Support




Contact
Powered by
Movable Type

Montana Specifically Exempts Its Own Guns from Federal Firearms Laws

Someone tipped me to this but I said I hadn't heard about it and it seemed unlikely to me.

I was wrong.

Section 4. Prohibitions. A personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in Montana and
that remains within the borders of Montana is not subject to federal law or
federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of congress
to regulate interstate commerce. It is declared by the legislature that
those items have not traveled in interstate commerce. This section applies
to a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured in
Montana from basic materials and that can be manufactured without the
inclusion of any significant parts imported from another state. Generic and
insignificant parts that have other manufacturing or consumer product
applications are not firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition, and
their importation into Montana and incorporation into a firearm, a firearm
accessory, or ammunition manufactured in Montana does not subject the
firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition to federal regulation. It is
declared by the legislature that basic materials, such as unmachined steel
and unshaped wood, are not firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition and
are not subject to congressional authority to regulate firearms, firearms
accessories, and ammunition under interstate commerce as if they were
actually firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition. The authority of
congress to regulate interstate commerce in basic materials does not include
authority to regulate firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition made in
Montana from those materials. Firearms accessories that are imported into
Montana from another state and that are subject to federal regulation as
being in interstate commerce do not subject a firearm to federal regulation
under interstate commerce because they are attached to or used in
conjunction with a firearm in Montana..

Essentially, then, any weapon may be manufactured (or modified, using "generic parts" from other states or other parts manufactured in Montana) and will be free of all federal regulation and law whatsoever. Only Montana law will control such weapons. And as I understand it Montana itself has very few laws about weapons on the books.

The rest of the law is actually just a legal argument, phrased as a law, explaining why federal law does not apply to Montana, unless it wants it to. (The 10th Amendment is cited.)

Here's a link to an AP story.

Montana is trying to trigger a battle over gun control — and perhaps make a larger point about what many folks in this ruggedly independent state regard as a meddlesome federal government.

In a bill passed by the Legislature earlier this month, the state is asserting that guns manufactured in Montana and sold in Montana to people who intend to keep their weapons in Montana are exempt from federal gun registration, background check and dealer-licensing rules because no state lines are crossed.

That notion is all but certain to be tested in court.

...

Carrie DiPirro, a spokeswoman for the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, had no comment on the legislation. But the federal government has generally argued that it has authority under the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution to regulate guns because they can so easily be transported across state lines.

...

Montana's leading gun rights organization, more hardcore than the National Rifle Association, boasts it has moved 50 bills through the Legislature over the past 25 years. And lawmakers in the Big Sky State have rebelled against federal control of everything from wetland protection to the national Real ID system.


Under the new law, guns intended only for Montana would be stamped "Made in Montana." The drafters of the law hope to set off a legal battle with a simple Montana-made youth-model single-shot, bolt-action .22 rifle. They plan to find a "squeaky clean" Montanan who wants to send a note to the ATF threatening to build and sell about 20 such rifles without federal dealership licensing.

If the ATF tells them it's illegal, they will sue and take the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, if they can.

At the first link, it's noted that the law will make silencers legal, and I suppose this will also permit weapons like the AR-15 to be converted to fully-automatic capability. (Which I understand is a fairly easy modification.) Unless Montana also outlaws such weapons. I don't know if state law does outlaw them or not. Wrong: See correction below.

Gonzalez v. Raich: DrewM. points out that a similar challenge to federal commerce-clause authority recently occurred with regard to private cultivation of marijuana. And the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 the power of the commerce clause (which, in strong form, seems pretty much absolute) overcame state law to the contrary.

In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court held that the commerce clause gave Congress authority to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana, despite state law to the contrary. Stevens argued that the Court's precedent "firmly established" Congress' commerce clause power to regulate purely local activities that are part of a "class of activities" with a substantial effect on interstate commerce. The majority argued that Congress could ban local marijuana use because it was part of such a "class of activities": the national marijuana market. Local use affected supply and demand in the national marijuana market, making the regulation of intrastate use "essential" to regulating the drug's national market. The majority distinguished the case from Lopez and Morrison. In those cases, statutes regulated non-economic activity and fell entirely outside Congress' commerce power; in this case, the Court was asked to strike down a particular application of a valid statutory scheme.

This is a recent case (2005) and it commands a 6-3 majority, which is much better than average in these sorts of divisive cases about starting assumptions and basic principles.

However, the court distinguished between economic and non-economic activity. Drug cultivation seems at least somewhat more of an economic activity, affecting the "stream of commerce," than gun modification. I suppose it's possible the court can distinguish this if it wants to, or allow some of it while striking much of it down. For example, it could permit modifications while still upholding the fed's power to ban wholesale, straight-from-the-factory manufacture of prohibited arms. One can make an argument that most (but not all) drug manufacture is intended for commercial purposes, whereas most (but not all) gun modifications are intended strictly for personal use and hence are "non-economic" in impact.

One could.


Machineguns Still Prohibited: ThomasD alerts me to the exception in the law for weapons that fire "two or more projectiles" with a single trigger activations. I read that, but for some bizarre reason I could only imagine it meant duplex cartridges (cartridges which contain two bullets, both fired at once) or even shotgun pellets.

It didn't occur to me, despite wondering about machine guns, that this specifically excluded automatic weapons from Montana's in-state protections. And yet -- it does. So obvious, and I missed it.

And several commenters tell me it's not as easy to convert a semi-automatic weapon to fully automatic as I imagine.


Posted by: Ace at 04:00 PM



Comments

1 Go Montana!

Posted by: Old Sailor at May 06, 2009 04:01 PM (/Ft4q)

2 Any semi-auto can be converted to 'full auto'.  The bad news is, it stays that way until you 'fix' it.  Having a semi-auto with a selector switch for full auto capability is a different animal.

Posted by: GarandFan at May 06, 2009 04:05 PM (C3okI)

3 Federalism, baby!  It's what's for freakin' dinner (and breakfast, lunch, and snack too). 

Posted by: thirteen28 at May 06, 2009 04:07 PM (s8N54)

4 Not that easy to convert a commercial AR-15. Silencers are illegal in the U.S. because of poaching, not assassins. Stupid law.

Posted by: dan in michigan at May 06, 2009 04:07 PM (88w67)

5 Yeah, nice idea but there's no way that flies given the current post Gonzalez v. Raich state of Commerce Clause jurisprudence.

I wish it were otherwise but.....

Posted by: DrewM. at May 06, 2009 04:08 PM (PLGGU)

6 True Fact(s) -

The native Montanans are looking for a more efficient way to hunt those Californians and other Eastern types who purchased 500+ acre "dude ranches"

google it!

Expect Tom Brokaw to be *extremely conflicted* about this issue.

Expect Ted Nugent to shoot a reality series "Big Timber, Big Caliber"

Expect the Kossacks to question Senator John Tester's commitment to the weenie-people.


Posted by: BumperStickerist at May 06, 2009 04:09 PM (ruzrP)

7 Utah is considering passing the same law.

Posted by: elliot m at May 06, 2009 04:11 PM (13Ugm)

8 Yeah, nice idea but there's no way that flies given the current post Gonzalez v. Raich state of Commerce Clause jurisprudence.

