haveing a Firearm Garentees My Right to not be forced into doing somthing that I shouldnt have to if I dont want to , God Bless those Who Stand for the Weak an fight for Freedom to do so ,T

    • http://socializedmedicineearthritis Eileen Barayasarra

      Mr. Fisher, you are exactly right. I was home alone in June of 2005 when a young man came running in my back door. I was 66 years old and he was 24. He resembled Mike Tyson except that he was of Mexican descent. I was certainly no match for him. Fortunately, I have a pistol. Also, my very protective Lab barked and got between us. She not only saved my life, she saved his. As I got a bead on him, she decided he was getting too close, so she shoved me, spoiling my aim. He ran to my garage and I called 911. After a 15 minute fight, the police were able to subdue and remove him. His own father told me at the courthouse that if I had not had the dog and the pistol, his son would have killed me. He was high on methamphetamine and was of low intellect to begin with. We ended up with 17 police officers in my yard but not one of them tried to take away my pistol. They knew him and knew I had just saved my own life with it. Remember! When SECONDS count, the police are just MINUTES away! I DARE anyone to try to convince me that the state or any branch of the government has any right to take away my means of self defense. All I can say about that morning is- – HE left in the ambulance and I DID NOT! I take my hidden pistol everywhere I go except for airports and courthouses. I have never had to aim it at anyone but him, but WE NEVER KNOW when a pistol can save our lives or those of other innocent people. Every criminal has one. WHY SHOULDN’T WE? Call me Granny .357!

      • Philip, from Oregon

        Kudos’ to you Eileen. There should never be any laws against firearms except those provided for in the constitution, our founding fathers were smart enough to know that the general population needs to protect themselves, be it against criminals, foreign invaders, or our own government, and the right to keep and bear arms is just one of those rights, and I’ll be damned if some government know nothing is going to take ANY of my rights away from me!!
        If you want to keep your firearms Eileen you are given that right by God and the constitution.
        I am 63 and I carry all the time, so you just keep on keeping on, and bravo for you!!!

      • Robert P

        Eileen,

        I hear your story and I totally agree with your position. However, I fear a great deal for the future of this country when our Supreme Court is now being populated with people like Sonia Sotomayor who, when asked a direct question by a Senator, “Do you believe that people have a right to defend themselves”, she could not after continous questioning, say that she believed that they did!! So I predict a case will eventually come up before the Supreme Court where this person that got arrested, or perhaps even killed, by someone such as was in your position, and they (or their family) will take this to court and you will end up in prison and/or paying emotionally and finacially for the rest of your life. This IS where this country is trying to be taken by the Liberals of this country!!! If we don’t constantly be on guard, they will succeed, and I can’t be sure even now if it’s possible to stop what they have planned for this country, the way things are going now.

      • DaveH

        Robert,
        I think the best pro-gun organization around is the Gun Owners of America. Pound for pound, they pack the biggest wallop for our freedom. You can visit their website at gunowners.org

      • DaveH
      • RobertP

        Thanks Dave!! Believe it or not, I don’t own a gun…. yet.

      • uniteas1

        That is why President Obama wanted Sotomayor in the Supreme Court. Just another one of his pawns in place to take guns away from the citizens of these United States. Just as Eric Holder will and possibly Hillary Clinton (which these politicians are sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States). And there is a list stating which states will allow or respect other states right to conceal permits. The only thing I disagree with is the incidences in which they allow to protect yourself in your own home. Correct me if I am wrong,but in N Carolina they have to be beating down your door. If they are already in your home the story can change on self defense.

      • eyeswideopen

        So, your saying you don’t trust the rest of the Republicans sitting on the Court?? How interesting….You think one person will be able to change the view of the rest of the majority of conservatives? Holy hell, you don’t give the rest of them much credit do you? You are aware that they are Bush appointee’s right??

      • eyeswideopen

        Eileen,
        key word HOME, You weren’t driving into my state carrying a concealed weapon.

      • LD Joyner

        The problem with Sotomayor, she has deep rooted bias convictions that I believe will come into play soon.

    • James

      Tank Fisher, you are wrong, the 2nd Amendment is not your right. All American citizens have the right to bear arms, but the right isn’t dependent on the Second Amendment for its existence. Rights are fundamental and inalienable in the United States. The sole purpose for the Second Amendment is to prevent the federal government from infringing on the right.

      • LD Joyner

        The 2nd amendment has no state lines drawn on it, the only borders is Mexico and Canada.

  • jerry r. bolton

    I believe we should all be able to carry a gun for protection anyway,anytime,without a permit. Crooks don’t have to have a permit,why should we. We protect ourselves,less crooks on the streets.

    • Robin from Indiana

      Jerry… I agree. I also think Ted Nuggent is on to something with the 2nd amendment giving us that right. If you have a conceal to carry, it should be good as long as you have it with you while carrying your weapon. Gone are the days where the Cleavers and the good citizens of Mayberry could leave their doors unlocked and stroll the streets in the evening.

    • Jeffrey

      Amen to that!

    • Jeff

      I totally agree! It is not the gun we should be worried about. Evil people with evil intent are where the problem lies. It wouldn’t concern me much if everyone was packing a weapon. Are we going to mindlessly shoot each other to death? I doubt it. Yeah, there is going to be that one idiot who will, but….he doesn’t usually obey the law, so what dows it matter. We have every right to protect ourselves anywhere anytime. Period.

    • jane

      jerry- you can in the vast majority of states. you just need to have it holstered in plain sight.

