Firearms Freedom Act promises something politicians are not able to deliver

[mrjarrell]

The Atlanta Gun Rights Examiner takes a look at the FFA in Montana and, by extension in other locales and points out that the matter is already settled. Add in the fact that no-one other than New Hampshire has a penalty clause and it's all a futile gesture that distracts from real issues that need changing. There's also a rebuttal from Gary Marbut. Makes for an interesting read.
Atlanta Gun Rights Examiner

I am going to get into trouble with my fellow Gun Rights Examiners today, but I have to point out the obvious for anybody who has researched the case law pertaining to the Commerce Clause. Fellow Gun Rights Examiner David Codrea and Cleveland Gun Rights Examiner Daniel White have published articles praising the Montana Firearms Freedom Act and a recent lawsuit filed in federal court to enforce it against the federal government and Attorney General Eric Holder, pictured at right. The lawsuit filed by the Montana Shooting Sports Association and the Second Amendment Foundation is an excellent fundraising tool, but it is destined to fail. More importantly, the lawsuit draws money and attention away from real struggles for the right to bear arms that can actually make a difference.
The Firearms Freedom Act
The "Firearms Freedom Act" model legislation that is "sweeping the nation" is merely political grandstanding and promises something that none of the politicians supporting it are able to deliver.
The promise of the Firearms Freedom Act is that firearms manufactured entirely in one state would be free from federal regulation. The promise is merely illusory, as the legislation will make no difference in Montana or any other state that adopts it. The United States Supreme Court has already ruled that Congress has the power under the Commerce Clause to regulate firearms manufactured in one state.

Read the rest of the short article at the source.

MSSA Response

[indykid]

Just a way to ignore the second amendment, as well as a couple of others.

[Bill of Rights]

Beg to differ. IIRC, a sheriff has the power to stop even feds from overstepping in his county. The feds will tell you differently, but the Founders were very clear about the fedgov having VERY limited powers and the 10A, by my read, anyway, supports this position. The problem is finding a sheriff who has the will to resist them.

Please note that this is a reference to LAWFUL resistance to UNLAWFUL gov't excesses.

Blessings,
Bill