(August 23, 2013 – for immediate release)
Ninth Circuit Rules in Firearms Freedom Act Case
MISSOULA, MONT. – The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals released its opinion today in MSSA v. Holder, the lawsuit brought in federal court to validate the principles of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act (MFFA). The MFFA was enacted by the Montana Legislature and signed into law by then Governor Brian Schweitzer in 2009. The MFFA declares that any firearms made and retained in Montana are not subject to any federal regulation under the power given to Congress in the U.S. Constitution to regulate commerce among the states. The MFFA uses firearms as a vehicle to challenge federal commerce clause power.
Plaintiffs in MSSA v. Holder are the Montana Shooting Sports Association (MSSA), the Second Amendment Foundation, and Gary Marbut, President of MSSA. To set up the legal challenge, Marbut determined to manufacture a youth-model, .22 caliber, bolt-action rifle called the Montana Buckaroo. The federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms informed Marbut that any such unlicensed manufacture would be illegal under federal law.
Despite Marbut’s BATF-prohibited plans to make the Montana Buckaroo, the federal District Court ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the lawsuit, and dismissed the lawsuit. MSSA appealed this dismissal to the Ninth Circuit.
In its long-awaited ruling today, the Ninth Circuit reversed the federal District Court on the standing issue, saying that Marbut has standing to bring the challenge, but held that existing Supreme Court precedent was against plaintiffs on the merits of the lawsuit.
Marbut commented, This was about as good of a ruling as we could have expected from the Ninth Circuit. We must get to the U.S. Supreme Court to accomplish our goal of overturning 70 years of flawed Supreme Court rulings on the interstate commerce clause. We knew that the Ninth Circuit couldn’t help us with that. Only the Supreme Court can overturn Supreme Court precedent. However, now that the standing question is resolved in our favor, we have the green light to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Marbut says the attorneys involved are already beginning to work on the appeal process.
Marbut continued, The time is ripe in America for states to challenge federal power, from Obamacare to indefinite detention, to illegal spying on U.S. Citizens and media, to IRS abuses of power, and more. It was the states which created this federal government that has grown to become such a monster. It’s time for the states to get their creature back on a leash. With MSSA v. Holder, we will offer the Supreme Court a chance to do just that.
Since the MFFA was initially enacted in Montana in 2009, nine other states have enacted clones of the MFFA, and 20-some additional states have introduced MFFA-clone bills. The lawsuit to validate the MFFA principles, MSSA v. Holder, has attracted many intervenors and amicus curiae parties. These include the State of Montana, the attorneys general of eight other states, Montana legislators, legislators from other states, the Goldwater Institute, Gun Owners Foundation, the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, the CATO Institute, the Weapons Collectors Society of Montana, the Pacific Legal Foundation, and others.
More information about the Firearms Freedom Act movement and lawsuit is available at:
Information: Gary Marbut, 406-549-1252
(Hat-Tip Elias Alias. Thanks for the forward, Elias!)
Bob Fanning is running for Governor of Montana as a populist Constitutional Republican who will fight for Montana sovereignty.
The U.S. Federal government has failed to protect Montanans from United Nations’ encroachment and has failed to protect Montanans from the criminality of Wall Street and the Federal Reserve System. The U.S. Federal government has failed to protect Montanans from Federal corruption.
Early In the 2012 Gubernatorial race there have been thus far three Gubernatorial debates. At Montana State University at Bozeman, Montana, Bob Fanning read his “Montana Declaration of Independence”. At the Republican debate on campus at Billings, Montana, Bob Fanning exposed the evil of the 106th Congress as it placed into law the four satchel charges which blew up the American financial system on September 15, 2008. At the Gubernatorial debate at Great Falls, Montana, Bob Fanning read his blistering speech on the relationship between the UN’s Agenda 21 and the Foreclosure Fraud spectacle which is now engulfing the nation and many Montana families.
No other Montana Gubernatorial candidate is speaking up on these topics, for fear of – well, for fear of what? Are they afraid to speak truth to power? Perhaps they simply do not know how real the threat is.
Bob Fanning is not afraid to speak the truth. He knows the truth; he “gets it”. Truth is that we’re now looking at a criminal cabal centered in the Federal Reserve, the Federal government and Wall Street, which has international ties with and is marching to the drums of the United Nations with full-blown intent of destroying America, and taking Montana down along with the other States in the process.
Just why the other Republican Gubernatorial candidates do not know this, or, in knowing, are afraid to speak of it, escapes us. The RNC itself has proposed a resolution to expose the UN’s Agenda 21, yet of eight Republican Gubernatorial candidates only Bob Fanning is speaking out with a plan to shut down the United Nations gambit in Montana. Here is a section from the Republican National Committee’s proposed resolution against Agenda 21 –
WHEREAS, the United Nations Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of extreme environmentalism, social engineering, and global political control that was initiated at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992; and,
WHEREAS, the United Nations Agenda 21 is being covertly pushed into local communities throughout the United States of America through the International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) through local “sustainable development” policies such as Smart Growth, Wildlands Project, Resilient Cities, Regional Visioning Projects, and other “Green” or “Alternative” projects; and,
WHEREAS, this United Nations Agenda 21 plan of radical so-called “sustainable development” views the American way of life of private property ownership, single family homes, private car ownership and individual travel choices, and privately owned farms; all as destructive to the environment; and,
WHEREAS, according to the United Nations Agenda 21 policy, social justice is described as the right and opportunity of all people to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment which would be accomplished by socialist/communist redistribution of wealth; and,
WHEREAS, according to the United Nations Agenda 21 policy National sovereignty is deemed a social injustice….
