Gun makers in Montana?

General » General Discussion

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Gun makers in Montana?

Posted: 5/7/2009 11:12:19 AM EDT

Curiousity is getting to me.

Posted: 5/7/2009 11:16:13 AM EDT

[#1]

Sonju Industrial makes AR-15 stripped lower receivers.

Posted: 5/7/2009 11:17:36 AM EDT

[#2]

Does every part of the gun have to be made in Montana or just the receiver?

Posted: 5/7/2009 11:28:05 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:

Does every part of the gun have to be made in Montana or just the receiver?

Not sure, but good question. We need a test case whenever an AWB does occur.

BUT the ATF does consider the stripped receiver of an AR15 to be the only "firearm" part, so maybe that's the only part? Hmm...

Posted: 5/7/2009 11:35:44 AM EDT

[#4]

Don't worry. None of this will actually come to pass as intended. If it does, don't expect it to last long.

SCOTUS has already held that it violates the interstate commerce clause. By not buying products from another state, especially as a matter of statute, you infringe upon the other state's products and therefore violate interstate commerce.

Posted: 5/7/2009 11:36:14 AM EDT

[#5]

Cooper Arms
Axtel Firearms
C. Sharps
Shiloh Sharps

those are just the ones I am familiar with, even though I know there are others

Posted: 5/7/2009 11:36:39 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
SCOTUS has already held that it violates the interstate commerce clause. By not buying products from another state, especially as a matter of statute, you infringe upon the other state's products and therefore violate interstate commerce.

Which is complete bullshit and not what the founding fathers intended.

Posted: 5/7/2009 11:37:39 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:

Quoted:
SCOTUS has already held that it violates the interstate commerce clause. By not buying products from another state, especially as a matter of statute, you infringe upon the other state's products and therefore violate interstate commerce.

Which is complete bullshit and not what the founding fathers intended.

My friend, if it was about what the Founding Father's intended......we wouldn't need states like Montana and Texas to pass these laws.

Posted: 5/7/2009 11:39:25 AM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
Don't worry. None of this will actually come to pass as intended. If it does, don't expect it to last long.

SCOTUS has already held that it violates the interstate commerce clause. By not buying products from another state, especially as a matter of statute, you infringe upon the other state's products and therefore violate interstate commerce.

How does that have anything to do with no regulation on MT made guns? As a resident, you can still buy guns made in other states, they are just subject to Fed laws. MT made guns that stay in MT are not subject to Fed laws. It does NOT infringe on other state's products.

Posted: 5/7/2009 11:46:09 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
Don't worry. None of this will actually come to pass as intended. If it does, don't expect it to last long.

SCOTUS has already held that it violates the interstate commerce clause. By not buying products from another state, especially as a matter of statute, you infringe upon the other state's products and therefore violate interstate commerce.

Interstate commerce is the condition that allows federal control.
You get around it by doing what Montana has done and Texas is getting ready to do.
The reason the government controls firearms is because of interstate commerce. It is how the Feds got their
noses into everything. If something is made in a state and is not sold to any other states and does not leave the
boundries of that state, it does not fall under federal control, only state control. It takes interstate commerce out of
the equation.

Therefore a company can make a machinegun in Montana and if that company does not ship to any other state
the feds cannot control it nor can they apply any laws to it or the owner as long as they stay in Montana.

Posted: 5/7/2009 12:13:41 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Don't worry. None of this will actually come to pass as intended. If it does, don't expect it to last long.

SCOTUS has already held that it violates the interstate commerce clause. By not buying products from another state, especially as a matter of statute, you infringe upon the other state's products and therefore violate interstate commerce.

Interstate commerce is the condition that allows federal control.
You get around it by doing what Montana has done and Texas is getting ready to do.
The reason the government controls firearms is because of interstate commerce. It is how the Feds got their
noses into everything. If something is made in a state and is not sold to any other states and does not leave the
boundries of that state, it does not fall under federal control, only state control. It takes interstate commerce out of
the equation.

Therefore a company can make a machinegun in Montana and if that company does not ship to any other state
the feds cannot control it nor can they apply any laws to it or the owner as long as they stay in Montana.

You're absolutely right, but it will never work out that way.

Posted: 5/7/2009 12:20:42 PM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Don't worry. None of this will actually come to pass as intended. If it does, don't expect it to last long.

