MSSA v. Holder - Revision history

DavidB4-bot: clean up & uniformity

2016-06-27T06:31:18Z

clean up & uniformity

JDano: clarify

2016-04-22T13:31:27Z

clarify

JDano: clean up

2016-04-22T13:17:47Z

clean up

TheAmericanRedoubt at 18:25, January 13, 2015

2015-01-13T18:25:58Z

TheAmericanRedoubt: Response to AugustO/Wschact's continued Deletion of specific Conservative Categories/content and Links to Conservative States' Rights Organization

2015-01-13T14:27:45Z

Response to AugustO/Wschact's continued Deletion of specific Conservative Categories/content and Links to Conservative States' Rights Organization

TheAmericanRedoubt at 14:10, January 3, 2015

2015-01-03T14:10:35Z

TheAmericanRedoubt at 14:10, January 3, 2015

2015-01-03T14:10:23Z

Aschlafly: important case

2010-02-14T15:49:53Z

important case

New page

In ''MSSA v. Holder'', the Montana Shooting Sports Association (MSSA) and the Second Amendment Foundation are suing in federal court to obtain a ruling in favor of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act (MFFA), which the Montana Legislature passed in 2009.<ref>http://firearmsfreedomact.com/2009/11/04/mffa-lawsuit-amici-sought/</ref>

Legislation similar to the MFFA has become law in Tennessee, and has been introduced in Alaska, Texas, Florida, South Carolina, Minnesota, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Ohio.

This is part of a national movement to assert states rights in favor of the basic right of self-defense.<ref>http://FirearmsFreedomAct.com</ref>

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:Second Amendment]]

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 Legislation similar to the MFFA attempted to regulated intrastate sales of firearms in [[Tennessee]], and has been introduced in [[Alaska]], [[Texas]], [[Florida]], [[South Carolina]], [[Minnesota]], [[Michigan]], [[Pennsylvania]] and [[Ohio]].
-This is part of an effort to test a legal theory about [[states' rights]] in the context of federal regulation of firearms. <ref>http://FirearmsFreedomAct.com</ref>  The hope was that firearms could be manufactured in a state with subsequent sales confined to that state in a manner that would escape federal laws.  The government claimed that such sales would have an impact on the interstate market for firearms.  The MSSA lost in Federal District court on September 29, 2010, and the MSSA appealed to the Ninth Circuit which decided against them on on August 23, 2013. The 3 judge panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled that Montana could regulate the manufacture of firearms, but that the subsequent sale of those firearms is subject to federal regulation. The MFFA claimed to exempt the manufacture and intrastate sales of firearms from federal regulation, and the Ninth Circuit found that provision invalid on its face.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2013/08/23/10-36094.pdf|title=Opinion|work=Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals|date=August 23, 2013|format=PDF|accessdate=April 22,2016}}</ref>  The Supreme Court later denied certiorari leaving a clear precedent that would apply to subsequent laws of this type.
+This is part of an effort to test a legal theory about [[states' rights]] in the context of federal regulation of firearms.<ref>http://FirearmsFreedomAct.com</ref>  The hope was that firearms could be manufactured in a state with subsequent sales confined to that state in a manner that would escape federal laws.  The government claimed that such sales would have an impact on the interstate market for firearms.  The MSSA lost in Federal District court on September 29, 2010, and the MSSA appealed to the Ninth Circuit which decided against them on on August 23, 2013. The 3 judge panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled that Montana could regulate the manufacture of firearms, but that the subsequent sale of those firearms is subject to federal regulation. The MFFA claimed to exempt the manufacture and intrastate sales of firearms from federal regulation, and the Ninth Circuit found that provision invalid on its face.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2013/08/23/10-36094.pdf|title=Opinion|work=Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals|date=August 23, 2013|format=PDF|accessdate=April 22, 2016}}</ref>  The Supreme Court later denied certiorari leaving a clear precedent that would apply to subsequent laws of this type.
 ==See also==
@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
 <references/>
-[[Category : Tenth Amendment]]
+[[Category:Tenth Amendment]]
-[[Category : Second Amendment]]
+[[Category:Second Amendment]]

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 Legislation similar to the MFFA attempted to regulated intrastate sales of firearms in [[Tennessee]], and has been introduced in [[Alaska]], [[Texas]], [[Florida]], [[South Carolina]], [[Minnesota]], [[Michigan]], [[Pennsylvania]] and [[Ohio]].
-This is part of an effort to test a legal theory about [[states' rights]] in the context of federal regulation of firearms. <ref>http://FirearmsFreedomAct.com</ref>  The hope was that firearms could be manufactured in a state with subsequent sales confined to that state in a manner that would escape federal laws.  The government claimed that such sales would have an impact on the interstate market for firearms.  The MSSA lost in Federal District court on September 29, 2010, and the MSSA appealed to the Ninth Circuit which decided against them on on August 23, 2013. The 3 judge panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled that Montana could regulate the manufacture of firearms, but that the subsequent sale of those firearms is subject to federal regulation. <ref>{{cite web|url=http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2013/08/23/10-36094.pdf|title=Opinion|work=Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals|date=August 23, 2013|format=PDF|accessdate=April 22,2016}}</ref>  The Supreme Court later denied certiorari leaving a clear precedent that would apply to subsequent laws of this type.
+This is part of an effort to test a legal theory about [[states' rights]] in the context of federal regulation of firearms. <ref>http://FirearmsFreedomAct.com</ref>  The hope was that firearms could be manufactured in a state with subsequent sales confined to that state in a manner that would escape federal laws.  The government claimed that such sales would have an impact on the interstate market for firearms.  The MSSA lost in Federal District court on September 29, 2010, and the MSSA appealed to the Ninth Circuit which decided against them on on August 23, 2013. The 3 judge panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled that Montana could regulate the manufacture of firearms, but that the subsequent sale of those firearms is subject to federal regulation. The MFFA claimed to exempt the manufacture and intrastate sales of firearms from federal regulation, and the Ninth Circuit found that provision invalid on its face.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2013/08/23/10-36094.pdf|title=Opinion|work=Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals|date=August 23, 2013|format=PDF|accessdate=April 22,2016}}</ref>  The Supreme Court later denied certiorari leaving a clear precedent that would apply to subsequent laws of this type.
 ==See also==