Okay. Now. The above was composed by a committee within the Republican National Committee. Can it be made more apparent than that? Montana is under siege by the United Nations’ Agenda 21 program which itself is fortified with NGOs such as Yukon To Yellowstone, ICLEI, etc. The State of Montana is not protecting Montanans from this scourge, and Bob Fanning continues to ask where is Steve Bullock, our alleged Attorney General?
This is the Great Falls Tribune coverage of the February 27, 2012, Gubernatorial debate in Great Falls, Montana, with the closing paragraph explaining about Bob’s statement on Agenda 21.
“Fanning repeatedly warned the more than 100 people gathered at the Exhibition Hall about “Agenda 21,” which he said is a United Nations conspiracy to strip Americans of their private property rights. Fanning called on Bullock, as attorney general, to “step up to the plate and start protecting Montana homeowners” from “zombie banks” that are using foreclosures to act on the “communist call to redistribute wealth.”
More: As Bob Fanning pointed out in his speech at the Gubernatorial debate in Great Falls, this international madness is connected with the fraudulent foreclosure phenomenon. To understand the validity in Bob’s stand against fraudulent foreclosure practices in the wake of the housing market implosion, please read about the Attorney General of New York State, who has initiated lawsuits on behalf of the people of New York.
Here is the headliner for that article on the New York Attorney General’s website –
A.G. SCHNEIDERMAN ANNOUNCES MAJOR LAWSUIT AGAINST NATION’S LARGEST BANKS FOR DECEPTIVE & FRAUDULENT USE OF ELECTRONIC MORTGAGE REGISTRY
Complaint Charges Use Of MERS By Bank Of America, J.P. Morgan Chase, And Wells Fargo Resulted In Fraudulent Foreclosure Filings
Servicers And MERS Filed Improper Foreclosure Actions Where Authority To Sue Was Questionable
Schneiderman: MERS And Servicers Engaged In Deceptive and Fraudulent Practices That Harmed Homeowners And Undermined Judicial Foreclosure Process
Learn more at the above link. And then join Bob Fanning in asking, “where is Attorney General Steve Bullock when the people of Montana need him?”
For your convenience here is the text of Bob’s speech –
Right now thousands of Montana families are losing their homes to foreclosure and many more will face this crisis in the coming year!
This was and is a well executed plan by the world elite banksters (here) (here) (here) and the politicians in bed with them to usher in the United Nations’ plan called Agenda 21; which proposes a profound re-orientation of ALL humans unlike anything the world has ever experienced. I quote from their 1976 United Nations Habitat I Conference:
“Land…cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market… Private land ownership is also a principle instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth, therefore contributes to social injustice.”
Folks, they are telling you that it is a social injustice to own your own home! This is the communist call to re-distribute wealth and part of that plan is FORECLOSURE. The Zombie Banks are the intermediary arm of the United Nations and the City of London financial district. Foreclosure is being accomplished at the local level through mortgage fraud, which is the ultimate goal of those who seek global governance!
- The powerful and their puppets believe that they should tell you where to live, how to live, and their ultimate goal is to move you to an URBAN SETTLEMENT of their design.
- See the RNC’s denouncement of Agenda 21, in which the Republican National Committee’s winter committee resolves that Agenda 21 not only wants your property, but also wants to deprive Americans of private automobile ownership.
- This is systemic financial barbarism done with the flick of a pen; sending documents in the mail to the homeowner, invoking fear to drive you from your homes; and it uses courts to support the theft.
- This is how to have a war without a shot being fired.
- In the last 12 years, many Homeowner’s across Montana thought they were getting a loan from the too big to fail Zombie Banks of Wall Street.
- A large percentage of the Mortgage Note’s from these banks were securitized: in plain English, securitization
1) Is a tax evasion scheme
2) It is wrongful and improper foreclosure process based on forgery and fraud
3) It undermines the integrity of the judicial process
4) Causes mass confusion over property title and ownership
5) And those Zombie Banks have no standing as many courts are recently affirming!
- These big banks used this elaborate design to take the homeowner’s equity and the investor’s money, knowing full well that very few could unravel this highly engineered plan of FRAUD!
We have given the too big to Fail Wall Street Banks respect that they do not DESERVE! They and many compromised politicians are taking your taxes and pumping that money into methods of assault against your families, friends, and neighbors.
Again, this is a part of Agenda 21 to steal Montana’s wealth, folks…the LAND is the WEALTH!
All Montana land is under assault! It affects us all, whether you have a mortgage or not, because the EPA, BLM, and USFS are also a part of this wealth stealing plan…
This is a call to the leaders throughout Montana and to my opponents on both sides to address this crisis, to set up a hot line that will help homeowners to stand in this fight. The people need to know that certain papers are necessary for a bank to foreclose on their property, and in most cases those papers cannot be produced.
Do not leave your land, it is your WEALTH, YOUR HERITAGE, and YOUR CHILDREN’S INHERITANCE!
Possession is 9/10s of the law. Together we Montanans will deal with the other 1/10th…to make new laws that confront this assault head on. Montana’s antiquated codes and property laws were not designed for this battle and are currently inefficient.