SCOTUS has already held that it violates the interstate commerce clause. By not buying products from another state, especially as a matter of statute, you infringe upon the other state's products and therefore violate interstate commerce.

Interstate commerce is the condition that allows federal control.
You get around it by doing what Montana has done and Texas is getting ready to do.
The reason the government controls firearms is because of interstate commerce. It is how the Feds got their
noses into everything. If something is made in a state and is not sold to any other states and does not leave the
boundries of that state, it does not fall under federal control, only state control. It takes interstate commerce out of
the equation.

Therefore a company can make a machinegun in Montana and if that company does not ship to any other state
the feds cannot control it nor can they apply any laws to it or the owner as long as they stay in Montana.

You're absolutely right, but it will never work out that way.

Gotta think positive!!!!

Posted: 5/7/2009 5:08:18 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Don't worry. None of this will actually come to pass as intended. If it does, don't expect it to last long.

SCOTUS has already held that it violates the interstate commerce clause. By not buying products from another state, especially as a matter of statute, you infringe upon the other state's products and therefore violate interstate commerce.

Interstate commerce is the condition that allows federal control.
You get around it by doing what Montana has done and Texas is getting ready to do.
The reason the government controls firearms is because of interstate commerce. It is how the Feds got their
noses into everything. If something is made in a state and is not sold to any other states and does not leave the
boundries of that state, it does not fall under federal control, only state control. It takes interstate commerce out of
the equation.

Therefore a company can make a machinegun in Montana and if that company does not ship to any other state
the feds cannot control it nor can they apply any laws to it or the owner as long as they stay in Montana.

You're absolutely right, but it will never work out that way.

Gotta think positive!!!!

SCOTUS has held that by restricting sale and use to within the state, you are limiting the interstate commerce of items made without the state. (see Gonzales v. Raich which held that Congress "could have rationally concluded that the aggregate impact on the national market of all the transactions exempted from federal supervision is unquestionably substantial." )

In addition, they have established that even the usage of raw material, electricity, machinery, etc., allows federal control under interstate commerce (see Katzenbach v.McClung)

There are several other applicable instances, Wickard v.Filburn not withstanding.

Posted: 5/7/2009 5:21:15 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Don't worry. None of this will actually come to pass as intended. If it does, don't expect it to last long.

SCOTUS has already held that it violates the interstate commerce clause. By not buying products from another state, especially as a matter of statute, you infringe upon the other state's products and therefore violate interstate commerce.

Interstate commerce is the condition that allows federal control.
You get around it by doing what Montana has done and Texas is getting ready to do.
The reason the government controls firearms is because of interstate commerce. It is how the Feds got their
noses into everything. If something is made in a state and is not sold to any other states and does not leave the
boundries of that state, it does not fall under federal control, only state control. It takes interstate commerce out of
the equation.

Therefore a company can make a machinegun in Montana and if that company does not ship to any other state
the feds cannot control it nor can they apply any laws to it or the owner as long as they stay in Montana.

You're absolutely right, but it will never work out that way.

I think MT, and TX already know that. And TN and OK will probably not be far behind. Thing is I believe these states will push for sucession if the feds insist on fucking them. It would be easier for the fed if it was just MT, then it would seem more like an isolated incident. Other states look to be right there with them. So the plot thickens.

Posted: 5/7/2009 5:26:51 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Don't worry. None of this will actually come to pass as intended. If it does, don't expect it to last long.

SCOTUS has already held that it violates the interstate commerce clause. By not buying products from another state, especially as a matter of statute, you infringe upon the other state's products and therefore violate interstate commerce.

Interstate commerce is the condition that allows federal control.
You get around it by doing what Montana has done and Texas is getting ready to do.
The reason the government controls firearms is because of interstate commerce. It is how the Feds got their
noses into everything. If something is made in a state and is not sold to any other states and does not leave the
boundries of that state, it does not fall under federal control, only state control. It takes interstate commerce out of
the equation.

Therefore a company can make a machinegun in Montana and if that company does not ship to any other state
the feds cannot control it nor can they apply any laws to it or the owner as long as they stay in Montana.

You're absolutely right, but it will never work out that way.

I think MT, and TX already know that. And TN and OK will probably not be far behind. Thing is I believe these states will push for sucession if the feds insist on fucking them. It would be easier for the fed if it was just MT, then it would seem more like an isolated incident. Other states look to be right there with them. So the plot thickens.

I think you're 100% right and this is the intent of all the state sovereignty bills.