      • DaveH

        Jane,
        Since open-carry does make a lot of people nervous, it makes a lot more sense to me that we should conceal-carry. Non-carry laws (whether conceal or open) don’t stop criminals. That’s why they’re called criminals; they don’t care about laws. Those of us who would choose to carry for protection rarely know in advance when we might be attacked, but those who would do others harm know just when they need to carry their gun. So the chances that outlawing concealed-carry would stop someone from committing a crime are pretty slim. It’s just one of those feel-good things that politicians do to make themselves look important, or another baby-step on the road to accomplish their ulterior motive of making it harder for people to use guns for protection. They know that eventually, if they keep throwing up enough road-blocks, people will give up the hassle and give up their guns.

  • eyeswideopen

    I think states have the right to regulate guns, however, don’t think that because your state licenses you to carry a concealed weapon, that you can transport that gun across state lines into my state. The Supreme Court basically stated just that.. One states rights do not give them the right to infringe or obstruct upon another states rights. Just because I am licensed in Fl. doesn’t mean, I can carry in NC.

    • James Moore

      I can certainly agree with you. I am licensed in Arkansas, but don’t believe that should give me the right to carry across state lines., I do believe that the U.S. government is over-stepping it’s boundries in this case against Montana, and I would hope that Tennessee would join with the good people of Montana in this case.

      • cr747

        James Moore, I bet if someone from another state assaulted or harmed your kids, grand kids,(if you have any) or your family, you would think different about carrying across state lines. I live 30 minutes from four different state lines, and thank God I can carry across state lines here, all except on state, and people in that state can carry period.

      • Douglas L. PANNEBAKER

        The second amendment gives me the rights to carry into another state However there are laws that state as long as that state recognizes my permit I am able to carry in that state and I do so every time.
        I carry for protection not just for myself of my family but for the innocent people that are in need of help, since the police can not be everywhere at one time.

    • Rev. EG Hopkins

      There seems to be a very real and complete lack of understanding of the US Constitution. The constitution does not guarantee anyone any rights. After all who has that authority and power. While it states that we have certain rights, it also tell us very clearly that those rights enumerated in the constitution are not meant to be an all inclusive list of our rights and not being listed as a right does not deny or disparage those rights not listed. The constitution also very clearly distinguishes between the Federal United States and the several states of the union. It distinguishes between a United States citizen and a citizen of one of the several states of the union. IN order to fully understand the nexus between the United States and the several states of the union we need to first understand that each state is a seperate Nation State and is by acceptance of the US contract a member of a union. Actually in a practical sense not unlike the current European Union. These sovereign atates do not surrender their sovereignty in order to be a member of the union. All this to say that Article II of the constitution simply declares that in order for the individual states to be able to maintain their sovereignty the people of those states need to be able to KEEP and BEAR arms and that this right shall not be infringed. the term infringed simply put means that there can be NO LAW ot the contrary. So… any law, ANY LAW that does anything to limit, inhibit, remove, postpone, prohibit, prescribe or by license, fee or restriction causes an infringement and is there for UNCONSTITUTIONAL. While you may disagree with the founders on this point, be assurred by your own reading that the founders were not unsure nor unclear of the intent of the enumeration of this right. They understood that the force of arms was the final and ultimate arbitor of law. Finally, to submit to a so-called “legitimate” license for concealed carry is to allow an unconstitutional infringement on the basic right to KEEP and Bear arms.

      • DaveH

        Rev,
        It’s interesting to me that so many Liberals have jumped on the new bandwagon that the 2nd Amendment doesn’t apply to the states. That is just the latest in their arsenal to impose their freedom-robbing rules on the citizens of the United States. The First Amendment clearly says that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”. In the Second Amendment there is no such reference to Congress. Yet, do you hear the Liberals saying the states therefore have the right to establish State Religion. Of course not, they just switch sides whenever it is to their advantage.

      • DaveH

        Sotomayor was on a panel of judges (2nd circuit court, 2009) that claimed the 2nd Amendment applied only to the Federal government.
        My question is, if that is so, then since the powers of the Federal Government are strictly controlled by the Constitution and gun control was not one of the powers, then why would the framers of the Constitution bother to put in the 2nd Amendment if it didn’t apply to the states?

      • Orin Loos

        What part of the 2nd amendment dont you understand. It says the right of the people to bear arms.It doesnt say the Federal Gov. or just a few special people, it says of the people shall not be infringed upon. The reason is to protect ourselves from oppressive governments. Period.

      • James

        Rev. EG H, at last, someone I can agree with! Although, by “Article II,” I think you meant the Second Amendment. (Article II created the Executive Branch of the federal government.) The only power the national government has, are those delegated to it in Article I, Section 8. The Bill of Rights is restrictive clauses the states placed upon the feds to prevent them from misconstruing those powers to affect or regulate our rights. Power over rights was reserved to the States or to the people (10th Amendment).

      • LD Joyner

        I believe from what I hear and read, we are being repressed rtght now. I don’t like what I see, I feel sorry for our children if we don’t get things back to freedom of religion, and our rights not infringed upon.

    • James

      The right to bear arms is fundamental and inalienable, it existed before the national government was created. It isn’t dependent on any constitution for its existence.
      The Bill of Rights is a restriction the states placed upon federal power. The First Amendment’s “Congress shall make no law” obviously applies exclusively to the federal government and so-likewise does the “shall not be infringed” of the Second Amendment.
      Art. IV, Sec. 2 of the U.S. Constitution states: “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizeens in the several States,” but that isn’t automatic. States will honor ‘concealed carry’ permits of other States, but permission must be sought before entering another state.
      The Montana Constitution Art. II, Sec. 12 reads: “The right of any person to keep or bear arms in defense of his own home, and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called into question, but nothing herein contained shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons.” There is where the right is secured for Montanans – not the Second Amendment.

blog comments powered by Disqus

All Categories

Bottom