Yeah, but you have to admire the chutzpah. I swear if the winters weren't so godawful, I'd move to Montana.

Posted by: Farmer_Joe at May 06, 2009 04:11 PM (z4es9)

9 Texas needs a law like this as well.

Posted by: izoneguy at May 06, 2009 04:14 PM (3k9TU)

10 So, there are reasons to move to Montana other than its crops of dental floss.

Posted by: ghost of Frank Zappa at May 06, 2009 04:14 PM (knHvu)

11 #8 - Ditto. I lived in eastern Washington for 5 years, loved it but damn, those winters were long. And I am certified weather wimp.

Posted by: IC at May 06, 2009 04:15 PM (jZNCU)

12 The proper term is "suppressor" not "silencer".

Posted by: EC at May 06, 2009 04:15 PM (iWj1i)

13 #8 Buy yourself some warm coveralls, boots and a 4-wheel drive truck. Me, I just need some more warm clothes. Wonder what the job situation is like out there. Maybe a spot riding fence on a ranch?

Posted by: teej at May 06, 2009 04:16 PM (c459z)

14 Some of this will fly. 

There's one federal district (I'm thinking mid-west'ish) where the prohibition on manufacture of new fully automatic weapons was overturned on a case filed by some small local machine gun manufacturer.  The feds didn't appeal to SCOTUS because they were afraid the whole 1986 full auto prohibition law would be overturned nationwide.  Winners can't appeal, so it stayed localized to the particular district.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at May 06, 2009 04:17 PM (qsxNt)

15

Silencers (or supressors) are NOT illegal.  They are defined by Federal law as NFA Class 3 items and require a lot of bullshit paper work with the ATF and a lot of waiting, but they are perfectly legal to own once you pay for and receive your $200 tax stamp.

Some individual states have made them illegal, but in many states (including my own) they are perfectly legal.

 

FYI, AR15's are not 'that' easy to modify into full auto.  AKs on the other hand are fairly trivial to modify if you own an drill, a dremel, and a full-auto trigger pack (which are both legal and plentiful).  Disclaimer: DO NOT ATTEMPT THIS.

Posted by: Citizen Snips at May 06, 2009 04:17 PM (dfslO)

16 If at first you don't secede ...

Posted by: Joe Mama at May 06, 2009 04:17 PM (QA8jC)

17 Which I understand is a fairly easy modification.

You understand incorrectly. It's not easy, nor is it particularly safe. Trying to modify a semiauto AR15 to full-auto is a good way to get yourself or someone else killed.

Further: even military versions of the AR (M16 and M4) do not have full-auto settings. They have 3-round burst settings. There is an M16A3 with a full-auto option, but I've never actually seen one in a military armory.

Posted by: Monty at May 06, 2009 04:17 PM (/0a60)

18 Early M16's were full auto capable, later versions went to the three-round burst because of the way troops wasted ammo, burnt up barrels and jammed the early versions.

Posted by: Joe Mama at May 06, 2009 04:20 PM (QA8jC)

19 The federal government can outlaw the weapons but they must enforce the laws with federal officers.

That is essentially what has happened with California's pot laws.
Local officials are barred from enforcing the laws and the federal government cannot compel them to act.

Posted by: Nom de Blog at May 06, 2009 04:23 PM (fnU+z)

20

Posted by: Citizen Snips at May 06, 2009 04:17 PM (dfslO)

 

Thanks for pointing this out CS.

I was at a gun show in Mobile a few months ago and there were a couple of suppressor vendors in attendance. With the feds having to bust out the gloves for a full body cavity search in order to get the license, who would want to go through it?

Posted by: turtle at May 06, 2009 04:23 PM (PWj7B)

21 M16A1

Posted by: Joe Mama at May 06, 2009 04:24 PM (QA8jC)

22 JoeMama: Full-auto on an assault rifle is a waste, as just about every military has learned by now. It ruins the barrel, is inaccurate as hell, wastes ammo, and encourages the "spray and pray" shooting behavior you see in terrorists the world over. Nearly every shot after the first couple will go high and wide as the muzzle rises. The AR is somewhat less prone to this than, say, the AK-47 because the barrel is in-line with the stock, but it still happens. And a full-auto trigger sear is a notoriously finicky mechanism: many's the poor joe who let go a burst only to have his gun "run away" and keep running until the ammo ran out. (This used to be quite a problem with SAWs, and required FN to redesign the trigger sear if I remember correctly.)

Posted by: Monty at May 06, 2009 04:24 PM (/0a60)

23 JoeMama:

The M16A3 is the full-auto version of the M16A2, but I never actually saw one in a military armory anywhere. I don't even know if all that many were made.

Posted by: Monty at May 06, 2009 04:25 PM (/0a60)

24 But the federal government has generally argued that it has authority under the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution to regulate guns because they can so easily be transported across state lines.

So can my Johnson.

Posted by: Michael at May 06, 2009 04:27 PM (siOQ7)

25 I had followed this a little bit since I was born and raised in MT. The section you highlighted is where I think the feds would try to step in. If raw materials like steel and wood or especially a pre-made part like a barrel or trigger came from out of state the feds would try to regulate as under interstate commerce. It's also interesting because Schweitzer seems like a pretty liberal D, who endorsed BO and spoke at the convention and the state is dangerously close to turning blue.

Posted by: SilentMoron at May 06, 2009 04:27 PM (Ki3Ag)

26 and I suppose this will also permit weapons like the AR-15 to be converted to fully-automatic capability.

No, read the whole law.  It specifically excludes any weapon that fires 'two or more projectiles with one activation of the trigger.'  So machine guns are still regulated by the NFA of 1934.
 
What it does allow is (as mentioned) silencers and 1.5 caliber (that 's 37.5 mm) weapons.  Federal law classifies any modern breach loading weapon above 0.50 caliber as a destructive device.

Posted by: ThomasD at May 06, 2009 04:28 PM (21H5U)

27 In ROTC, we got to go down to Bragg for a weekend training lab.  Everyone was given an M16 from the armoury.  Mine was so old it had XM-177 stamped on the side!

Posted by: EC at May 06, 2009 04:29 PM (iWj1i)

28 It must be noted that Ace is on fire today.  His daily output is up 115%! 

Posted by: Winston at May 06, 2009 04:29 PM (FggW0)

29 Ah, I see, thanks Thomas. And thanks to commenters for the earlier schooling on the difficulty of converting a weapon to fully auto.

Posted by: ace at May 06, 2009 04:30 PM (gEsIJ)

30

Regarding the full-auto issue, the Exceptions Section lists items which are still illegal. To wit: "(4) a firearm that discharges two or more projectiles with one activation of the trigger or other firing device".

Unless I've misunderstood, full auto or 3rd burst are still out.

Posted by: YourTaxDollarsAtWork at May 06, 2009 04:31 PM (/3yde)

31 It won't matter to the ever-intrusive federal government whether Montana is legally able to do this or not.  If the feds lose the interstate commerce argument, they'll just withhold money from Montana.  I seem to recall the feds meddling with the states' individual drinking age laws, threatening to withhold federal funding for all sorts of things the states wanted if the age was not raised to 21.  Same with speed limits. Given that right now, the majority of the states' revenue comes from the federal government, the latter has the leverage.

