Guns and Ammo Enthusiast Blog A blog for and by Guns and Ammo Enthusiast's

FEDS RESPOND TO FIREARMS FREEDOM ACT LAWSUIT MOTION TO DISMISS “EXPECTED”

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.

The NRA (National Riffle Association) is supporting a law that is NOT only unconstitutional in a major way, but completely discriminatory

OK Here we go again. The NRA (National Riffle Association) is supporting a law that is NOT only unconstitutional in a major way, but completely discriminatory. The basic run down of NRA supported H.R.3752 is this: It will allow for ALL former and active duty Police (including “current and retired law enforcement officers of the Amtrak Police Department, the Federal Reserve System, the executive branch, and the Armed Forces”)
Here is my first problem. It makes all of the rest of us second class citizens. That’s right I said SECOND CLASS CITIZENS. And of course we have NEVER heard of police going bad, have we? (L.A. Rampart division). Also when said officers are off duty, they are that OFF DUITY. Meaning they are now citizens, not police officers. However that doesn’t seem to mater. That is a bunch of junk. Also when a police officer retires, they are no longer part of the police department. Why are they special? I know for a fact there are a lot of cops out there that can not shoot as well as I can. So it can not be because they are “trained” to shoot. This is the major part of the discrimination charge put forth earlier.
There is another issue with this. The same damn issue I had with the thune amendment. It’s called state’s rights and that pesky 10th amendment of the constitution. “The 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.” Oops canceled carry is not directly mention in the constitution. That “bill of negative rights” as obama called it. That alone stops all this crap.
Another issue, the military factor. Ever hear of The Posse Comitatus Act? If not then this is generally what it’s all about. “The statute generally prohibits federal military personnel and units of the National Guard under federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress. The Coast Guard is exempt from the Act during peacetime.” Basically the military is not allowed to act as law enforcement here in The USA. Unless the president waves The Posse Comitatus Act short term.”
By now you are probably asking what the hell is he talking about. Well here is the bill: To amend title 18, United States Code, to improve the provisions relating to the carrying of concealed weapons by law enforcement officers, and for other purposes. Introduced Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act Improvements Act of 2009 – Amends the federal criminal code to:
(1) expand the definition of “law enforcement officers,” for purposes of provisions authorizing such officers to carry concealed weapons, to include current and retired law enforcement officers of the Amtrak Police Department, the Federal Reserve System, the executive branch, and the Armed Forces;
(2) allow law enforcement officers who are retired or who separated in good standing after at least ten years of service to carry a concealed weapon; and
(3) expand the categories of law enforcement officers authorized to possess a fireman in a school zone to include retired law enforcement officers.”
There you go the holy crap act of 2009-2010. Basically if you are not one of the above you and your second amendment rights do not matter. Call me paranoid, but, I can see this act passing and it being used as sledge hammer to take away our rights to keep and bare arms. Am I anti military. HELL no. My brother is active duty Army. And I am very pro military. Tell your elected official to vote against the BS bill.

The Supreme Court finally rules on the side of the constitution and common sense

This should be a no brainier. Apparently a lot of people have no brains. I guess you go after the big pockets.


Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Case Against Gun Maker


NEWTOWN, Conn. — The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed Beretta U.S.A. and the firearms industry another victory by rejecting the Brady Center’s appeal of Adames v. Beretta U.S.A. Corporation challenging the constitutionality of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).

The PLCAA is the 2005 federal law passed by Congress in response to the flood of reckless lawsuits brought by the Brady Center on behalf of anti-gun mayors seeking to hold members of the firearms industry liable for the criminal or unlawful misuse of their products.


This is now the third time this year the Supreme Court has denied a challenge to the PLCAA backed by the Brady Center. In March 2009, the Brady Center was also involved in the appeals of Lawson v. Beretta and City of New York v. Beretta, both of which the Supreme Court refused to hear. Monday’s Supreme Court decision in the Adames case is another stinging setback to the Brady Center’s failed anti-gun political agenda to destroy the individual right of Americans to keep and bear arms — a right the Supreme Court declared last year in Heller was protected by the Second Amendment.