Attorney General Steve Bullock, of Washington DC’s Step Toe Johnson Law Firm, defender of these Zombie Banks, what are you doing to protect Montana property owners? Why are you allowing the Attorney General of the State of New York stand alone in exposing this? You have an oath-sworn duty to the people of Montana, and the facts are now known. Where are you?
As governor, foreclosure fraud will be one of my first priorities.
You are invited to read that speech at Bob Fanning’s campaign website where you can donate by credit card to Bob Fanning’s campaign.
Bob Fanning is the only man running for Governor of Montana who has the courage and knowledge to combat the international and Federal-level threats to our well being, freedom, and prosperity. The other candidates wilt under the magnitude of the threat facing all Montanans today, but Bob Fanning rises to the challenge with Constitutional remedies and courageous implementation.
Judge Andrew Napolitano wrote to Bob Fanning on Monday, February 27, 2012, after having read Bob Fanning’s platform, and said that he is in agreement with Bob’s “substantive” planks.
Join with Judge Napolitano in recognizing that Bob Fanning’s Montana Declaration of Independence is valid, truthful, and necessary if we are to save freedom for Montanans and indeed for all Americans. Bob Fanning could use our help.
Contribute your support online at http://fanning-baldwin.com/?p=1647
Checks and money-orders may be mailed to:
Bob Fanning * FanningForGovernor2012 * Post Office Box 7 * Pray, Montana , 59065
- Friends of Fanning For Governor 2012 -
Heirs to self knowledge shed gently their fears.
As I was reviewing some history on the Montana Sheriff’s First (SB 114) legislation, passed in both house and senate and vetoed by Governor Schweitzer, I stumbled across this very interesting and informative article written by my Friend and Oathkeeper Elias Alias in January 2011.
It appears we have a LOT of courtesy flushing to do here in the Great State of Montana. I think you’ll find this article very interesting and very well written. I suggest you investigate these issues in your State so that We, The People know exactly who we’ve got leading our States (our Liberty, our Freedom and our gun rights) straight down the crapper.
Why are Montana Sheriffs Associating with Communists and Gun Grabbers?
by Elias Alias, Montana Oath Keepers, USMC Vietnam veteran
Scenario SB 114
If the mayor is under attack For gaming behind your back, Look-out Jack, better step back - Duck the flak, but stay on track.
Scenario: Deception distorts perception in the debate on SB-114, the Sheriffs First bill:
The people of Montana are grateful to Senator Shockley for reminding the people that Montana’s legislators are primarily Montanans and only secondarily serve as occasional legislators. They do not have to specialize in American history or in Constitutional studies.
We are now told that because the North won the Civil War, the conclusion we all should draw from that is that Federal law trumps State law, “like it or not.” Somehow Lincoln managed to rewrite the Tenth Amendment by winning a war – or did he? Let us make a scenario.
In our scenario, an amateur student of history who has given countless hours over many years to study the Constitution and the contexts of the era in which it was written, shows up at a committee hearing for a particular bill to speak for a bill, and finds to his dismay that the citizen legislators, some of whom have not bothered to learn the important lessons of history, are enmeshed in a tightly-orchestrated schedule and cannot grant one enough time to pack even the most condensed quintessence of ten years’ worth of study into a two-minute presentation before the committee.
Perhaps that is simply a blow delivered by bureaucracy’s inherent constructs, the infrastructure of organized governance. All can see that it is impersonal, that it is just how busy sessions work.
But our scenario grows darker when we recall the recent hearing by the Senate Judiciary Committee on Friday, January 21, 2011. The bill before the Senate Judiciary Committee was Senate Bill-114, commonly referred to as the “Sheriffs First” bill. The public was invited to appear before the Committee and speak for or against the Sheriffs First bill. A number of Montanans drove to Helena to stand before the microphone and plead for passage of this important bill.
However, the citizens who spoke for the bill were opposed by a battery of public employees who showed up to speak against the bill. Interesting, that. As reported, all who spoke against the bill were public servants, while the people from the private sector were in favor of the bill. There was that clear delineation – public servant vs the public. In this scenario, the public servants are convinced that they know what is best for the public, and shall wield the public power of office to ensure that the public gets only the laws which public servants deem appropriate. That begs the question, “Who is serving who?”
The citizens who support the bill, including attorneys, represent the sector of Montana society which encourages study into Constitutional issues, constitutional philosophy, study into contexts, study into history, and Supreme Court precedent. These citizens represent the aware and conscientious patriots within Montana who do as the founders insist all citizens should do – which is to be ever vigilant in watching over the manner in which government administers itself upon the governed.
Opposing the citizens were “associations” or lobbies for ‘special interests’. Of the several opponents of the bill present at the hearing, one in particular is handy for this extended scenario. We shall try to be elegant as we review some things, but we must now name a lobby which opposed the Sheriffs Bill. Of all things, it was the Montana Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association (MSPOA). The spokesperson for MSPOA was Helena Mayor Jim Smith, a man with considerable connections at the core of governance.
He is the mayor of the State Capitol, after all. So let’s take a look at him from the city’s website:
There we read: – quoting from city’s page on Mayor Jim Smith -
“ In 1978 he began working on public policy issues, with the Montana Seniors Citizens Association and the Rocky Mountain Development Council. In 1983 Jim began working as a Lobbyist at the Montana Legislature. He has lobbied every Session since, working for a variety of human service, health care, law enforcement and local government associations and organizations. In 1994 Jim became a co-owner of Smith and McGowan, Inc., a lobbying, management and government relations firm located in downtown Helena. The firm’s clients include: the Montana Council of Community Mental Health Centers, the Montana Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, the Montana County Attorneys Association, the American Cancer Society, and others.”