Posted by: angler at May 06, 2009 04:31 PM (Yv052)

32

Gonzalez v. Raich

I can't imagine the Supreme Court would choose to vote to limit their ability to regulate / meddle with interstate commerce.  Law and constitution be damned, they are not going to cast the votes that would reduce their power or influence.

We have jury nullification, and judicial nullification.  (I just made that  comparison up.  But I kinda like it.)

Posted by: Ed at May 06, 2009 04:32 PM (VplQ7)

33 Monty:

The M16A1 issued in the 1960s-1980s was only semi-auto/full auto. They are distinguished by their triangular hand guards

Posted by: Joe Mama at May 06, 2009 04:33 PM (QA8jC)

34 Good luck. "Sure would be a shame to see sumpin' happen to that there Federal funding- all of it-, now, wouldn't it?"

Posted by: t-bird at May 06, 2009 04:34 PM (FcR7P)

35 >>>I can't imagine the Supreme Court would choose to vote to limit their ability to regulate / meddle with interstate commerce. Law and constitution be damned, they are not going to cast the votes that would reduce their power or influence.

They have before. I think in a case called Lopez, a Scalia majority rejected the feds' claim that they could pass "gun free school zone" laws, finding that that sort of law was a state-only privilege and the commerce clause could not be expanded to include such power without mutating it beyond all recognition (and without any actual limits).


Posted by: ace at May 06, 2009 04:35 PM (gEsIJ)

36 FYI, AR15's are not 'that' easy to modify into full auto.

I have to disagree - google 'lightning link' and you will find lots of pages with complete instructions. Essentially you could make one in an afternoon with a dremel and some sheet metal. They just drop into the lower receiver and by all accounts seem to work just fine.

Posted by: Mوtenloch at May 06, 2009 04:37 PM (z1Jlf)

37 As a general rule, the commerce clause is read as permitting the feds to do pretty much anything they want, but in occasional cases the Supreme Court does step in to say "overreach."

It gets very murky. in law school a friend and I decided the standard was the smell test, and a law would be knocked down only if it positively stank. (Stank of pushing the commerce clause into justifying *anything* without announceable limits.)

Posted by: ace at May 06, 2009 04:38 PM (gEsIJ)

38 Monty:

Closeup pic of M16A1 receiver here.

Posted by: Joe Mama at May 06, 2009 04:39 PM (QA8jC)

39 Montana has gone beyond drawing a line in the sand. They have challenged the Federal Government. The fed now either takes them on and risks them saying the federal agents have no right to violate their state gun laws and arrest the federal agents that try to enforce the federal firearms acts. This will be a world-class event to watch. Montana could go to voting for secession from the union, which is really throwing the gauntlet in Obamas face. If the federal government does nothing they lose face. Gotta love it.

Posted by: sickinmass at May 06, 2009 04:39 PM (/i4dU)

40  Now if the rest of the state legislatures will stand up and be counted, maybe the idiots in  dc will begin to get the message.

Posted by: paranoid polly at May 06, 2009 04:41 PM (YLNjm)

41 If guns and ammunition are manufactured inside the State of Montana for sale and use inside that state then the federal firearms laws have no applicability since the federal government only has the power to control commerce across state lines. Montana has the law on their side. Since when did the USA start following their own laws.. especially the constitution of the USA, the very document that empowers the USA.

Posted by: sickinmass at May 06, 2009 04:42 PM (/i4dU)

42

I'm ready for a red state seccession. Our local news radio guy has been talking about it lately, so it's going mainstream.

It sounds crazy, but forcing San Francisco and rural Texas to pretend to be the same country is crazier.

Posted by: adolfo_velasquez at May 06, 2009 04:43 PM (0I6jO)

43

ace at May 06, 2009 04:35 PM (gEsIJ)

Hmmmm.  Damn you and your inconvenient use of "facts" and "data."  None-the-less, I still "think" or "guess" that they will vote the way I said originally.

I'm acting all "emotional" and using my "feelings" to construct one kick-ass comment here.  I can feel it.

Posted by: Ed at May 06, 2009 04:43 PM (VplQ7)

44 I seem to recall the feds meddling with the states' individual drinking age laws, threatening to withhold federal funding for all sorts of things the states wanted if the age was not raised to 21.

Montana has been down this path before.  Their response to the Federally mandated double nickel was to make highway speeding a 'resource violation.'  Violations were not considered a traffic infraction (no points) and resulted in a $5 fine (payable on the spot.)  That's how Montana kept their Federal highway dollars flowing.

They want a fight, and they will force one.  Schweitzer knows it and he's not happy. but he likes being Governor more.

Posted by: ThomasD at May 06, 2009 04:44 PM (21H5U)

45 Silencers made in Montana and sold in Montana would be fully legal and not registered. As a note silencers were first used before the 007 movies as a device to enable one to hunt without disturbing neighbors and scaring game. They were also useful as devices to control noise when practicing so as to not disturb the neighbors.
Silencers work best with a bolt-action rifle. There is a long barrel and the chamber is closed tight so as to direct all the gases though the silencer at the tip of the barrel. Semi-auto pistols and revolvers do not really muffle the sound very well except on the silver screen. The revolvers bleed gas out with the sound all over the place. The semi-auto pistols bleed the gases out when the slide recoils back.
Silencers are maybe nice for snipers picking off enemy soldiers even though they reduce velocity but not very practical for hit men shooting pistols in crowded places. Silencers were useful tools for gun enthusiasts and hunters.

Posted by: sickinmass at May 06, 2009 04:45 PM (/i4dU)

46 >>>If guns and ammunition are manufactured inside the State of Montana for sale and use inside that state then the federal firearms laws have no applicability since the federal government only has the power to control commerce across state lines. Montana has the law on their side.

No, or at least that's not the current state of the law. The commerce clause power comes into play with articles that "affect the stream of commerce," according to longstanding precedent, which you might disagree with, but that's the law as it stands.

"Affecting the stream of commerce" is basically a justification to apply federal law to an article that is OFTEN sold across state lines without having to prove that the article did cross state lines. The idea I guess is that such things are fungible. and that buying a pound of coke purely intra-state just deducts one pound of coke bought inter-state.

Or something.

Posted by: ace at May 06, 2009 04:46 PM (gEsIJ)

47 or something.

Posted by: sickinmass at May 06, 2009 04:47 PM (/i4dU)

48 There would be no firearm registration, serial numbers, criminal records check, waiting periods or paperwork required. So in a short period of time there would be millions and millions of unregistered untraceable guns in Montana. Way to go Montana.

Posted by: sickinmass at May 06, 2009 04:49 PM (/i4dU)

49 Commerce Claus is coming to town...

Posted by: Joe Mama at May 06, 2009 04:49 PM (QA8jC)

50 I love San Diego but damn, I want to move to Montana.

Posted by: MrsPaulsFishSticks at May 06, 2009 04:49 PM (iYbLN)

51

Oh hell yeah.

