by Matt Gouras, AP

If Montana has its way in a lawsuit filed Thursday, there will be far less federal gun control in the state.

The state’s libertarian streak – which has spawned efforts to buck the federal Real ID Act and sparked widespread contempt for the Patriot Act – is now triggering a fight over whether Montana should have sovereignty over made-in-Montana guns and equipment.

If gun advocates win, the state could decide which rules, if any, would control the manufacturer, sale and purchase of guns and paraphernalia. And Montana would be exempt from rules on federal gun registration, background checks and dealer-licensing.

“For guns, it means we can make our own in Montana and sell them in Montana as long as they are stamped ‘Made in Montana’ and don’t leave the state,” said Gary Marbut, who runs the Montana Shooting Sports Association and is leading the lawsuit. “We will be able to do that without federal regulation, or having the ATF breath down your neck.”

The association, joined by the Second Amendment Foundation in the lawsuit, hopes to ultimately win a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that limits the application and reach of federal rules over state business. The suit is challenging the right of the federal government to oversee gun sales under the guise of interstate commerce regulation.

The filing in U.S. District Court in Missoula comes a day after the U.S. Supreme Court said it would consider a challenge to Chicago’s handgun ban and adds to a growing list of federal lawsuits filed by gun-rights proponents that challenge local or federal gun control laws.

The federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives reminded gun dealers last summer that federal laws still apply, even though the state passed its “declaration” and advised them that they need to properly mark guns, fully record and report all sales, conduct background checks and follow all the rules.

“These, as well as other Federal requirements and prohibitions, apply whether or not the firearms or ammunition have crossed state lines,” assistant ATF director Carson Carroll wrote in a letter to dealers.

That warning was prompted by a bill passed by the Montana Legislature earlier in the year, known as the Montana Firearms Freedom Act. It went into effect Thursday and declared that Montana held authority over guns made in the state.

Attacking federal gun control was an easy target in a state like Montana, where politicians of all stripes actively seek the endorsement of gun rights groups.

Gov. Brian Schweitzer, a Democrat, said the lawsuit is a way for the state to assert its sovereignty. But it’s important that the state not pay the legal costs, he said.

“I can’t predict what’s going to happen in federal court,” said Schweitzer. “You never know. If you don’t take a shot, you can’t score.”

Tennessee has passed a similar declaration, although no lawsuit has been filed there yet.

In Montana, there were only a few opponents in the Legislature. Some argued that the declaration and ensuing lawsuit were the results of right-wing paranoia.

The bill only advanced in the Legislature because of arguments it would spur economic development with gun manufacturing, said Travis McAdam of the Montana Human Rights Network. Other issues will arise if Montana gun advocates are successful, he said.

“What happens when these guns do show up in other states and what if they are used to commit crimes in other states?” McAdam said.

Marbut pointed out that it is already against the law for felons in Montana to buy guns, and it would be illegal under federal rules to take a made-in-Montana gun to another state. The Montana Firearms Freedom Act does specify that things like machine guns or guns that shoot explosive projectiles are not allowed.

But any further Montana-specific gun rules, such as background checks, would have to be debated later. Marbut said Montana was doing fine before such federal rules existed, and probably doesn’t need any such regulation.

“Whether Montana would enact any other regulation, is really a public policy decision the Legislature would need to make,” Marbut said. “I’d be willing to listen to ideas about it. But I don’t see any crying need for anything.”

by Declan McCullagh, CBS News

A Montana lawsuit filed on Thursday challenges federal authority to regulate guns manufactured and sold within the state, an argument that would effectively invalidate federal firearm laws in Big Sky Country if adopted by the courts.

The lawsuit arose out of a state law signed by Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer that took effect on October 1. It says that firearms, ammunition, and accessoriesmanufactured entirely inside Montana are not subject to federal regulation, including background checks for buyers and record-keeping requirements for sellers. They would remain subject to state regulation, and machine gun manufacturing is not permitted.

This is part of a new grassroots movement that’s seeking to invoke the principle of states’ rights — including states’ authority to regulate firearms within their borders — to thwart what backers view as an increasingly overreaching federal government.

One of the plaintiffs is Gary Marbut, president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association. The complaint (PDF) says Marbut “wishes to manufacture and sell small arms and small arms ammunition to customers exclusively in Montana” without complying with federal laws but has been told by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives that the federal laws “continue to apply.” (See related CBSNews.com story about the Obama administration’s position.)

While this federalism-inspired revolt has coalesced around gun rights, the broader goal is to dust off a section of the Bill of Rights that most Americans probably have paid scant attention to: the Tenth Amendment. It says that “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

“We feel very strongly that the federal government has gone way too far in attempting to regulate a lot of activity that occurs only in-state,” said Marbut. “It’s time for Montana and her sister states to take a stand against the bullying federal government, which the legislature and governor have done and we are doing with this lawsuit.”