- end quote -
So that is part of our scenario – the gentleman is a well-connected lobbyist. A professional lobbyist. He advocates professionally for organizations, both public and private. He’s got position, and personality.
Speaking of personality traits, there is this tidbit, published on December 17, 2009 by the Missoula Independent.
- quoting -
[Bob] McKelvey and [“Mike” Meyer] Chessin founded Montanans United to Stop Gun Violence (MU-SGV) years ago to combat what they saw as a serious problem in the state. Late this summer, they finally reached out and approached state Reps. Dick Barrett and Ron Erickson, both of Missoula, about helping the group. In November, Helena Mayor Jim Smith joined MU-SGV’s steering committee.
“I think it’s a voice that needs to be heard in the debate here in Montana over gun rights,” says Smith, who has lobbied against concealed weapons carry for 15 years. “I don’t think there’s another grassroots organization or a group of ordinary citizens who are committed to the end of gun violence and the maintenance of a civil society.”
The group faces a number of tasks for 2010, most immediate of which is agreeing what issue to use as a rallying point. McKelvey says he has growing concerns over the rising number of open carriers in the Bitterroot—an issue highlighted by recent Celebrating Conservatism meetings that feature numerous attendees with firearms. But Barrett says putting open carry practices in the group’s crosshairs could galvanize Second Amendment proponents.
- end quoted passages from the Missoula Independent –
Our scenario continues to develop. We have a ‘lobbying personality’ which is running a city in Montana and providing its talents to the Montana Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association and the Montana County Attorneys Association, and lo and behold, this lobbying personality, presently dwelling like a clouded dream in the head of the Mayor of Helena, has taken a seat on the steering committee for a gun control group run in part by a fellow traveler named “Mike” Meyer Chessin.
Montanans who enjoy traditional gun culture in Montana are seen by Mr. Chessin to be “a serious problem”. He apparently has concerns about the Celebrating Conservatism movement in the Bitterroot, who lawfully carry their guns openly, but I’m sure he doesn’t think the Maiden of Montana Liberty, Ms Mona Docteur, would pop a cap on him. Surely he is not paranoid about his vision of a gun-free Montana, a somewhat delusional vision which he entitles “…the maintenance of a civil society”.
But what can we ask about Mr. Chessin, Mayor Smith’s partner at the Montanans United To Stop Gun Violence organization?
May we ask if he once was a professor at the University of California at Berkeley?
May we ask if, owing to alleged communist affiliations, Mr. Chessin fled UCB during the McCarthy era at a time when communists were being expunged from public offices?
May we also ask whether at that same time the University of Montana was having accreditation problems for not having sufficient numbers of ‘accredited’ professors?
And may we further ask whether the University of Montana picked up a handful of trans-locating communist professors, (some of whom were fleeing their offices under light of public scrutiny), at a discount price, including Botany professor Chessin?
Finally, may we ask whether students who attended U of M during that time readily admit that Chessin kept posters of Stalin and Lenin on his office walls at the U of M?
We are just asking questions of course, but we can be sure that Chessin does not approve of Montana’s gun culture, its traditions, and its importance in today’s world.
Question – aren’t communists always against allowing a population to keep and bear arms? And isn’t the keeping and bearing of arms one of our denoted “inalienable rights”, which public officials are sworn to protect on our behalf?
Another question. Why would the University of Montana take down the Internet page which could have revealed the reasons we have so many questions today regarding Chessin?
The information on faculty-member Chessin, now removed from the www, used to be at this link – it’s a dead link now:
The fearless professional lobbyist who is also the Mayor of Helena, Montana, sits on the steering committee for an anti-gun group with an alleged – but unproven – communist sympathizer at the same time he is providing his services to the Montana Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association and the Montana County Attorneys Association.
On their behalf, in their names, he has stood before the Montana Senate’s Judiciary Committee to oppose a bill which would affirm the (Montana) constitutional Sheriff’s authority as the highest law enforcement officer in his County. This he did while the unanimous voices of the citizens were entered into the record requesting that the Committee move the bill forward.
The citizens’ voices were confronted by Mr. Smith’s retort that:
“The sheriffs of Montana really do not want to be pawns in anyone else’s political games.”
Is it not the quintessence of gall for a man to seek to install against the wishes of the people
“…the maintenance of a civil society”,
which is a politicization in itself, by accusing freedom-loving Montanans of playing political games?
Shouldn’t Smith admit that the ‘Montanans United to Stop Gun Violence’ organization is indeed “politicizing” an issue of our County Sheriffs’ authority?
Isn’t MU-SGV a self-declared political organization with a self-declared mission to infringe upon Montanans’ rights to keep and bear arms – perhaps with the instigation of avowed communists?
Gary Marbut, of Montana Shooting Sports Association wrote this Sheriffs First bill. Gary is the same author who gave us the successful Montana Firearms Freedom Act of 2009. Gary Marbut represents the voice of the Montana citizenry. Gary Marbut is not a lobbyist for any government office or agency. Gary Marbut defends the Montana Constitution on behalf of a free people.