39 Montana has gone beyond drawing a line in the sand. They have challenged the Federal Government. The fed now either takes them on and risks them saying the federal agents have no right to violate their state gun laws and arrest the federal agents that try to enforce the federal firearms acts. This will be a world-class event to watch. Montana could go to voting for secession from the union, which is really throwing the gauntlet in Obamas face. If the federal government does nothing they lose face. Gotta love it.

Posted by: red raging skye at May 06, 2009 04:49 PM (/1Igs)

52 Montana, you have my full support in this endeavor.  Please stick to your guns on this legislation. 

Posted by: tom at May 06, 2009 04:50 PM (KNCWm)

53 Let us see what Obama does. If he hits Montana hard they will probably vote to secede from the USA. The governor of Texas has already been refusing Federal money because he does not want to agree to the conditions that go with it and he has been saying secession is a right they have as sort of a threat. Things are no longer the same with the USA. Do not be deceived by Obama acting as if all is the same, it is not.

SiM

Posted by: sickinmass at May 06, 2009 04:51 PM (/i4dU)

54 Can someone in Montana please manufacture a full auto receiver for my RPK?  :-)

Posted by: Dan F at May 06, 2009 04:51 PM (X69s8)

55

I don't know if this will work or not, but damn do I love the effort.

Posted by: Lee at May 06, 2009 04:51 PM (TxTIh)

56 9 dipwads in black robes aside, Montana clearly has the right to do what it has done under our constitution.  Everyone is looking for a way out from the socialist debacle in Washington so there are a lot of hail marys being thrown.  Anything that even slows down our rush towards Banana Republic status is to be greatly appreciated.

Posted by: Ben Franklin at May 06, 2009 04:52 PM (qpkkH)

57 HOUSE BILL NO. 246
INTRODUCED BY J. BONIEK, BENNETT, BUTCHER, CURTISS, RANDALL, WARBURTON AN ACT EXEMPTING FROM FEDERAL REGULATION UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES A FIREARM, A FIREARM ACCESSORY, OR AMMUNITION MANUFACTURED AND RETAINED IN MONTANA; AND PROVIDING AN APPLICABILITY DATE. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MONTANA:
 KUDOS!!

Posted by: sickinmass at May 06, 2009 04:53 PM (/i4dU)

58

At my last command, our M-16 A-1's were full auto, they were made by Fabrique Nationale or some wierd sounding frenchy name like that.

My AR-15, I wouldn't even know where to start or come with a valid reason to convert to full auto, waste of ammo i think.

Posted by: navycopjoe at May 06, 2009 04:54 PM (+2uxp)

59 Silencers are maybe nice for snipers picking off enemy soldiers even though they reduce velocity but not very practical for hit men shooting pistols in crowded places. Silencers were useful tools for gun enthusiasts and hunters.

Plus remember that silencers do not really make the gun silent - they just reduce the sound that it makes. Plus if the bullet travels faster than the speed of sound (which most ammunition does), there will still be a noticable 'crack' from the shock wave. The only way to get a true Hollywood-style silent gun is to use a bolt-action gun with special subsonic rounds.

Posted by: Mوtenloch at May 06, 2009 04:54 PM (z1Jlf)

60

Ugggh, make that M16 A2s not A1's

 

Posted by: navycopjoe at May 06, 2009 04:55 PM (+2uxp)

61 My AR-15, I wouldn't even know where to start or come with a valid reason to convert to full auto, waste of ammo i think.

Yeah, pretty much. Although it would be nice to have the option in some fast zombie situations.

Posted by: Mوtenloch at May 06, 2009 04:57 PM (z1Jlf)

62 The 10th amendment to the United States constitution guarantees to the
states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government
elsewhere in the constitution and reserves to the state and people of Montana
certain powers as they were understood at the time that Montana was admitted
to statehood in 1889. The guaranty of those powers is a matter of contract
between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time
that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by
Montana and the United States in 1889.
..or something.

Posted by: sickinmass at May 06, 2009 04:57 PM (/i4dU)

63
> 26 ...
What it does allow is (as mentioned) silencers and 1.5 caliber (that 's 37.5 mm) weapons. Federal law classifies any modern breach loading weapon above 0.50 caliber as a destructive device.

Posted by: ThomasD


Now that's a serious gun.

Anzio Iron Works has a 20mm rifle for sale
http://tinyurl.com/cguljt

What does Federal law say about that?

Posted by: Comrade Arthur at May 06, 2009 04:58 PM (ZDeXM)

64

Markie Marxist sez:  "It makes me laugh when people imagine that America is a nation of laws.  It's a nation of political correctness according to Marxist values.  Accordingly, if you piss in the wind, that is covered by the interstate commerce clause, and thus our Marxist federal government can regulate your windward pissing.  Anyone who thinks otherwise is all wet.  Basically, we Marxists own everyone and everything in the country and there's no getting away from us.  Anywhere.  Ha!  Ha!" 

Posted by: Chas at May 06, 2009 04:58 PM (yjDfo)

65 There is a reason Obama was named "Gun Salesman of the Year."

Posted by: MrsPaulsFishSticks at May 06, 2009 04:58 PM (iYbLN)

66 Posted by: ace at May 06, 2009 04:35 PM (gEsIJ)

Check out Scalia's concurrence in Raich. He basically says it was different from Lopez because in Lopez the only nexus was that an item may have moved through the interstate commerce system and that wasn't sufficient.

He voted to uphold Raich even thogh all the materials were intrastate because that undermined a national regulatory scheme for an entire market .  This quote kind of sums that up.

I think based on Raich Scalia would find that Congress was regulating the market off weapons, not it's use or the provence of the materials and would apply his "logic*" from that case.

But who knows.


*Reading that opinion was so damn sad. Nino! How could you?

Posted by: DrewM. at May 06, 2009 04:58 PM (PLGGU)

67 Ahhh,  I remember when the hell fire trigger system was being sold, did not work too well though.  So I just made a template for the AK 47 and went to town. As for my AR15's,  that will just have to be my secret...I wonder if Honest Cloud lives on Brokeback mountain

Posted by: Todd at May 06, 2009 04:58 PM (RNwpX)

68

There would be no firearm registration, serial numbers, criminal records check, waiting periods or paperwork required. So in a short period of time there would be millions and millions of unregistered untraceable guns in Montana. Way to go Montana.

No, Montana law would almost certainly require such things.  A lack of federal law doesn't necessarily make it legal.

Besides, guns in most states aren't "registered", and only traceable with regards to a dealer that sold it and who they sold it to- even then only as long as dealers are required to maintain their records.  Under current law, that buyer is free to sell to whomever he likes without a background check, paperwork or registration, making any privately sold firearm "untraceable".

Posted by: Hollowpoint at May 06, 2009 04:59 PM (rf03a)

69 If a significant number of states pass such laws, won't that invalidate the Commerce Clause by SCOTUS' thinking?

Didn't SCOTUS unconstitutionalize the death penalty for juveniles because some states (but not a majority) outlawed it?