When I was studying Con Law, Wickard v. Filburn really angered me. Lets not even get into Eminent Domain.

Posted: 5/7/2009 5:30:51 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Don't worry. None of this will actually come to pass as intended. If it does, don't expect it to last long.

SCOTUS has already held that it violates the interstate commerce clause. By not buying products from another state, especially as a matter of statute, you infringe upon the other state's products and therefore violate interstate commerce.

Interstate commerce is the condition that allows federal control.
You get around it by doing what Montana has done and Texas is getting ready to do.
The reason the government controls firearms is because of interstate commerce. It is how the Feds got their
noses into everything. If something is made in a state and is not sold to any other states and does not leave the
boundries of that state, it does not fall under federal control, only state control. It takes interstate commerce out of
the equation.

Therefore a company can make a machinegun in Montana and if that company does not ship to any other state
the feds cannot control it nor can they apply any laws to it or the owner as long as they stay in Montana.

Firearms that fire more than one round per trigger depression are excluded from this bill.

Section 5. Exceptions. [Section 4] does not apply to:
(1) A firearm that cannot be carried and used by one person;
(2) A firearm that has a bore diameter greater than 1 1/2 inches and that uses smokeless powder, not black powder, as a propellant;
(3) ammunition with a projectile that explodes using an explosion of chemical energy after the projectile leaves the firearm; or
(4) a firearm that discharges two or more projectiles with one activation of the trigger or other firing device.
Section 6. Marketing of firearms. A firearm manufactured or sold in Montana under [sections 1 through 6] must have the words "Made in Montana " clearly stamped on a central metallic part, such as the receiver or frame.
Section 7. Codification instruction. [Sections 1 through 6] are intended to be codified as an integral part of Title 30, and the provisions of Title 30 apply to [sections 1 through 6].
Section 8. Applicability. [This act] applies to firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition that are manufactured, as defined in [section 3], and retained in Montana after October 1, 2009.

Posted: 5/7/2009 10:26:48 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
Cooper Arms
Axtel Firearms
C. Sharps
Shiloh Sharps

those are just the ones I am familiar with, even though I know there are others

Are any of them contemplating expanding their current product lines to take advantage of this? My impression of a few of them is that they are making as many as they want to make as fast as they want to make them.

Posted: 5/7/2009 10:30:29 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Don't worry. None of this will actually come to pass as intended. If it does, don't expect it to last long.

SCOTUS has already held that it violates the interstate commerce clause. By not buying products from another state, especially as a matter of statute, you infringe upon the other state's products and therefore violate interstate commerce.

Interstate commerce is the condition that allows federal control.
You get around it by doing what Montana has done and Texas is getting ready to do.
The reason the government controls firearms is because of interstate commerce. It is how the Feds got their
noses into everything. If something is made in a state and is not sold to any other states and does not leave the
boundries of that state, it does not fall under federal control, only state control. It takes interstate commerce out of
the equation.

Therefore a company can make a machinegun in Montana and if that company does not ship to any other state
the feds cannot control it nor can they apply any laws to it or the owner as long as they stay in Montana.

You're absolutely right, but it will never work out that way.

I think MT, and TX already know that. And TN and OK will probably not be far behind. Thing is I believe these states will push for sucession if the feds insist on fucking them. It would be easier for the fed if it was just MT, then it would seem more like an isolated incident. Other states look to be right there with them. So the plot thickens.

this branch of the thread hit the shitter just as soon as somebody showed his ass by mentioning machine guns. Which most people with smarts have realized for months the bill does not allow.

Fail # 2 is masturbating with a secession fantasy when you can't even spell secession correctly.

So who is going for Fail #3

Posted: 5/7/2009 10:31:41 PM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:

Cooper Arms

Obama supporting assholes.........

Posted: 5/7/2009 11:08:36 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Cooper Arms

Obama supporting assholes.........

Actually the BOD asked him to step down when he went public with his support
He no longer has affliation with Cooper Arms

Posted: 5/7/2009 11:09:28 PM EDT

[#20]

I have been told that there is language in the Alaska version that says the AG will defend on behalf of an alaskan should federal charges be brought

Posted: 5/7/2009 11:15:23 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Don't worry. None of this will actually come to pass as intended. If it does, don't expect it to last long.

SCOTUS has already held that it violates the interstate commerce clause. By not buying products from another state, especially as a matter of statute, you infringe upon the other state's products and therefore violate interstate commerce.

