My apologies. I just found your comment in our spam filter (I don’t check it very often), and wanted to let you know that the reason it didn’t show up originally wasn’t deliberate.

I appreciate the impetus behind the MFFA, and do wish you success.

Reading the decision in Bond suggests that what was at question was whether Bond had standing to challenge the statute in question, not whether the statute was valid. I would suggest that the positive impact of Bond on what is occurring in Montana would be that you would be granted standing to uphold your claim — but I think the merits of the claim may still be dubious [in the sense that it would contravene long-standing SCOTUS precedent-- not that the claim is wrong].

Either way, I wish you luck. At the very least, I believe we have similar goals with regards to the RKBA. Keep fighting the good fight.

Point taken on the windmills phrase usage.

I like your redirect on the “economic impact” argument BTW.

I think Commerce Clause jurisprudence would suggest that manufacture/sale/possession of weapons cannot be shown to be wholly intrastate, and it certainly includes economic impact.

Ya know what would be fun to hear them litigate? What if the law was written such that the looser, intrastate regulations would only apply if the purchaser signed an affidavit swearing that he made that particular purchase specifically because it was an intrastate purchase and that he would not have made a similar interstate purchase if the intrastate option had not been available.

That would seem to take the wind out of the sails of the “economic impact” argument.

This effort may not be as hopeless as Brad thinks.

See Bond v. US, just released by the USSC today – a unanimous decision that reads like briefs by MSSA and amici in MSSA v. Holder.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-1227.pdf

I’m not and don’t play a lawyer either, but I know more about some areas of law than some lawyers and am an unapologetic proponent of individual liberty. I won’t quit.

Regards to Brad.

Quixote’s attacks weren’t foolish because of their futility; his attacks would have been just as foolish even if he had been equipped with the last in cruise missile technology. The foolishness stems from the fact that his targets were purely imagined enemies. Windmills had never done him any harm and it’s safe to assume they never would have.

Our efforts may prove to be hopelessly futile, but it’s pretty clear that our enemies are very real.

As for the chances for this attempt for Montana and other states to reclaim some lost sovereignty via legislation and the courts, with the way the courts have abused the Fourth amendment recently, I think all bets are off (something I’ve been meaning to write about but haven’t got around to – SCOTUS says that the flushing of a toilet or smelling pot can be considered probable cause for the police to break down a door without a warrant).

I say good for Montana for at the very least being a pain in the ass for the feds.