Didn't SCOTUS unconstitutionalize the death penalty for rape because a majority of states don't have it on the books?

So, if a significant number of states allow intrastate manufacture and sale of firearms and ammunition doesn't that trump the Commerce Clause.

/sarc off

Though I like it this doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell.  Better that Montana calls for a Constitutional Convention to rewrite the Commerce Clause.  If enough states get on board, it may scare Congress to back off; they would fear that a Convention could (and probably would) go to places where the Federal Government wouldn't want.

Posted by: David in San Diego at May 06, 2009 05:00 PM (GF+6V)

70 The ninth amendment to the United States constitution guarantees to the
people rights not granted in the constitution and reserves to the people of
Montana certain rights, as they were understood at the time that Montana
was admitted to statehood in 1889.

Posted by: sickinmass at May 06, 2009 05:00 PM (/i4dU)

71 Re: My 66...Whoops, you already addressed some of that in an update (note to me...refresh is your friend).

I just don't see how if you don't have Scalia and for the reasons I laid out, I don't think MT would, you have a prayer.

Too bad.

Posted by: DrewM. at May 06, 2009 05:02 PM (PLGGU)

72 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.

Posted by: sickinmass at May 06, 2009 05:03 PM (/i4dU)

73 Maetenlock at #59 remember, you can't hear anything at much over a quarter mile, especially with a breeze. I've got a buddy that hunts squirrels in the back yard with sub sonic 22 rounds and the neighbors are none the wiser. (semi-downtown major metropolitan area ... inside the first loop), so it's not out in the boonies or anything.

And funny enough, less power and caliber than many air guns. If you are an enthusiast, there is a new group of air guns that run to large caliber and are much quieter then their gunpowder cousins.

Posted by: Mephitis at May 06, 2009 05:03 PM (ehXLT)

74

I heard Texas WAS doing something similar, but I may have misheard (the problem with radio is you can't go back and re-hear something that catches your interest). 

And I think it'd be great to have San Fransisco and Amarillo part of the same country, but without federalism to keep California's suicide by socialism away from Texas, I'm not especially in favor of the idea.

Posted by: Cautiously Pessimistic at May 06, 2009 05:04 PM (uJPvV)

75
Moving to Montana soon,
Gonna be a dental floss tycoon!

Posted by: Zombie Frank Zappa at May 06, 2009 05:04 PM (ao5cQ)

76 The only way to get a true Hollywood-style silent gun is to use a bolt-action gun with special subsonic rounds.

Or just a supressed boltie chambered in .45ACP, like the old British DeLisle carbine (basically a modified Lee-Enfield rifle used by the British Commandos in WWII).

There's a company in Nevada that currently modifies Lee-Enfields into DeLisle replicas, if you have your NFA paperwork in order.

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at May 06, 2009 05:06 PM (uwPRk)

77  I am so glad the Montana legislature mustered the brass to defy the federal tyrany! This new state law was well thought out to foil the disarming of Montana by the traitors in the District of Criminals. I hope many other states will enact similar measures! And I just might want to move to Montana! Don't tread on me!

Posted by: sickinmass at May 06, 2009 05:07 PM (/i4dU)

78

you can have a supressor, sbr and full auto in ct...$200 bucks a piece.

i'm building a sbr supressed ar15 now just some extra paperwork, time and of course the tax stamps.

 

 

Posted by: unamerican hate mongering evil libertarian at May 06, 2009 05:08 PM (2J+Vs)

79 Way to go Montana, I hope the other surrounding states follow suit since the East and West coasts seem to want to run the country the way they see fit. Looks like Oklahoma isnt far behind and several other states possibly on-board too. I will keep my money and guns and you can keep "The Change". WooT!

Posted by: sickinmass at May 06, 2009 05:09 PM (/i4dU)

80 Montana receives a standing ovation from me us!

Posted by: sickinmass at May 06, 2009 05:10 PM (/i4dU)

81

I love my Enfields, I do not like the price of the 303 British though

Posted by: Todd at May 06, 2009 05:15 PM (RNwpX)

82 I fucking hate NY. I gotta get out.


Posted by: Iblis at May 06, 2009 05:15 PM (9221z)

83 Montana should be admitted to the AoSHQ Lace Wig (or Whig) Brigade!

I am a proud (and only) member!

Posted by: MrsPaulsFishSticks at May 06, 2009 05:15 PM (iYbLN)

84 As to the secession thing, since they were once a Republic of their own, doesn't Texas have an explicit right of secession that's a holdover from when they entered the union? I vaguely remember something like that in regards to Texas constitutional law.

Probably moot now (especially after the Civil War), but I'd be interested in knowing.

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at May 06, 2009 05:17 PM (uwPRk)

85 The suppressor thing is cool.  Prairie dogs run at the crack of the muzzle.  That's why that was included.

The bigger picture here goes back to the Civil War, where the concept of the "Union" was utterly distorted by the North.  (Disclaimer:  I'm from generations of Ohioans, and we fought, and died, on the side of the North.).  The "Union" is the union of the several states.  Imagine if they forced DC to secede?  Imagine if state sovereignty, (distorted by Northeast metrosexuals as meaning "keepin' the black man down"), was the norm.  Think we'd be seeing this Chrysler shit today?  Giant deficits?  ACORN thugs?  "A civilian national security force just as powerful...."?
I like it.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at May 06, 2009 05:18 PM (vsJhE)

86 @ 25 "It's also interesting because Schweitzer seems like a pretty liberal D, who endorsed BO and spoke at the convention and the state is dangerously close to turning blue."

I think you may have identified the fly in the ointment of Hope and Change. I don't think "hope and change" means what they thought it meant.

May I suggest for the next presidential election, when confronted by a vague campaign slogan such as "hope and change", that the media ask for clarification.

Posted by: Big Daddy at May 06, 2009 05:20 PM (ZB+Vj)

87 I love my Enfields, I do not like the price of the 303 British though

No one in my area carries 303 ammo, except for a few rounds of nasty, corroded, 40 yr old Pakistani. Eww. I have a decent Enfield sporter that I picked up for a song in late October, and I still haven't put a round downrange.

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at May 06, 2009 05:21 PM (uwPRk)

88 Or just a supressed boltie chambered in .45ACP, like the old British DeLisle carbine (basically a modified Lee-Enfield rifle used by the British Commandos in WWII).

The OSS built silenced Thompson in WWII but apparently they were still quite noisy.  The British built the Welrod which according to reports was still in use as of the first Gulf War.

Posted by: Mوtenloch at May 06, 2009 05:23 PM (z1Jlf)

89 lets be clear ok. i don't speak montanain but i'm ready to have a serious discussion about health care.. lets not try and pretend this is about some outdated worthless amendment.

Posted by: barry o. at May 06, 2009 05:23 PM (2J+Vs)

90 I posted this on the other gun thread, but again, seems timely:

26-I think this is a nice bookend story from Montana.

CIFTA. Educate yourselves.  Got this from comments from the above link.  Saw a video two days ago at Dollard-   Lou Dobbs on Cifta.

It is an end run around legislating gun control/ban.  Basically adopt this International treaty (Senate only involved) and voila. Gun control/ban.