Interstate commerce is the condition that allows federal control.
You get around it by doing what Montana has done and Texas is getting ready to do.
The reason the government controls firearms is because of interstate commerce. It is how the Feds got their
noses into everything. If something is made in a state and is not sold to any other states and does not leave the
boundries of that state, it does not fall under federal control, only state control. It takes interstate commerce out of
the equation.

Therefore a company can make a machinegun in Montana and if that company does not ship to any other state
the feds cannot control it nor can they apply any laws to it or the owner as long as they stay in Montana.

Firearms that fire more than one round per trigger depression are excluded from this bill.

Section 5. Exceptions. [Section 4] does not apply to:
(1) A firearm that cannot be carried and used by one person;
(2) A firearm that has a bore diameter greater than 1 1/2 inches and that uses smokeless powder, not black powder, as a propellant;
(3) ammunition with a projectile that explodes using an explosion of chemical energy after the projectile leaves the firearm; or
(4) a firearm that discharges two or more projectiles with one activation of the trigger or other firing device.
Section 6. Marketing of firearms. A firearm manufactured or sold in Montana under [sections 1 through 6] must have the words "Made in Montana " clearly stamped on a central metallic part, such as the receiver or frame.
Section 7. Codification instruction. [Sections 1 through 6] are intended to be codified as an integral part of Title 30, and the provisions of Title 30 apply to [sections 1 through 6].
Section 8. Applicability. [This act] applies to firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition that are manufactured, as defined in [section 3], and retained in Montana after October 1, 2009.

2 round burst???

Posted: 5/7/2009 11:18:45 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Don't worry. None of this will actually come to pass as intended. If it does, don't expect it to last long.

SCOTUS has already held that it violates the interstate commerce clause. By not buying products from another state, especially as a matter of statute, you infringe upon the other state's products and therefore violate interstate commerce.

How does that have anything to do with no regulation on MT made guns? As a resident, you can still buy guns made in other states, they are just subject to Fed laws. MT made guns that stay in MT are not subject to Fed laws. It does NOT infringe on other state's products.

You still have Raich to contend with...

There is absolutely NO chance that this will stand a SCOTUS review, weather the state's AG defends the accused or not....

The precedent is overwhelmingly 'against' this law....

Posted: 5/7/2009 11:26:48 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Don't worry. None of this will actually come to pass as intended. If it does, don't expect it to last long.

SCOTUS has already held that it violates the interstate commerce clause. By not buying products from another state, especially as a matter of statute, you infringe upon the other state's products and therefore violate interstate commerce.

Interstate commerce is the condition that allows federal control.
You get around it by doing what Montana has done and Texas is getting ready to do.
The reason the government controls firearms is because of interstate commerce. It is how the Feds got their
noses into everything. If something is made in a state and is not sold to any other states and does not leave the
boundries of that state, it does not fall under federal control, only state control. It takes interstate commerce out of
the equation.

Therefore a company can make a machinegun in Montana and if that company does not ship to any other state
the feds cannot control it nor can they apply any laws to it or the owner as long as they stay in Montana.

Firearms that fire more than one round per trigger depression are excluded from this bill.

Section 5. Exceptions. [Section 4] does not apply to:
(1) A firearm that cannot be carried and used by one person;
(2) A firearm that has a bore diameter greater than 1 1/2 inches and that uses smokeless powder, not black powder, as a propellant;
(3) ammunition with a projectile that explodes using an explosion of chemical energy after the projectile leaves the firearm; or
(4) a firearm that discharges two or more projectiles with one activation of the trigger or other firing device.
Section 6. Marketing of firearms. A firearm manufactured or sold in Montana under [sections 1 through 6] must have the words "Made in Montana " clearly stamped on a central metallic part, such as the receiver or frame.
Section 7. Codification instruction. [Sections 1 through 6] are intended to be codified as an integral part of Title 30, and the provisions of Title 30 apply to [sections 1 through 6].
Section 8. Applicability. [This act] applies to firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition that are manufactured, as defined in [section 3], and retained in Montana after October 1, 2009.

ok, then how about a trigger that when pulled fires a round and upon release fires another round? wouldnt that be 2 activations/movements of a trigger? any thoughts? because item # 4 is a little vague on trigger activation. a new kind of 2-stage trigger could be designed. at least i hope it could.