The Adames lawsuit was filed by the Brady Center on behalf of a family seeking to hold Beretta responsible for the tragic shooting death of their son, caused solely by the criminal acts of a teenage boy who gained unauthorized access to his father’s unsecured service pistol. The case was originally dismissed by a Chicago trial court, subsequently reinstated in part by the Illinois Court of Appeals, and then ultimately found to be barred under the PLCAA by the Illinois Supreme Court. By its decision yesterday, the Supreme Court found it unnecessary to consider the Illinois Supreme Court’s well-reasoned decision that held the PLCAA was both constitutional and clearly applicable to this lawsuit.


Representing Beretta in the case was Craig Livingston of the Livingston Law Firm, who after being notified of the Supreme Court’s rejection of the appeal remarked, “And so ends a long legal battle — from the trial court in Chicago, through the Illinois appellate courts, and all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court — which served only to confirm what has been known since May 5, 2001, namely that this tragic shooting death was caused not by any defect in a Cook County Corrections Officer’s Beretta pistol, but rather by its reckless misuse on that fateful day by his teenage son.”


Lawrence G. Keane, senior vice president and general counsel of the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the trade association for the firearms industry, applauded yesterday’s Supreme Court rejection of the Brady Center’s appeal, stating, “Frivolous and unsupported lawsuits such as Adames that attempt to force manufacturers of firearms to pay for the crimes of others over whom they have no control are precisely what the PLCAA is designed to stop.”

PLEASE excuse the foul language in this Post. Swiss GUN laws should be America’s Law’s!

WARNING: If foul language offends you PLEASE leave an come back later for our next post! If not then scroll down to read.






All of you anti gun Nazi’s and panic creating firearm haters need to SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!!!!!!!


Switzerland has the lowest crime rate in ALL of Europe. Why? Every single swiss citizen is required BY LAW to keep their government supplied firearm and ammunition. News to you? Well it sure was to me. The reasoning? One of them is so the Swiss government can provide a military to support and protect it’s citizens and homeland. By the way in 24-48 hours the Swiss can have a standing army that will rival any in the whole of Europe.


The below video proves all this out. I am so sick of the whinny week kneed pussies who are saying guns cauise crime or whatever BOLD FACE LIE they come up with. We got the proof. So tell the anti gunners to go shove it up their ASS.

Attorney General Holder Reveals Aggressive Illegal Unconstitutional Gun Control In Response to Ft. Hood Terror Attack

This is the shit we have been warning you about. None of this plan is legal or constitutional. And this is something the NRA should be railing about. However seeing as this came out on the 18th they seem to be OK with it.

WASHINGTON — Before the Senate Judiciary Committee on November 18, Attorney General Eric Holder revealed a stunningly broad and aggressive anti-gun agenda, according to a release from the Law Enforcement Alliance of America (www.LEAA.org).

“The President of the United States asked that politicians not use the Ft. Hood attack to engage in ‘political theater.’ It appears those committed to attacking gun owners and the Second Amendment simply can’t help themselves and are engaged in blaming guns and gun owners on the heels of this terrorist attack. Sadly it looks like ‘politics as usual,’” said LEAA’s spokesperson, Ted Deeds.

After explaining and defending his decision to give enemy combatants constitutional protections and the right to public trial in civilian courts, Attorney General Holder revealed his support for a national gun owner registration scheme and authorizing the government to ban firearm possession for any person by merely adding that person’s name to the terror watch list.

The LEAA said that Holder wants new federal authority to prohibit any person on the federal watch list (reported to be 400,000 names) from buying guns and supports confiscating guns from those on the list who possess them.

LEAA’s Executive Director Jim Fotis said, “Those behind the badge don’t believe more restrictions on honest gun owners is a reasonable, practical or constitutional response to acts of terrorism. As a retired officer, I know that America’s men and women in blue want to fight terrorism, to stop terrorists; not waste time keeping records on innocent gun owners.”

Beware of NRA ( National Riffle Association ) bait and switch scams

NRA favorite, U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) has joined Representative Carolyn McCarthy, one of the countries most ardent gun control supporters.