Go. Read. This BO is just moving waaaaay to fast. This is outrageous. We are in trouble here, as all of you clearly know.

http://www.gunlaws.com/GunLawUpdate5-CIFTA.htm

I can get to Montana or Canada on skis via all the connecting ridgelines within a day or two, snow permitting.  Without, not so much.  I feel like I'm in the Sound of Music.  Except the music is Snoop Dogg, not Julie Andrews.

Posted by: Derak at May 06, 2009 05:28 PM (QIsMa)

91 @31 "It won't matter to the ever-intrusive federal government whether Montana is legally able to do this or not.  If the feds lose the interstate commerce argument, they'll just withhold money from Montana."

 But, if the Federal government withheld federal tax dollars which are in part collected from Montanans(?), couldn't Montana as a state encourage her citizens and businesses to not particpate in federal income tax collection? Maybe the state could collect the money due to the IRS and hold it in escrow until these thorny "states rights" issues could be worked out?

Posted by: Big Daddy at May 06, 2009 05:28 PM (ZB+Vj)

92 Gun pron: Reproduction DeLisle carbine

Me want. Me want now.

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at May 06, 2009 05:29 PM (uwPRk)

93 The "Hate Crime" bill and the "Stimulus" bill also both claim to trump state laws. This isn't even about firearms anymore; it's about whether or not those 50 stars still mean anything. Are states really just vassal states, mere administrative districts of the Feddle Leviathan?

Posted by: Ethan Allen at May 06, 2009 05:29 PM (BfPSD)

94

IllTemperedCur,

No, Texas doesn't have a special claim to the right to secede.  That's a myth.  It CAN break itself up into 5 smaller states if it wishes, and it CAN fly the state flag even with the US flag.  But it has no more right to seceded than any other state, based on its statehood treaty.

Posted by: Cautiously Pessimistic at May 06, 2009 05:31 PM (uJPvV)

95

nice idea but there's no way that flies given the current post Gonzalez v. Raich state of Commerce Clause jurisprudence.

If the federal government breaks the law, are we compelled to obey them? It's not an academic question these days, and not just on the gun question.

Posted by: flenser at May 06, 2009 05:38 PM (veaUx)

96 The "Hate Crime" bill and the "Stimulus" bill also both claim to trump state laws. This isn't even about firearms anymore; it's about whether or not those 50 stars still mean anything. Are states really just vassal states, mere administrative districts of the Feddle Leviathan?

Posted by: Ethan Allen at May 06, 2009 05:29 PM (BfPSD)

You sold me a really shitty couch.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at May 06, 2009 05:41 PM (vsJhE)

97

Ace, your comment system ate my post. And then posted this in the Randy Barnett post which I was trying to reference. I take no responsibility for this! /Obama voter.

Anyway, my post was TOTALLY AWESOME, dude. It was all about the Constitution and stuff.

Shorter post: the Commerce Clause interpretation isn't "law," it's judicial voodoo that calls things which aren't either interstate or commerce both interstate and commerce and therefore punitively and violently regulated by Congress. Because Congress totally has the right to regulate ALL INDUSTRIES. I don't remember that being part of the Constitution. Maybe because it isn't.

Congress has the right to regulate interstate commerce. What Montana is proposing isn't interstate. Ergo, Congress can't regulate it. You're actually defending a totalitarian/fascist power grab from FDR, where the SCOTUS decided that a farmer growing his own hay for his own cattle to eat was interstate commerce. The hell, I say!

That is not Constitutional, and it's not even a defined regulation or law. No one voted for that, neither legislatively nor electorally. If Montana wants to secede, I say bring it. It's terrific. I support you, secessionary states! And this is all an interesting development, in light of flenser's post just yesterday on the Randy Barnett federalism thread:

All countries only exist as long as the people in them want them to. If a critical mass of Americans decide that this country is more trouble than it is worth, it won't exist much longer. But I think we are a long way away from that point. Americans do destest each other, but they are bound together by the belief that they are richer together than they would be seperately. If that belief is ever called into question the end will be nigh.

Turns out that point wasn't so far away. Awesome.

Posted by: Ella at May 06, 2009 05:44 PM (jeP9I)

98

#86

May I suggest for the next presidential election, when confronted by a vague campaign slogan such as "hope and change", that the media ask for clarification.

What media?

Posted by: rushbabe at May 06, 2009 05:48 PM (LKkE8)

99 Posted by: Cautiously Pessimistic at May 06, 2009 05:31 PM (uJPvV)

Yeah, I remembered hearing that somewhere and I was too lazy to look it up.

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at May 06, 2009 05:57 PM (uwPRk)

100 I like this Ella person.

Posted by: flenser's mom at May 06, 2009 06:00 PM (veaUx)

101 Texas might not have a per se legal right to secede (at least like a no fault divorce) but every state has the natural right to secede. Just read the Declaration of Independence.

If the federal government becomes oppressive enough, who cares?
One caveat, the state(s) better be ready to back it up...

Posted by: Jollyroger at May 06, 2009 06:08 PM (+tHhv)

102 The only problem is they tried secession a while back, and it didn't turn out to well.

Posted by: Iblis at May 06, 2009 06:11 PM (9221z)

103 Of course now the North doesn't have its industrial advantage anymore, sooo....

Posted by: Iblis at May 06, 2009 06:12 PM (9221z)

104 We here in Alaska adopted a similar law recently. All weapons manufactured in the State of Alaska are exempt from any and all federal laws. As it should be.

Posted by: AkRonin at May 06, 2009 06:21 PM (V9OIR)

105 I think the most infuriating thing about all of the commerce clause jurisprudence is the fact the court itself found such measures unconstitutional, right up until the point where FDR threatened to pack the court with sympathetic justices if they didn't change their vote.
(Maybe Bammy is like FDR)
So if the entire Commerce Clause were predicated on an error (or outright lie based on coercion) we're still stuck with it.

All of our hot-button issues seem to be rooted in the fact that the federal government has overstepped its bounds: from the bailouts, healthcare, unions, gun rights, gay marriage, etc.
These were all designed to be local issues placing the most restrictive measures closest to the people.

An aside, Nino might be able to limit his reasoning in Reich by claiming that gun ownership is a fundamental right which existed at the time of the beginning of the constitution (unlike pot) and therefore vote for upholding the law. Kennedy is the one who would have to switch.

Posted by: Jollyroger at May 06, 2009 06:27 PM (+tHhv)

106 Ella,

My statement of the current law is descriptive, not prescriptive.

I am telling you what the law is now understood to be. I'm not arguing it should be this way or that way.

For your view to prevail would require overturning key precedents from something nearing 100 years.

Posted by: ace at May 06, 2009 06:32 PM (gEsIJ)

107

Alaska and Texas are both looking at this from what I've heard.

One thing to consider. Under the definition as it now stands shotguns would seem to not be exempt since a shotgun shell fires more than one projectile with a single pull of the trigger. Unless they defined projectile differently than commonly understood. They may want to revise that to cartridge.

I believe this has to do with a firearms issue that Montana had a year or two ago about returning gun rights to those that had been arrested for acts that prohibited from owning firearms. It went to court and the courts sided with the Feds.