The case was filed by Quentin Rhoades of Sullivan, Tabaracci, and Rhoades in Missoula, Mont., with the support of the Second Amendment Foundation. The U.S. Justice Department, which will be defending the suit in court, did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Thursday.

Read literally, the Tenth Amendment seems to suggest that the federal government’s powers are limited only to what it has been “delegated,” and the U.S. Supreme Court in 1918 confirmed that the amendment “carefully reserved” some authority “to the states.” That view is echoed by statements made at the time the Constitution was adopted; New Hampshire explicitly said that states kept “all powers not expressly and particularly delegated” to the federal government.

More recently, federal courts have interpreted the Tenth Amendment narrowly, in a way that justifies almost any law on grounds that it intends to regulate interstate commerce. In the 2005 case of Gonzales v. Raich, for instance, the Supreme Court ruled that a person growing marijuana for her own medicinal use could have a “substantial effect on interstate commerce.” (In an pointed dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote: “If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything — and the federal government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.”)

One possibility is is that the composition of the U.S. Supreme Court has changed enough in the last four years to make a repeat of Gonzales v. Raich unlikely; on the other hand, some justices that might have been sympathetic to a sick mother using medical marijuana may not be as willing to embrace federalism if it means zapping gun laws that have been around for over a generation.

Another possibility is that proponents can argue — as Marbut plans to do — that this case is different. In Gonzales v. Raich, the Supreme Court noted “it is not feasible to distinguish” marijuana that’s “manufactured and distributed interstate and controlled substances manufactured and distributed intrastate.” The Montana law, by contrast, says that all state-made firearms “must have the words ‘Made in Montana’ clearly stamped on a central metallic part, such as the receiver or frame.”

Still, the case amounts to a long shot squared. Perhaps, in a slightly different universe where the Tenth Amendment were not virtually ignored by courts, the plaintiffs would stand a good chance of winning. In this post-Raich reality, even pro-Second Amendment types are skeptical.

“I think they probably should succeed and I think they probably won’t,” Nelson Lund, a professor of constitutional law at George Mason University who specializes in the Second Amendment, told me over the summer. “The Supreme Court has strong precedents that would render this statute invalid.”

But this is as much as political maneuver as it is a legal one. Even a courtroom defeat would galvanize the burgeoning federalist movement and could lead to more states adopting sovereignty and Tenth Amendmentresolutions, a trend that has been documented by the Tenth Amendment Center (and anticipated by forecasterGerald Celente). If enough state governments vote to resuscitate the Tenth Amendment, even federal courts eventually may pay attention.

www.CleanUpATF.org is a non-profit organization dedicated to returning integrity, accountability and decency to the management of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE or “ATF”).

In recent years, ATF management has become widely and officially known for corruption, self-service, and at times, overt incompetence. Moreover, ATF managers at all levels routinely retaliate or discriminate against employees who make good faith attempts to address significant cases of flagrant abuse, unlawful acts, waste of taxpayer resources, etc. Managers often use the threat or actual imposition of unfounded disciplinary actions, Internal Affairs “investigations”, punitive transfers, and other flagrantly unethical measures to suppress dissension and subvert legitimate complaints about serious abuses.

In the last two years alone, there have been nearly 400 employee complaints. In an organization with only about 5,000 employees, that is a huge drain on resources and adversely impacts the agency’s ability to pursue its purported mission of locking up bad guys. Many experienced and skilled field agents spend so much time just trying to cover their rear ends against trivial, bureaucratic internal policies and arbitrary management actions, that they have little time to actually enforce the nation’s firearms and other laws.

Recently publicized cases have involved malicious and carefully orchestrated management campaigns to smear, discredit, and professionally destroy agents who have repeatedly risked their lives for ATF and the public, solely in reprisal for the filing of legitimate complaints. In some instances, management has gone so far as to implicitly accuse agents of firebombing their own homes, without the slightest shred of evidence, while refusing to adequately investigate the actual criminal suspects, all for the sole purpose of harassing and cowing ATF’s own people into quiet submission.

The Bureau’s leadership has also miserably failed or even deliberately refused to meet its responsibility to protect highly decorated undercover agents from documented threats of murder, rape or other acts of reprisal against themselves and their families by some of the most vicious criminals on the planet.

All of these factors substantially degrade BATFE’s ability to accomplish its authorized missions, and constitute an inexcusable misuse of taxpayer resources.

by Eileen Sullivan, AP

Militia groups with gripes against the government are regrouping across the country and could grow rapidly, according to an organization that tracks such trends.The stress of a poor economy and a liberal administration led by a black president are among the causes for the recent rise, the report from the Southern Poverty Law Center says. Conspiracy theories about a secret Mexican plan to reclaim the Southwest are also growing amid the public debate about illegal immigration.