Why is this important? Because the NRA bent over backwards to put Gillibrand in office. Proving once again that an NRA endorsement only means one thing, “beware”.

And lets not forget Freudenthal and the NRA.

This “tit for tat” strategy by the NRA has become part of the problem in Washington. Instead of changing the political machine the NRA has become part of the dysfunctional chaos.

We must no longer compromise the Bill of Rights. To understand how this mentality has infected Wyoming, earlier this year in a discussion of concealed-carry legislation in Wyoming, Matthew Huntington from Gadsden Legal and Mark Spungin from the state level NRA group WSSA, both left me with the impression that it was perfectly acceptable to support legislation that has a “disarm the citizens” clause. For the record the NRA regularly supports legislation like this as well.
“…inform the peace officer that he is carrying a concealed deadly weapon…The peace officer may secure the concealed deadly weapon, or direct that it be secured, during the duration of the contact between the person and the peace officer…”
Since almost every gun rights case has been won because of the fourth amendment – Why would anyone support legislation that would give up fourth and fifth amendment rights?

More important, once you give up your right to say no or nothing at all, you loose!

No more must we give in to this stupidity. In the words of Gun Owners of America, Larry Pratt – “When we politically compromise…no matter how insignificant it may appear to be, we have abdicated our responsibilities. Abdication is the work for surrendering our principles legislatively. Honor binds us to resist with all our might.”

For the sake of liberty, the Bill of Rights must stand intact and we must not compromise on its principles. All legislation must pass through this “eye of the needle”

Further proof the NRA National Riffle Association are a group of liars, cheats, and thieves.

If you are a firearm owner and supporter and this doesn’t piss you off nothing will. NRA members need to leave that crocked group. We try not to use foul language in this blog. But, this video makes me so mad I could spit bullets. Please forgive the pun.

The evidence seems to be presented in the video that the NRA is playing politics, abandoning their no compromise policy. You be the judge.


Now Personally I take several types of anti depressants to help me sleep because of massive insomnia. I have for more then half my life. Let them try to say I am a danger because of that and try to take my guns. They will then see what dangerous really is. By the way this bill is completely unconstitutional and thus not legal. Because of that anyone trying to take my guns and ammo are attempting to steal from me. And thus I will respond with deadly force.

obama violates federal law again as far as the cdc doing guns and ammo research, violating a law passed by congress decades ago

For a decade, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has been forbidden by Congress from doing research on gun-control issues. Such piddling hurdles as federal law don’t matter to the Obama administration.

With a wave of a hand, the CDC has simply redefined gun-control research so the ban no longer applies. They’re not researching guns; they’re researching alcohol sales and their impact on gun violence, or researching how teens carrying guns affect the rates of non-gun injuries. “These particular grants do not address gun control; rather they deal with the surrounding web of circumstances,” wrote National Institutes of Health (NIH) spokesman Don Ralbovsky.

Gun-control advocates claim that banning the CDC from examining gun control amounts to a gag order on science. After all, what can be wrong with further scientific inquiry? But the issue isn’t about scientific inquiry. It is whether government resources should be used to promote an ideological agenda.

Take the Obama administration’s justification for its new gun research. “Gun-related violence is a public health problem – it diverts considerable health care resources away from other problems and, therefore, is of interest to NIH,” wrote the agency spokesman in an e-mail responding to questions from Republican members of Congress about new grants the CDC is giving out. The statement assumes the conclusion of the research before the first study is done.

The research on right-to-carry laws illustrates the problem with the CDC. Dozens of refereed academic studies by economists and criminologists using national data have been published in journals. While the vast majority of those studies find that right-to-carry laws save lives and reduce harm to victims, some studies claim that the laws have no statistically significant effect. But most tellingly, there is not a single published refereed academic study by a criminologist or economist showing a bad effect from these laws.

Look at the refereed academic research on laws that require people to lock up their guns in their homes. The number of accidental gun deaths and suicides of children remain unchanged, but the number of murders and other crimes rises. This is not too surprising as the locks make it more difficult for potential victims to quickly obtain a gun for protection, hence criminals are less likely to be deterred. Accidental gun deaths aren’t affected because most involve guns fired by adults with criminal records.