Another consideration is if this goes to court, and it likely will, if the courts determine that it is interstate commerece. Isn't there Supreme Court precedent that says states can't regulate interstate commerce? Might be a win-win situation for the second amendment.

Posted by: Waste93 at May 06, 2009 06:47 PM (sIGxk)

108 And several commenters tell me it's not as easy to convert a semi-automatic weapon to fully automatic as I imagine.

It's easy and it isn't.  They design semi-automatic guns to make it difficult, but from what I understand all you really need to do is file a bit here and there to make it full auto.  But that means full auto as in "I pull the trigger and it fires until the magazine is empty.  If you want a well-behaved full auto (as in, it stops firing when you release the trigger), it's much more difficult.


Posted by: Ace's liver at May 06, 2009 06:51 PM (XIXhw)

109 I would like to have seen Montana.

Posted by: Captain 2nd Rank Vasily Borodin at May 06, 2009 06:53 PM (c6qaP)

110

Texas's inability to secede is established history.  The original attempt to join the union was the Treaty of 1844, containing that right, but it was not ratified.    

Texas entered the union under a joint resolution of Congress signed March 1, 1845 after Texas submitted evidence that it had a republican form of government and that the majority of its citizens desired annexation.  

We would make an excellent Republic.  Again. 

Posted by: DaveDave at May 06, 2009 06:58 PM (r01J1)

111 From what my dad told me, if you want to you can make a semi-auto M1 (Garand or cabine) put out plenty of bullets in a short time.

Posted by: Mikey NTH at May 06, 2009 06:59 PM (TUWci)

112 If the federal government breaks the law, are we compelled to obey them? It's not an academic question these days, and not just on the gun question.

No, it really is an academic question, because the single distinguishing characteristic of government is the monopoly on violence.  You may not feel compelled to obey them, but your feelings aren't going to save you from federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison.

The options are the same as they've always been, whether or not the feds obey the law.  Obey, disobey and risk going to jail, or revolution.  Do you really think people are more upset over this kind of thing than people were (in certain quarters) over desegregation?

Posted by: Ace's liver at May 06, 2009 06:59 PM (XIXhw)

113 107
Carter v. Carter Coal Co. was the most recent and ruled coal mining was not interstate commerce, NLRB v. Jones-Laughlen Steel was the first after the switch in time that saved the nine.

Good luck getting it overruled, it would make Medicade, Medicare , EPA, Social Security, minimum wage, civil rights laws, etc. unconstitutional.


Posted by: Jollyroger at May 06, 2009 07:02 PM (+tHhv)

114 Raich wasn't a big departure from established law.  Where it all went off the rails was Wickard v. Filburn in 1942, where the court ruled congress could dictate how much wheat farmer Filburn was allowed to grow for use on his own property because it was somehow interstate congress to harvest your wheat and feed it to the pigs.  By that standard pretty much every damn thing is interstate commerce.

I wish the court had ruled differently in Raich, but if it had not only would the decision be a reversal of well-established law, but there would have been a whole lot of turmoil and uncertainty, since half of what the feddle gummit does would have been, at a stroke, unconstitutional.

Posted by: Ace's liver at May 06, 2009 07:12 PM (XIXhw)

115

#46 Ace:

Correct on the 'Stream of commerce' - Wickard v Filburn IIRC.

Posted by: Mikey NTH at May 06, 2009 07:13 PM (TUWci)

116

As I understand the law no state can leave the federal union legally.  Not even Texas*.  A state would have to fight its way out, and I do not see that happening.

Sorry, but if secession was a legal procedure under the federal constitution (and it isn't in there), then it would have been legally available in 1861.  And all "War of Northern Aggression" talk aside there is no procedure for a state to leave the union.  10th Amendment?  Secession effects all of the states, not just the one leaving.  It would be properly a federal issue, and the federal constitution does not provide for it.

There is no legal way for a state to leave the federal union.

*I have not seen this provision for Texas to leave the union when it originally joined, and after the events of 1861-65 and Texas' readmission, I doubt that would have any validity at all.  And I seem to recall US Supreme Court cases stating that.  No go on secession.

Posted by: Mikey NTH at May 06, 2009 07:31 PM (TUWci)

117 what about that work around that texas has the right to break up into 4 smaller states, which thereupon have to vote to enter the union?  I forget where I read that, but it was back when Perry spouted off the secession bit. 

Posted by: Dale in Texas at May 06, 2009 07:50 PM (0ihy/)

118

No, it really is an academic question, because the single distinguishing characteristic of government is the monopoly on violence.  You may not feel compelled to obey them, but your feelings aren't going to save you from federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison.

You are missing the point. If I lived in China or Saudi Arabia I would likewise have to do what the state says, or else. But America, in theory, is not supposed to run on the coercive power of the central government. The states "monopoly on volence" is contingent on its being a legitimate government. See the Founders on this point.

So, no, it really is not an academic question. Not unless you think that those oaths everbody swears to uphold and defend the Constitution are meaningless words. Which, being a lawyer, you possibly do.

 

Do you really think people are more upset over this kind of thing than people were (in certain quarters) over desegregation?

As is usually the case in human affairs, it all comes down to which people are upset. See my comment which Ella quoted above as to where I see the breaking point happening. People will avert their eyes to tyranny as long as their net worth is increasing. If it starts decreasing they will suddenly discover a deep interest in the principles of liberty again. I guarantee it.

Posted by: flenser at May 06, 2009 08:12 PM (887hX)

119

  Disclaimer: DO NOT ATTEMPT THIS.......Posted by: Citizen Snips at May 06, 2009 04:17 PM (dfslO)

Shit, now you tell me. LOL

Posted by: Old Hippie Vet at May 06, 2009 08:41 PM (3IZGh)

120 Ace, I don't mean to argue that that interpretation isn't what you say it is. Wickard v Filburn is the case I'm thinking of.

But, a) precedent isn't written in stone. Dred Scott, Plessy v Fergusson, etc. Just because it's been that way for 65 years, doesn't mean it needs to or should continue, and a free state would be remiss in letting this continue. And b) This interpretation is a heinous usurpation of both individual and state rights. This is exactly the kind of thing we should be objecting to. This is an abomination. What Montana is doing - and Texas and Alaska - is saying, "this is an intrinsic injustice, and we hold THIS TRUTH to be self-evident."

Mainly, I'm just stoked that there is anybody out there who is as fed up with this as I am, in a vaguely revolutionary way. It makes me proud. I've lived in three states my whole life: Oklahoma (voted today for "sovereignty" from the feds), Texas, and Montana. And my dad lives in Alaska.

I am so proud.

Posted by: Ella at May 06, 2009 08:57 PM (jeP9I)

121

Dale in Texas,

Texas can break itself into five smaller states, but each would be a part of the U.S. upon creation, per the statehood treaty.  As several folks state above, the only way out is a fight, or (less likely) an amicable split between factions.  Of course, per the Declaration of Independence, there are circumstances where secession isn't just a right, but a duty.  We're not at that point, in my opinion.