Posted: 5/8/2009 12:17:32 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Don't worry. None of this will actually come to pass as intended. If it does, don't expect it to last long.

SCOTUS has already held that it violates the interstate commerce clause. By not buying products from another state, especially as a matter of statute, you infringe upon the other state's products and therefore violate interstate commerce.

Interstate commerce is the condition that allows federal control.
You get around it by doing what Montana has done and Texas is getting ready to do.
The reason the government controls firearms is because of interstate commerce. It is how the Feds got their
noses into everything. If something is made in a state and is not sold to any other states and does not leave the
boundries of that state, it does not fall under federal control, only state control. It takes interstate commerce out of
the equation.

Therefore a company can make a machinegun in Montana and if that company does not ship to any other state
the feds cannot control it nor can they apply any laws to it or the owner as long as they stay in Montana.

You're absolutely right, but it will never work out that way.

I think MT, and TX already know that. And TN and OK will probably not be far behind. Thing is I believe these states will push for secession if the feds insist on fucking them. It would be easier for the fed if it was just MT, then it would seem more like an isolated incident. Other states look to be right there with them. So the plot thickens.

this branch of the thread hit the shitter just as soon as somebody showed his ass by mentioning machine guns. Which most people with smarts have realized for months the bill does not allow.

Fail # 2 is masturbating with a secession fantasy when you can't even spell secession correctly.

So who is going for Fail #3

What are you the spelling nazi? As I said, secession is what will likely be pushed for if all else fails. I hope it doesn't come to that but it is the likely outcome if the feds don't back off at some time. If the SCOTUS fails them there will likely be a tax revolt. If that fails, secession is the likely next step. If you don't understand that, you probably never will. But I'm guessing you swooped in with Dave_A in support for continued big gov't, and are here to enlighten the rest of us with your infinite wisdom......

Posted: 5/8/2009 4:54:54 PM EDT

[#25]

I'm curious too. About cooper arms....are they still on the ARFCOM do not buy list? I remember something about the ceo stepping down, but wasnt there something else involved?

Posted: 5/10/2009 1:22:38 AM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Don't worry. None of this will actually come to pass as intended. If it does, don't expect it to last long.

SCOTUS has already held that it violates the interstate commerce clause. By not buying products from another state, especially as a matter of statute, you infringe upon the other state's products and therefore violate interstate commerce.

Interstate commerce is the condition that allows federal control.
You get around it by doing what Montana has done and Texas is getting ready to do.
The reason the government controls firearms is because of interstate commerce. It is how the Feds got their
noses into everything. If something is made in a state and is not sold to any other states and does not leave the
boundries of that state, it does not fall under federal control, only state control. It takes interstate commerce out of
the equation.

Therefore a company can make a machinegun in Montana and if that company does not ship to any other state
the feds cannot control it nor can they apply any laws to it or the owner as long as they stay in Montana.

You're absolutely right, but it will never work out that way.

I think MT, and TX already know that. And TN and OK will probably not be far behind. Thing is I believe these states will push for secession if the feds insist on fucking them. It would be easier for the fed if it was just MT, then it would seem more like an isolated incident. Other states look to be right there with them. So the plot thickens.

this branch of the thread hit the shitter just as soon as somebody showed his ass by mentioning machine guns. Which most people with smarts have realized for months the bill does not allow.

Fail # 2 is masturbating with a secession fantasy when you can't even spell secession correctly.

So who is going for Fail #3

What are you the spelling nazi? As I said, secession is what will likely be pushed for if all else fails. I hope it doesn't come to that but it is the likely outcome if the feds don't back off at some time. If the SCOTUS fails them there will likely be a tax revolt. If that fails, secession is the likely next step. If you don't understand that, you probably never will. But I'm guessing you swooped in with Dave_A in support for continued big gov't, and are here to enlighten the rest of us with your infinite wisdom......

There it is Fail #3, sneaking back and changing your spelling errors, I guess it really did matter to you. And a second go on the secession fantasy. Since 95% of the people in the US don't particularly care about guns, and 98% think that secession over machine guns in Montana is no BFD, does this mean you intend to secede without a vote? Even the slaveowners nominally voted on secession. What are you going to do if you lose that vote, there are a hell of a lot more important things to worry about and you guys are having a mutual masturbation on secession? So if people don't want to seced are you going to kill them, round them up AH HA I get it now, you guys are the ones really building the FEMA Camps for those that don't want to secede??

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Gun makers in Montana?

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us