The research on guns that the CDC conducted before the ban – and that “public health” advocates continue to produce – is a joke. The statistical methods to research people’s behavior, such as criminal activity, are different from methods used to evaluate drug efficacy, where controlled experiments can be done.

In drug studies, patients don’t determine who gets the real drug and who gets the placebo. In real life, gun ownership isn’t assigned randomly. People who are more likely to be victims are more likely to own guns. They may still be more likely to be victims even after getting a gun, but are much less likely to be a victim than they would have been if they had never gotten one.

The CDC’s brazen end run around restrictions on gun-control research is hardly surprising given that when President Obama served on the board of the Joyce Foundation, it was the largest private funder of gun-ban research in the country. Now he has the resources of the whole federal government.

First we’ll get the half-baked studies followed by fawning press coverage. Then Democratic politicians and activists will pretend the gun restrictions they’ve always wanted were spurred by the new government research.

Some States launch boycott of ‘unconstitutional’ federal laws

By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Tennessee is urging 49 other states to come together and create a “joint working group between the states” to combat unconstitutional federal legislation and assert state rights.

Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen signed HJR 108, the State Sovereignty Resolution on June 23. According to the Tenth Amendment Center, the resolution created a committee to form a joint working group between the states to enumerate the abuses of authority by the federal government and seek repeal of imposed mandates.

State Rep. Susan Lynn recently wrote a letter to the other 49 state legislatures, inviting them to join the group and warning that the role of the federal government has been “blurred, bent and breached.”

“The national government has become a complex system of programs whose purposes lie outside of the responsibilities of the enumerated powers and of securing our natural rights; programs that benefit some while others must pay,” Lynn wrote. “Today, the federal government seeks to control the salaries of those employed by private business, to change the provisions of private of contracts, to nationalize banks, insurers and auto manufacturers, and to dictate to every person in the land what his or her medical choices will be.”

She continued, “Forcing property from employers to provide healthcare, legislating what individuals are and are not entitled to, and using the labor of some so that others can receive money that they did not earn goes far beyond securing natural rights, and the enumerated powers in the Constitution.”

Lynn said that the people created the federal government to be their agent only for certain enumerated purposes.

“The Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that which has been delegated by the people to the federal government, and also that which is absolutely necessary to advancing those powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution of the United States,” she wrote. “The rest is to be handled by the state governments, or locally, by the people themselves.”

She noted that the Constitution does not include a congressional power to override state laws, nor does it give the judicial branch unlimited jurisdiction over all matters. Attempts to include such provisions in the Constitution were rejected by the Founding Fathers.

“With this in mind,” she wrote, “any federal attempt to legislate beyond the Constitutional limits of Congress’ authority is a usurpation of state sovereignty – and unconstitutional. Governments and political leaders are best held accountable to the will of the people when government is local. The people of a state know what is best for them; authorities, potentially thousands of miles away, governing their lives is opposed to the very notion of freedom.”

(Story continues below)

In one example of Tennessee’s battle against federal government policies, federal gun regulators wrote to gun dealers around Tennessee in July, dropping the hammer on a state law that exempts weapons made, sold and used inside the state from interstate regulations.

The letter was distributed to holders of Federal Firearms Licenses.

In it, Carson W. Carroll, the assistant director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, told dealers the Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act, adopted this year, “purports to exempt personal firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition manufactured in the state, and which remain in the state, from most federal firearms laws and regulations.”

The exemption is not right, the federal agency letter contends.

More recently, the state of Montana filed a lawsuit against U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder seeking a court order that the federal government stay out of the way of Montana’s management
of its own firearms.

As WND reported, the action was filed by the Second Amendment Foundation and the Montana Shooting Sports Association in U.S. District Court in Missoula, Mont., to validate the principles and terms of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act, which took effect Oct. 3.

The law provides guns and ammo made, sold and used in Montana would not require any federal forms; silencers made and sold in Montana would be fully legal and not registered; and there would be no firearm registration, serial numbers, criminal records check, waiting periods or paperwork required.

The idea is spreading quickly. Similar plans have been introduced in many other states.