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-In ''MSSA v. Holder'', the [[Montana Shooting Sports Association]] (MSSA) and the [[Second Amendment Foundation]] are suing in federal court to obtain a ruling in favor of the [[Montana Firearms Freedom Act]] (MFFA), which the [[Montana]] Legislature passed in 2009.<ref>http://firearmsfreedomact.com/2009/11/04/mffa-lawsuit-amici-sought/</ref>
+In ''MSSA v. Holder'', the Montana Shooting Sports Association (MSSA) and the [[Second Amendment Foundation]] was a federal court case that reaffirmed that the interstate commerce clause allowed the Congress to pass laws regulating the manufacture and sale of firearms even if the individual transaction occurred within just one state.  The courts invalidated  the Montana Firearms Freedom Act (MFFA), which the [[Montana]] Legislature passed in 2009.<ref>http://firearmsfreedomact.com/2009/11/04/mffa-lawsuit-amici-sought/</ref>
-Legislation similar to the MFFA has become law in [[Tennessee]], and has been introduced in [[Alaska]], [[Texas]], [[Florida]], [[South Carolina]], [[Minnesota]], [[Michigan]], [[Pennsylvania]] and [[Ohio]].
+Legislation similar to the MFFA attempted to regulated intrastate sales of firearms in [[Tennessee]], and has been introduced in [[Alaska]], [[Texas]], [[Florida]], [[South Carolina]], [[Minnesota]], [[Michigan]], [[Pennsylvania]] and [[Ohio]].
-This is part of a national movement to assert [[states' rights]] in favor of the basic [[unalienable right|unalienable rights]] of [[self-defense]] and [[home security]].<ref>http://FirearmsFreedomAct.com</ref>
+This is part of an effort to test a legal theory about [[states' rights]] in the context of federal regulation of firearms. <ref>http://FirearmsFreedomAct.com</ref>  The hope was that firearms could be manufactured in a state with subsequent sales confined to that state in a manner that would escape federal laws.  The government claimed that such sales would have an impact on the interstate market for firearms.  The MSSA lost in Federal District court on September 29, 2010, and the MSSA appealed to the Ninth Circuit which decided against them on on August 23, 2013. The 3 judge panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled that Montana could regulate the manufacture of firearms, but that the subsequent sale of those firearms is subject to federal regulation. <ref>{{cite web|url=http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2013/08/23/10-36094.pdf|title=Opinion|work=Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals|date=August 23, 2013|format=PDF|accessdate=April 22,2016}}</ref>  The Supreme Court later denied certiorari leaving a clear precedent that would apply to subsequent laws of this type.
-==See Also==
+==See also==
 * [[Federalism]]
 * [[McCulloch v. Maryland]]
-* [[Tenth Amendment]] and [[Tenth Amendment Center]]
+* [[Tenth Amendment]]
 * [[Second Amendment]]
 * [[Commerce Clause]]
@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 * [[Local government]]
 == References ==
@@ Line 32: / Line 22: @@
 [[Category : Tenth Amendment]]
 [[Category : Second Amendment]]

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 This is part of a national movement to assert [[states' rights]] in favor of the basic [[unalienable right|unalienable rights]] of [[self-defense]] and [[home security]].<ref>http://FirearmsFreedomAct.com</ref>
-=See Also==
+==See Also==
 * [[Federalism]]
 * [[McCulloch v. Maryland]]
@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 * [[Local government]]
-==Further Reading==
+==Bibliography - Further Reading==
 * Kilpatrick, James J., [http://sovereignstates.org/books/The_Sovereign_States/SovereignStates.html ''The Sovereign States: Notes of a Citizen of Virginia'']. [[Chicago]]: Henry Regnery Company, 1957); [[Conservative]] pro-states' rights book
-* [[Boston T. Party|Party, Boston T.]], [[Molon Labe!]]. [[Wyoming]] [[American Redoubt]] [[Javelin Press]], 30 January 2004, 454 pp (first edition, paperback), ISBN 1-888766-07-7 - Conservative [[Christian]] [[Libertarian]] [[dystopian]] fiction novel entirely based around the issue of States' rights and the Tenth Amendment's connection with the Second Amendment right to [[firearms|armed]] [[citizen]] defense against federal [[tyranny]].
+* [[Boston T. Party|Party, Boston T.]], ''[[Boston's Gun Bible]]''. [[Wyoming]] [[American Redoubt]] [[Javelin Press]], 2008. Contains several chapters related to the BATF, with many references and discussions of the BATF, Waco and Ruby Ridge.
 ==External Links==

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 This is part of a national movement to assert [[states' rights]] in favor of the basic [[unalienable right|unalienable rights]] of [[self-defense]] and [[home security]].<ref>http://FirearmsFreedomAct.com</ref>
 == References ==
 <references/>
-[[Category:Second Amendment]]
+[[Category : Tenth Amendment]]
-[[Category:Montana]]
+[[Category : Second Amendment]]
-[[Category:American Redoubt]]
+[[Category : Pro Second Amendment]]