Yet the professional lobbyist for MSPOA and MCAA is representing an anti-gun-rights agenda at the same time he purports to lobby for our Sheriffs and Peace Officers.
Who is politicizing what here?
Are the Sheriffs Smith purports to represent actually as anti-gun as Smith, or is Smith using the Sheriffs as pawns in the Smith/Chessin anti-gun game?
Some may say that kind of question begs “standing”. Very well. Here is some standing -
We are asking questions about the propriety of lobbying, its place in our lives, where it fits into our world. What does a lobbyist do?
Lobbyists are “statists” who represent “interests” in efforts to shape, mold, and structure state authority in ways which benefit the “interests” who pay for such services.
What is a “statist”?
A statist is one who values and believes in the power of the state (as in, the government, on whatever level). Statists use the force of the state to animate their policy, which is derived from their personal perception of various systems available to them.
Communists, for example, are statists, as also are ‘collectivists’ and ‘Marxist socialists’ or ‘progressives’ harking back to Colonel Edward M. House and Woodrow Wilson.Neo-cons are also statists.
Communism, like Marxism or socialism or any other governmental “ism”, is based on the individual’s willingness to believe in the power of the state, and the use of that power to control or regulate others. That is a psychological element of a perception which elicits a personal response in harmony with one’s view of life on earth – one’s “perception”.
A lobbyist who is a collectivist, or one who is a statist, can be employed to shape public perception in ways which benefit one’s client’s interests. A lobbyist who chooses to represent a government arm, such as, say, the office of County Sheriff, but brings a statist perception to the table, may, if one is not exceedingly careful, awaken the very Sheriffs and Peace Officers upon whose good name said lobbyist rides.
Question – Do the Sheriffs and Peace Officers who are represented by this particular statist lobbyist know that he also works with an anti-gun organization?
Did Mr. Smith call the Sheriffs of Montana’s Counties to see how they felt about SB-114, the Sheriffs First bill?
Was the lobbying of the Mayor fortified by the spread of “official” views for each Sheriff to hold regarding this bill, before Mr. Smith purported to represent their personal views to the Senate Judiciary Committee?
We do know that at least two courageous Sheriffs have taken stands for the bill, much to their respective Counties’ glory. We wonder what the other Sheriffs may think. There is, after all, an Oath to the Constitution, and that Oath is, as President John Adams said long ago, “a sacred obligation”, which is why the Oath was written into the Constitution – to bind a public servant down to honorable service to the people who created the government, to ‘we the people’.
How many Sheriffs in Montana will stand on their Oath?
How many Montana Sheriffs recognize the need for a powerful buffer between Federal intrusion and the inalienable rights of the people?
How many Montana Sheriffs truly want a communist sympathizing anti-gun professional lobbyist representing them before the people’s legislature?
But there is more. Let us add some color to our scenario. This is a pdf.
We have to ask. Is Mayor Smith’s fair City of Helena involved in any way with the United Nations’ Agenda-21 and ICLEI? What do those terms mean? Here is an excerpt from that pdf:
The specific plan is called United Nations Agenda 21 Sustainable Development. By now, most Americans have heard of sustainable development but are largely unaware of Agenda 21.
ICLEI was founded in 1990 as the ‘International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives’. The Council was established when more than 200 local governments from 43 countries convened at the ICLEI inaugural conference, the World Congress of Local Governments for a Sustainable Future, at the United Nations in New York. In a nutshell, the plan (Agenda 21) calls for governments to take control of all land use and not leave any of the decision making in the hands of private property owners.
It is assumed that people are not good stewards of their land and the government will do a better job if they are in control. Individual rights in general are to give way to the needs of communities as determined by the governing body.
This is now being implemented in several Montana cities, and Helena is one. We must wonder, who lobbied to get ICLEI operating in Helena?
Do the people of Helena know with cognizance that a United Nations radical and extreme land-control program has been installed in their city?
Could city planning be affected by anti-gun-rights affiliations?
Isn’t that a part of what Smith’s partner sees as “…the maintenance of a civil society”?
To really understand what the United Nations’ Agenda 21 Sustainable Development and ICLEI are all about, read often at the best online source for the full picture – Michael Shaw’s remarkable site, Freedom Advocates: http://www.freedomadvocates.org/
So let us see. We have a lobbying Mayor representing the Montana Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association and the Montana County Attorney Association in opposition to the Sheriffs First bill, and he works at the same time with an anti-gun organization which is pondering getting rid of our right to openly carry our guns, and all the while he’s not embarrassed to make deals or cooperate with the United Nations, which seeks a higher authority over our U.S. Constitution.
And this guy claims to be representing our communities’ law enforcement? And our County Attorneys?
That’s quite a scenario.
Does Helena’s Mayor have some help from within those organizations?
Yes. He does. Gallatin County Attorney Marty Lambert took time from his busy schedule to speak against the bill at the Committee hearing, and spat a bit of his own vitriolic resentment that, in his misguided view of SB 114, the people’s elected Sheriff should have the power to interfere with his federal associations. Dr. Ed Berry has already quoted him, but just for the record, Mr. Lambert sees the bill as an infringement on his job.
Could that infringement in any way affect his friendly relationship with the federal agencies operating in his County?
Aren’t the in-state activities of Federal agencies/agents part of the object of this bill?
How would the Sheriff’s lawful duty to require all federal agents to obtain the Sheriff’s written permission prior to search, seizure, or arrest of any County citizen somehow threaten the Attorney’s job unless the Attorney has discrete liaison with federal offices?
