MT - Montana vs The US

[kenhwind]

http://www.examiner.com/x-1417-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m8d4-Website-offers-rallying-point-for-Firearms-Freedom-Act

[Old Fashioned]

kenhwind, I read your links shortly after you posted the thread. I must say, the more I think about it the more it intrigues me. I wonder how it will finally shake out?

[Aguila Blanca]

I wonder who they're going to get to be the test case? I'm not a lawyer, but it's my understanding that the only way to challenge a law is to be arrested and charged (and convicted?) under it. Only then do you have "standing" in the eyes of the court. The stakes are high if they lose. I know I wouldn't volunteer to be the sacrificial goat.

[Dial 1911 for Help]

I wonder who they're going to get to be the test case? I'm not a lawyer, but it's my understanding that the only way to challenge a law is to be arrested and charged (and convicted?) under it. Only then do you have "standing" in the eyes of the court. The stakes are high if they lose. I know I wouldn't volunteer to be the sacrificial goat.
I guess you could say there has to be some adverse outcome to challenge. For example, Dick Heller wasn't charged with or convicted of anything in the case he took to SCOTUS, but he was adversely dealt with in that DC refused to issue him a permit, so he had something to challenge, or to put it another way, an adverse outcome he could ask to have reversed.

The same issue came to the fore in Bean in a strange way. There's theoretically a federal procedure for restoration of rights after felony conviction, but for almost 20 years Congress has stipulated when funding BATFE that none of those funds be used for reviewing applications to restore. Bean applied, but no action was taken. So since he wasn't explicitly REJECTED, the court ruled that he wasn't entitled to relief. They can be idiots at times.

In this particular case (MT sovereignty) you may be right that an arrest or conviction may be necessary to establish standing. IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.

[Old Fashioned]

There is an interesting article on pg 18 of the Sept 09 issue of American Hunter magazine titled "Firearms Freedon Act". It reads as follows. "One issue that's received a lot of publicity this year is the "Firearms Freedon Act" - state legislation that tries to exempt firearms, ammunition and accessories from federal regulation, as long as the gun or other item is made in a single state, for use only in that state. This legislation was enacted this year in Montana and Tennessee, and proposed elswwhere.

The idea behind the legislation is to challenge federal gun laws in court. While reducing federal controls is a worthy goal, this kind of litigation faces major obstacles - mainly because the Supreme Court has given Congress a very long leash when it comes to activities that could affect interstate commerce. (for example, just four years ago, the Supreme Court held that the federal government could still enforce drug laws against Californians who grow their own marijuana for medical use). Because of these issues, the NRA will continue to focus on the other kinds of pro-gun legislation described in these pages.

An even more important point is that no one should try to take advantage of the Montana or Tennessee "Firearms Freedon Acts" without consulting a competent attorney and being prepared to pay large legal fees. Anyone who makes firearms commercially, without complying with federal law, is likelly to be prosecuted. "Firearms Freedon Act" supporters have never planned to test these laws in criminal cases, and no one who puts himself in that situation should expect support from the NRA." Sorry for the long post. I guess the NRA sees so many problems with this legislation that they do not want to use valuable resources in regards to it.