Montana’s plan is called “An Act exempting from federal regulation under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution of the United States a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured and retained in Montana.”

The law cites the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that guarantees to the states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in the Constitution and reserves to the state and people of Montana certain powers as they were understood at the time it was admitted to statehood in 1889.

“The guaranty of those powers is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889,” the law states.

The lead attorney for the plaintiffs’ litigation team is Quentin Rhodes of the Missoula firm of Sullivan, Tabaracci & Rhoades, PC. The team includes other attorneys working in Montana, New York, Florida, Arizona and Washington.

“We’re happy to join this lawsuit,” said Alan Gottlieb, founder of the SAF, “because we believe this issue should be decided by the courts.

“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,” added MSSA President Gary Marbut. “The Montana Legislature and governor agreed with us by enacting the MFFA. We welcome the support of many other states that are stepping up to the plate with their own firearms freedom acts.”

Max Baucus has something to say to gun owners: “Own a gun; lose your coverage!”

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus has something to say to gun owners: “Own a gun; lose your coverage!”

Baucus’ socialized health care bill comes up for a Finance Committee vote on Tuesday. We have waited and waited and waited for the shifty Baucus to release legislative language. But he has refused to release anything but a summary — and we will never have a Congressional Budget Office cost assessment based on actual legislation. Even the summary was kept secret for a long time.

But, on the basis of the summary, the Baucus bill (which is still unnumbered) tells us virtually nothing about what kind of policy Americans will be required to purchase under penalty of law — nor the consequences.


It simply says:

• all U.S. citizens and legal residents would be required to purchase coverage through (1) the individual market;


• individuals would be required to report on their federal income tax return the months for which they maintain the required minimum health coverage


• in addition to an extensive list of statutorily mandated coverage, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius would be empowered to “define and update the categories of treatments, items, and services within an insurance plan which would be covered in a policy constituting “required minimum health coverage.

ObamaCare and Gun Control
It is nearly certain that coverage prescribed by the administration will, to control costs, exclude coverage for what it regards as excessively dangerous activities. And, given Sebelius’ well-established antipathy to the Second Amendment — she vetoed concealed carry legislation as governor of Kansas — we presume she will define these dangerous activities to include hunting and self-defense using a firearm. It is even possible that the Obama-prescribed policy could preclude reimbursement of any kind in a household which keeps a loaded firearm for self-defense.

The ObamaCare bill already contains language that will punish Americans who engage in unhealthy behavior by allowing insurers to charge them higher insurance premiums. (What constitutes an unhealthy lifestyle is, of course, to be defined by legislators.) Don’t be surprised if an anti-gun nut like Sebelius uses this line of thinking to impose ObamaCare policies which result in a back-door gun ban on any American who owns “dangerous” firearms.

After all, insurers already (and routinely) drop homeowners from their policies for owning certain types of guns or for refusing to use trigger locks (that is, for keeping their guns ready for self-defense!). While not all insurers practice this anti-gun behavior, Gun Owners of America has documented that some do — Prudential and State Farm being two of the most well-known.

The good news is that because homeowner insurance is private (and is still subject to the free market) you can go to another company if one drops you. But what are you going to do under nationalized ObamaCare when the regulations written by Secretary Sebelius suspend the applicability of your government-mandated policy because of your gun ownership?

All of this is in addition to something that GOA has been warning you about for several months … the certainty that minimum acceptable policies will dump your gun information into a federal database … a certainty that is reinforced by language in the summary providing for a study to “encourage increased meaningful use of electronic health records.”

Remember, the federal government has already denied more than 150,000 military veterans the right to own guns, without their being convicted of a crime or receiving any due process of law. They were denied because of medical information (such as PTSD) that the FBI later determined disqualified these veterans to own guns.

Is this what we need on a national level being applied to every gun owner in America?

Incidentally, failure to comply would subject the average family to $1,500 in fines — and possibly more for a household with older teens. And, although a Schumer amendment purports to exempt Americans from prison sentences for non-purchase of an ObamaPolicy — something which was never at issue — it doesn’t prohibit them from being sent to prison for a year and fined an additional $25,000 under the Internal Revenue Code for non-payment of the initial fines.