Where in this Sheriffs First bill is any Sheriff instructed to manage the office of the County Attorney?
But wait – doesn’t that bring us back to the opening of this lengthy screed?
We began by talking about citizen legislators and we noted that Senator Shockley gave us pause with his statement regarding his conclusion about the Civil War. Senator Shockley mused that since the North won the war, that settled the question of Federal vs State sovereignty. States are under the authority of the Federal government, as he would say it. His gracenote was “Like it or not”.
But we may ask next, what about the Montana Firearms Freedom Act of 2009?
It was passed into law, signed into law, and immediately the Federal ATF declared that Federal law trumps Montana law, sending letters to that effect to each FFL in the State.
Did not the Montana Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association oppose that bill also, as they are opposing the Sheriffs First bill this session? (Or was it just their lobbyist?)
But the real question to ask is whether the Federal denial of our lawfully-enacted Firearms Freedom Act of 2009 would be weakened by the passage of the Sheriffs First bill?
What about Montana’s medical marijuana law, which the Federal government also refuses to recognize?
How would the Sheriffs First bill affect the Feds’ insane push to over-ride Montana’s law?
Do the people of Montana have any sovereignty if their voted and legislated will is subject to Federal incursion?
And isn’t it Federal incursion when the Federal government threatens Montana with Federal powers to over-ride the written will and law of the Montana people?
And is not the Sheriffs First bill a threat to that kind of Federal mischief?
Dr. Ed Berry has alluded already to the Mack/Printz Supreme Court decision of 1997. The full story on that is available at Sheriff Mack’s website –
Enough can’t be said about that landmark decision. Icing on the cake with that decision is the fact that then-County Sheriff of Ravalli County, Montana, the distinguished patriot Sheriff Jay Printz, was Sheriff Mack’s partner in the suit against Clinton’s Brady bill. Two Sheriffs, one from Arizona and one from Montana, sued the Federal government and won, and part of the majority opinion, written by Justice Scalia, goes like this:
“It is incontestable that the Constitution established a system of ‘dual sovereignty’… Although the States surrendered many of their powers to the new Federal Government, they retained ‘a residuary and inviolable sovereignty,’…
“Residual State sovereignty was also implicit, of course, in the Constitution’s conferral upon Congress of not all governmental powers, but only discrete, enumerated ones, which implication was rendered express by the Tenth Amendment’s assertion that ‘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….
“The great innovation of this design was that our citizens would have two political capacities, one state and one federal, each protected from incursion by the other… The Constitution thus contemplates that a State’s government will represent and remain accountable to its own citizens.” – Justice Scalia
Senator Shockley, it can’t get any more clear than that. The Federal government did not create the States, and it does not give us any “rights” – the Civil War did nothing to damage the Tenth Amendment. The Federal government was created by the States to protect individual rights which are clearly stated to be unalienable rights. That means, no government can place a lien on our God-given/Natural rights.
Senate Judiciary Committee, think on these things please. Listen to your people.
The people of Montana want the Sheriffs First bill passed into law. Support the people and the State of Montana as we resist Federal incursion and Federal intrusion. Acknowledge the citizens’ rightful seat of legitimacy and authority in this Republic of law. The document begins with, is of, by, and for, “we the people”.
Choose the people over the special interests, over the socialists, over the communists, over the professional lobbyists. Choose the law as written, not a lobbyist’s interpretation of law. The perception of the opponents of this bill has been furnished to them by Federal programming and a dependency on Federal funding. It is only natural that they, joined at the waist with Federal programs, would oppose this move by the people to reclaim Montana sovereignty.
Good Senators, please hold dear Montana’s historic culture of freedom, and celebrate Montana’s compliance with the Constitution for the united States of America. Please pass SB-114.
Thank you for reading.
Elias Alias, Montana Oath Keepers, USMC Vietnam veteran
Notes, brief bibliography -
Freedom Advocates - http://www.freedomadvocates.org/ Michael Shaw
ICLEI – http://www.iclei.org/index.php?id=about
Mack/Printz v United States – http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1478.ZO.html
Montana Shooting Sports Association – http://www.mtssa.org/ Gary Marbut
Oath Keepers – http://www.oathkeepers.org/ Stewart Rhodes
Liberty Fellowship – http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/ Dr. Chuck Baldwin
Matrixx Productions – Creator of these films is James Jaeger:
Cultural Marxism – http://www.realityzone.com/culturemarx.html
Original Intent – http://www.originalintent.us/single.htm
Corporate Fascism – http://www.corporatefascism.org/
The Purse And The Sword – by Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., holder of four degrees from Harvard. This is the definitive advanced Constitutional course, over eight viewing hours’ worth, on sound money and the lawful Militia of the several States:
Constitutional “Homeland Security”: Volume 1: The Nation In Arms
by Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr.; copyright 2007 by Edwin Vieira, Jr.; Bookmasters, Inc., 30 Amberwood Parkway, Ashland, Ohio 44805; International Standard Book Number (10): 0-9671759-2-5; International Standard Book Number (13): 978-0-9671759-2-8.
