October 4, 2009

Gun Groups File Lawsuit to Validate Montana Firearms Freedom Act

MISSOULA, Mont. -- The Montana Shooting Sports Association and other gun groups has filed a federal lawsuit filed in Missoula to validate the principles and terms of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act (MFFA), which took effect Oct. 1.

Lead attorney for the plaintiffs' litigation team is Quentin Rhoades of the Missoula firm of Sullivan, Tabaracci & Rhoades, PC. The MFFA litigation team also includes other attorneys located in Montana, New York, Florida, Arizona and Washington.

"We feel very strongly that the federal government has gone way too far in attempting to regulate a lot of activity that occurs only in-state," added MSSA President Gary Marbut. "The Montana Legislature and governor agreed with us by enacting the MFFA. We welcome the support of many other states that are stepping up to the plate with their own firearms freedom acts."

The MFFA declares that any firearms made and retained in Montana are not subject to any federal authority under the power given to Congress in the U.S. Constitution to regulate "commerce ... among the several states." It relies on the Tenth Amendment and other principles to exempt Montana-made and retained firearms, accessories and ammunition from federal regulation. Marbut's group advises Montana citizens not to manufacture an MFFA-covered item until MSSA is upheld in court.

Earlier this year, Tennessee passed similar legislation and lawmakers in 20 other states have indicated that they will introduce MSSA clone legislation, Marbut said. Information about the Firearms Freedom Act movement is being accumulated and made publicly available at www.FirearmsFreedomAct.com.

MSSA is the primary political advocate for Montana gun owners. It can be found at www.MTSSA.org.

An Important Note for GunReports.Com Readers:

Our goal on this website is to foster a free expression of views while reining in language that crosses the line of civil discourse. Accordingly, the comments areas are intended to expand the knowledge of all users of this site. But site administrators wish to discourage the use of profanity, insults, disrespect, the advocacy of lawlessness, violence or sedition, or attempts to impinge on the rights of others.

While GunReports.Com encourages robust discourse that furthers our understanding of all the issues affecting gun owners, comments that break GunReports.Com’s rules will be removed. In addition, we reserve the right to edit or delete individual comments, and in extreme cases, to ban commenters at our discretion.

--Tim Cole
Publisher, GunReports.Com

Comments (5)


Posted by: Lee W | October 8, 2009 9:31 PM    Report this comment

I'm not sure that anyone can prevent mental patients from obtaining fully automatic weapons. Does the black market discern between sane and insane? Gaviota, you got a little bit of tobacco juice on ur chin. ;)

Posted by: JWallace | October 8, 2009 8:04 PM    Report this comment

"...keeping mental patients from buying fully auto weapons..."

Only if you don't allow the gummint to decide who is a mental patient and who is not.


Posted by: Lee W | October 8, 2009 6:08 PM    Report this comment

They knew when they enacted this that this lawsuit would happen. The only hangup might be if they claim the materials used (steel, aluminum, plastics, etc.) came from out of state. Other than that, Montana is sure to win this case. (As far as Roger's comment, get real. There has to be some forms of control, such as keeping mental patients from buying fully auto weapons-does that seem all that unreasonable to you?)

Posted by: KCSHOOTER | October 8, 2009 11:02 AM    Report this comment

Why don't lawyers and the people in congress understand that "shal not be infringed" means there shall be "NO GUN CONTROL LAWS"?

Posted by: Roger G | October 8, 2009 9:21 AM    Report this comment

Add your comments ...

New to Gun Tests? Register for Free!

Already Registered? Log In