Bart McEntire, a special agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, told SPLC researchers that this is the most growth he’s seen in more than a decade.

“All it’s lacking is a spark,” McEntire said in the report.

It’s reminiscent of what was seen in the 1990s—right-wing militias, people ideologically against paying taxes and so-called “sovereign citizens” are popping up in large numbers, according to the report to be released Wednesday. The SPLC is a nonprofit civil rights group that, among other activities, investigates hate groups.

Last October, someone from the Ohio Militia posted a recruiting video on YouTube, billed as a “wake-up call” for America. It’s been viewed more than 60,000 times.

“Things are bad, things are real bad, and it’s going to be a lot worse,” said the man on the video, who did not give his name. “Our country is in peril.”

The man is holding an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle, and he encourages viewers to buy one.

While anti-government sentiment has been on the rise over the last two years, there aren’t as many threats and violent acts at this point as there were in the 1990s, according to the report. That movement bore the likes of Timothy McVeigh, who in 1995 blew up a federal building in Oklahoma City and killed 168 people.

But McEntire fears it’s only a matter of time.

These militias are concentrated in the Midwest, Pacific Northwest and the Deep South, according to Mark Potok, an SPLC staff director who co-wrote the report. Recruiting videos and other outreach on the Internet are on the rise, he said, and researchers from his center found at least 50 new groups in the last few months.

The militia movement of the 1990s gained traction with growing concerns about gun control, environmental laws and anything perceived as liberal government meddling.

The spark for that movement came in 1992 with an FBI standoff with white separatist Randall Weaver at Ruby Ridge, Idaho. Weaver’s wife and son were killed by an FBI sniper. And in 1993, a 52-day standoff between federal agents and the Branch Davidian cult in Waco, Texas, resulted in nearly 80 deaths. These events rallied more people who became convinced that the government would murder its own citizens to promote its liberal agenda.

Now officials are seeing a new generation of activists, according to the report. The law center spotlights Edward Koernke, a Michigan man who hosts an Internet radio show about militias. His father, Mark, was a major figure in the 1990s militia movement and served six years in prison for charges including assaulting police.

Last year, officials warned about an increase in activity from militias in a five-year threat projection by the Homeland Security Department.

“White supremacists and militias are more violent and thus more likely to conduct mass-casualty attacks on the scale of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing,” the threat projection said.

A series of domestic terrorism incidents over the past year have not been directly tied to organized militias, but the rhetoric behind some of the crimes are similar with that of the militia movement. For instance, the man charged with the April killings of three Pittsburgh police officers posted some of his views online. Richard Andrew Poplawski wrote that U.S. troops could be used against American citizens, and he thinks a gun ban could be coming.

The FBI’s assistant director for counterterrorism, Michael Heimbach, said that law enforcement officials need to identify people who go beyond hateful rhetoric and decide to commit violent acts and crimes. Heimbach said one of the bigger challenges is identifying the lone-wolf offenders.

One alleged example of a lone-wolf offender is the 88-year-old man charged in the June shooting death of a guard at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington.

Dale’s Notes: notice how they categorize “militias” with “domestic terrorists” and “racists.”  As I’ve pointed out many times, most of the white supremacist/Nazi groups in the U.S. are made up almost entirely of undercover federal agents.  Note also the tenuous tie this writer attempts to make with “recent domestic terrorism” events and the militia movement.

This is the kind of brainwashed thinking we’re up against, folks.  I’m sure Ms. Sullivan’s AP handlers were more than happy with the mis-characterization and misrepresentation that she input into this “reporting.”

by Matt Howes, C4L

In 2004, longtime Ron Paul supporter Gary Marbut, president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, wrote the Montana Firearms Freedom Act, which declares federal firearms laws relating to the vast majority of guns built, used, and kept within the state of Montana to be null and void.

On April 15, 2009, Governor Brian Schweitzer signed the Act, HB 246, into law, thanks to the efforts of another Ron Paul supporter, freshman legislator Joel Boniek, and the combined efforts of Campaign for Liberty members and other freedom-minded activists.

According to Gary, “Now clones of the MFFA have been introduced in AK, TX, TN, SC, and MN.  The TN clone has passed the House and Senate with considerable majorities.  I hear serious talk about more clones of the MFFA to be introduced ASAP in FL, GA, MO, OK, KS, CO, AZ, WY, UT, ID, and WA.”

Not one to step down after such a rebuke, the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) has sent a letter to all Montana Federal Firearms Licensees telling them to ignore Montana’s law.

Read the letter here.

How will the state respond?  Stay tuned.