To order Dr. Vieira’s Constitutional Homeland Security, order your copy directly from Dr. Vieira: $19.95 postpaid, by check or money order to:
Edwin Vieira * 52 Stonegate Court * Front Royal, Virginia 22630
How To Dethrone The Imperial Judiciary
by Dr. Edwin Vieira; copyright 2004-2005 Vision Forum Ministries; Content copyright 2004-2005 The Conservative Caucus Research, Analysis, And Education Foundation and Dr. Edwin Vieira; Vision Forum Ministries, 4719 Blanco Rd., San Antonio, Texas 78212, www.visionforum.org; ISBN – 10 0-9755264-1-3; ISBN – 13 078-0-9755264-1-5.
The Conservative Revolution: Why We Must Form a Third Political Party to Win It
by Nelson Hultberg; copyright 2009 by Nelson Hultberg; published by Americans for a Free Republic, P.O. Box 801213, Dallas, Texas 75380-1213; ISBN: 1-891191-45-4. http://www.afr.org/ Mr. Hultberg also works with The Daily Bell: http://www.thedailybell.com/
Unalienable Rights And The Denial Of The U.S. Constitution
by Michael E. LeMieux; copyright 2007 by Michael E. LeMieux; published by PUBLISHAMERICA,LLLP; www.publishamerica.com; Baltimore; ISBN: 1-60441-785-4;
Michael LeMieux is the Nebraska chapter President for Oath Keepers.
The Constitution In Exile: How the Federal Government has Seized Power by Rewriting the Supreme Law Of The Land.
by Judge Andrew P. Napolitano; copyright 2006 by Andrew P. Napolitano; published by Nelson Current, a division of a wholly owned subsidiary (Nelson Communications, Inc.) of Thomas Nelson, Inc., in Nashville, Tennessee; email: SpecialMarkets@ThomasNelson.com.
Lies The Government Told You: Myth, Power, and Deception in American History
by Judge Andrew P. Napolitano; foreword by Ron Paul; copyright 2010 by Andrew P. Napolitano; published in Nashville, Tennessee by Thomas Nelson, a trademark of Thomas Nelson, Inc.; ISBN: 978-1-59555-266-2.
The County Sheriff: America’s Last Hope
by Sheriff Richard Mack; copyright by Richard Mack 2009; www.sheriffmack.com; published by Sheriff Mack, P.O. Box 971, Pima, Arizona 85543.
Nullification: How To Resist Federal Tyranny In The 21st Century
by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.; copyright 2010 by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.; published by Regenery Publishing, Inc., One Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20001, www.regnery.com; ISBN: 978-1-59698-149-2.
For Immediate Release
Montana Policy Institute
Our civil discourse is getting louder and hotter now because so much is at stake with an expanding government and the bills from past political decisions coming due. Instead of chiding each other to be nicer, we would be better served by honestly addressing the root causes of the policy differences among us.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Shut Up and Be Civil
By: Carl Graham, President, Montana Policy Institute
Conservatism must be on the rise because once again we find ourselves being treated to a round of scolding concerning the lack of civility in our public discourse, as if we’ve fallen to unplumbed depths and must button up lest the moderate masses take offense. With all due respect, that’s a bunch of hooey.
It’s no coincidence that both ad hominem attacks and appeals to civility so often come from the side that’s run out of arguments. And nobody should be surprised that it’s getting nasty out there with so much now at stake. The current tenor of our conversation was predictable and can be easily explained. It was predictable because, as a famous economist once said, if something can’t go on forever it probably won’t. And it’s explainable by the dual effects of unsustainable spending levels and revulsion at government’s increasing and political inclination to pick winners and losers.
The simple fact of the matter is that we’re running out of stuff to give away, and both the givers and the takers are starting to squeal. Past politicians and their collegial colleagues were fortunate to serve during a period when government at all levels could shift from being a protector of rights to a provider of goods by passing the bill along. They in effect could say “Vote for me and I’ll give you this and make that guy pay for it.” “That guy” is getting tired of it.
Federal spending increased 299% above inflation between 1970 and 2009. Household income, meanwhile, went up a paltry 27%. That means that government largesse grew at over ten times the rate of household incomes. Of course people got along. Our elected representatives weren’t making hard choices about preserving America’s unique strengths in a more complicated world; they were merely borrowing from our kids and making deals on how to divide the spoils. It’s easy to get along when you’re spending someone else’s money and the pot is ever expanding. It’s only when the bottom of the pot becomes visible that the feeding frenzy begins.
The other reason people aren’t getting along is that government has reached an unprecedented level of picking winners and losers, often for overtly political ends. If you’re worried about negative campaign ads or corporate lobbying, before bemoaning the symptom you should consider that every dollar spent comes from somebody or some interest who either wants to be on a winners’ list or off a losers’ list. Eliminate government’s ability to pick winners and losers and you eliminate the incentive for gaming the campaign finance system and hiring K Street lobbyists. Anything else is just picking at the scab.
I for one also find it offensive that mega corporations like General Electric can apparently create a business plan based on green energy incentives and then pay zero taxes on billions in income while I pay higher energy costs and watch good jobs go overseas. I’m offended that unions and advocacy groups like AARP can apply for and receive waivers from the more stringent sections of a health care bill that they spent tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars pushing onto the rest of us. That angers me, and if expressing that anger is more offensive to you than them using the government to pick my pocket then we clearly have different definitions of freedom.
So yes, the temperature and volume are rising. The people paying the bills are getting angry and the people reaping the benefits are getting scared. But for anyone who pines for the mostly mythical days of holding hands and group hugs across the aisle, I suggest you put the tools and responsibility for success and failure back into the peoples’ hands. If no one else is to blame, there’s no reason to point fingers.
Carl Graham is president of Montana Policy Institute, a nonprofit policy research center in Bozeman.
The Montana Policy Institute is an independent nonprofit policy research center based in Bozeman, with membership throughout the state. It provides analysis and information to encourage individual freedom, personal responsiblity, and free markets in Montana.
You can find more information on Montana Freedom Bills at the Montana Shooting Sports Association (progunleaders.org) Website by clicking HERE
Please support the Montana Shooting Sports Association for their relentless efforts toward securing our freedom in Montana and across America.
February 11, 2011
by Chuck Baldwin
I was thrilled to see J.B. Williams report in NewsWithViews.com that the State of Montana has a broad-based State nullification bill currently proposed in its legislature. Derek Skees (R-Whitefish) is the State legislator who has introduced this much-needed legislation.
See the story at:
The fact is, Skees’ State Nullification bill is only one of several outstanding freedom-first bills that is currently before the Montana legislature. I urge readers to go to PolyMontana.com to look at the many other fine pieces of pro-freedom legislation pending in the Montana State legislature:
Unfortunately, one of those very fine bills has already been defeated: the “Sheriffs First” bill sponsored by Senator Greg Hinkle (R-Thompson Falls). This bill is long overdue and absolutely necessary to prevent federal usurpation of State and local law enforcement. That the Montana legislature failed to pass this bill indicates just how necessary it is to elect State legislators who truly understand constitutional government. I urge readers to read the following defense of the Sheriffs First law, written by my son, Constitutional Attorney Tim Baldwin:
Look through the list of the other freedom bills presently before the Montana State legislature and one will instantly recognize the potential for this State to stand at the “tip of the spear” in the reclamation and restoration of State sovereignty, freedom, and independence. (Plus, it reinforces why my family and I made the life-changing decision to move to this beautiful and wonderful State.)
For example, there is a bill to nullify federal health care laws; a bill to eliminate the misapplication of the 14th amendment to the US Constitution; a bill to nullify the Endangered Species Act; a bill to authorize permit-less Concealed Carry; a bill to transfer management of certain federal lands; a bill to provide the State eminent domain authority for federal lands; and, of course, the Sheriffs First act, which would have required the Sheriff’s authorization for federal law enforcement agencies to conduct arrests, searches, and seizures.
I would dare say: if you are a freedom-minded individual, goose bumps ran up your spine just from reading the above summary. I got goose bumps simply writing about it. Can one imagine the kind of freedom that would be unleashed in this great State should even a handful of these bills actually become law? And think of the numbers of other State legislatures that would quickly follow suit (especially here in the West) should any State legislature pass and a State governor sign these kinds of freedom protections into law!
This is why I keep insisting that, if freedom has a chance to survive in these United States, the American people must get their eyes off of Washington, D.C., and start focusing on their individual states. The authority and power to properly defend liberty has always rested with the states. I’m not saying we should not be concerned about who our US representatives and senators are–or who is elected President. I am saying, however, that freedom will never be restored from inside the Beltway. It is State independence, resolve, and nullification that will ultimately preserve and protect our liberties. And, as the creators of the US Constitution acknowledged, State nullification is absolutely requisite to freedom’s survival.
And, fortunately, Montana is not the only State with freedom-loving men and women in its legislature. I am hearing of lawmakers in states such as Oklahoma and Virginia (and several others) who are introducing similar freedom bills in their respective State legislatures. The question is, as always, will the people of these states get behind their brave legislators and help them get these freedom bills passed? If they are preoccupied with watching the major television network news channels (that focus almost entirely on national and international politics), they will not even know that these freedom bills are being proposed (most local media ignore them, too), and, therefore, will be totally inactive and ineffective in helping to restore the freedoms they claim to love.
I repeat: if freedom is to have a new birth in America, we must stop focusing on Washington, D.C., and start focusing on our individual states! I cannot overstate it: liberty will be won or lost at the State level!
P.S. This Sunday, February 13, 2011, I will bring Part 3 of my message, “The True Meaning of Romans 13.” This message will be livestreamed this Sunday afternoon, at 2:30 pm (MST).
To watch this presentation live this Sunday afternoon, go to:
Plus, my first two messages on Romans 13 (and many other messages) may be viewed or downloaded at:
*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:
(c) Chuck Baldwin
Today’s update should give everyone a good taste of the violent and vitriolic leftist tactics we’re going to have to deal with. Personally, I just want them to give it a try, or shut their damned face-holes. One of these days, they’re going to have to put this violent rhetoric to the test. I look forward to it.
“Death to all the Neo-Cons and their xenophobic racists ideas. I say off with all their heads! World Peace can only be achieved with their final elimination.”
“It just goes to show that even children know what a low-life the Republican is.”
“….what if the subject of the play had been, say, the beheading of Barack Obama? Or the rape of Michelle Obama? What if a Hollywood production depicted Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid being blown apart by the bomb of a terrorist?
Would the ‘civil’ Leftwing justify such depictions in the name of ‘art’ and remind the country that, after all, it is ‘only fiction?’
Continue reading on Examiner.com: Civility–children’s play calls for beheading of Sarah Palin – National Conservative | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-national/civility-children-s-play-calls-for-beheading-of-sarah-palin#ixzz1CTgELi00
YES, DAVE……. I MOST DEFINITELY WOULD.