Posted by: Cautiously Pessimistic at May 06, 2009 08:58 PM (uJPvV)

122 The states "monopoly on volence" is contingent on its being a legitimate government. See the Founders on this point.

Nope.  Every functioning government in the world has a monopoly on violence;  some have more legitimacy than others.  I agree a government should be legitimate, but it needn't be to function as a government.

So, no, it really is not an academic question. Not unless you think that those oaths everbody swears to uphold and defend the Constitution are meaningless words. Which, being a lawyer, you possibly do.


What the...?  Them's fightin' words, buddy.  What makes you think I'm a lawyer?  Regarding the oaths, sure, everyone in government swears an oath to uphold and defend.  But your average oath swearer isn't exactly Dennis the Peasant.  They "know" the supreme court is the final arbiter of all things constitutional, and that's as far as it goes.

Posted by: Ace's liver at May 06, 2009 09:17 PM (LtIsn)

123

#121

 

Disagree with you.  We are at that point.  The government has shredded the Constitution.  Its only a question of what Obamists will do in response.

Posted by: Thomas Jackson at May 06, 2009 09:28 PM (0Qynq)

124 Full-auto on an assault rifle is a waste, as just about every military has learned by now. It ruins the barrel, is inaccurate as hell, wastes ammo, and encourages the "spray and pray" shooting behavior you see in terrorists the world over.

I recall seeing an article on strategypage where the military was rethinking that position based on some studies they'd done.  Full auto is useful for suppressive fire, when you just want a volume of mostly un-aimed fire to pin down the enemy while you maneuver and hit him with artillery.  Basically what they found was FA is a good thing to have if your troops are well trained.  But they nixed the M16A3 for two reasons:  1)  It costs too damn much for the marginal benefit to replace everything and 2)  you can't stock your armory with the idea your troops will be always be awesomely trained.  Sure, they are today, but when the Canuck Horde comes streaming over the border you don't wanna put a full auto rifle in the hands of a volunteer with little training.

Posted by: Ace's liver at May 06, 2009 09:44 PM (LtIsn)

125

37.5 mm????

Sweet! I'm moving to Montana and building these:

http://tinyurl.com/cgagtc

http://tinyurl.com/dchaxb

Zwilling, obviously.

Posted by: Fa Cube Itches at May 07, 2009 01:54 AM (8MuSQ)

126

Actually, this might be more fun:

http://tinyurl.com/cj7ncm

 

Posted by: Fa Cube Itches at May 07, 2009 01:58 AM (8MuSQ)

127

Need to know before buying lace wigs Our lace wigs are made of human hairs classified lace human hair wigs on our web. 100% Indian/Chinese remy human hair and best quality Swiss/French lace are used in lace human hair wigs. Lace human hair wig is thin, your scalp can get good breath, so you can feel comfortable just like real hair. You may find hundreds of units and almost 150+ styles of full lace wigs in our store. By using our web searcher, you may locate just the wigs you want without bitter searches. Alshttp://minx.cc/?post=286493o, you may customise lace front wigs here, all you need to do is just to follow our custom options or leave your specials in the "comments". A custom wig can be completed within 25 workdays generally. Thanks for Paypal and our Co-work World Wide Ship corporations, we can ship wigs to all over the world! Show your beauty, show your individuality, experience our wonderful service and dress you up right now!

wedding dresses wedding dress wedding gowns bridesmaid dresses bridesmaid dress

Posted by: royalmewigs at May 07, 2009 04:21 AM (oMUZu)

128

The U.S.S.R. had a constitution.  They did not go by it but they had one.

Much like what has happened to the U.S.  The powers that be just make stuff

up as they go, the constitution be damn.  The "civil war" settled nothing.  The

 founders said we have the right to sucede.  I am tired of a few people that

reside from Washington D.C. to New York City telling me how to live.

Posted by: Case at May 07, 2009 05:32 AM (0K+Kw)

129 Sad we must have laws to protect our constitutional rights in the first place...seems to me we fought over this before but the losers keep trying to find a way to get around the peoples rights.


Posted by: metronil at May 07, 2009 01:24 PM (WUSks)

130 The Declaration of Independence is codified law of the United States of America.

No ifs, no ands, no buts. Period.

To deny this is to willfully surrender your own personal dominion & birthright, thus becoming pliant State chattel.

The fundamental concept of one meekly, dutifully abdicating to the Leviathan of State, one's absolute right of separation from said State, is wholly reviled & the absolute antithesis for the Constitutionalist of Original Intent.

Remarkably, the Constitutionalist is now considered a mortal threat by the DHS due to his proper & unwavering reservation for the foundational precepts of God's Natural Law.

These timeless rights were guaranteed long before the Heavenly-inspired inscribing of the Founding Documents & thus have existed from the very moment God decided to bequeath them to all mankind.

These rights have no shelf-life nor any factual redress from the contrived result of a simple majority foolishly clinging to the "light and transient cause" of perverted societal change, being hypnotically swayed only by the simple solicitation of esoterically twisted logic.

Found cradled in the supreme prose of the Declaration of Independence, is the inherit, God-given rights of all Men to justly throw off & smash the harsh yoke of a tyrannical State; a State which is now clearly in breach of the civil contract it swore to uphold & is duty-bound to jealously protect.

At it's very core, there is a paramount Failure of State. The scope of failure is undeniable, unsustainable & alas, nearly unsalvageable.

This Government has become openly 'destructive' to the proper ends of wise determination.

The Body of State has clearly forfeited the unalienable consent of the governed & recklessly abdicated the temporal privilege of obedient & serviceable governance.

Those readers of a 'litigious' nature, should pay heed to the overwhelming impact contained within the Declaration's cataclysmic opening words.

Since God's initial Earthly Paradise was lost by Adam's vain ignorance, every common Man's unique individuality has been cursed at the hands of countless despots.

Then, for the 1st time in human history, The Declaration of Independence successfully rescinded this natural state of Man's wanton wickedness over his fellow Man. Thus, over the next 200 short years, the Declaration & the Constitution have been definitively proven to be as close as possible to God's absolute truth for the proper governance of this most imperfect creature.

The Declaration's non-negotiable recognition of where rights are truly derived, is why secularists, statists & tyrants in general, regularly play-down & even outright ignore the Declaration as a non-binding or antiquated document of minor import.

Nothing can be further from the truth.

Historically speaking, the Declaration is young, yet it's age is inconsequential. The truths revealed therein are nearly eternal. The words were written to withstand the onslaught of sand.

Following the opening statements when the Founder's rapidly commandeer their true Liberty, the list of incisive indictments of the State's abuses & usurpation's are carefully recorded & bare obvious witness to the entire oppressed lot. These are succinct & effective descriptions of absolute tyranny & thus command timeless application & unprecedented parallel across the generational divide. In these glaring truths of self evidence, the Declaration remains an unbreakable mirror of revelation for recalcitrant governments everywhere, vividly confessing every wart, callus & pustule that attempts to shun the light.

No freedom is ever free, therefore, liberty must be physically purchased in the Patriot's & Tyrant's blood. Within the 2nd Amendment is garrisoned the requisite weapons for the initial demand & vigilant preservation of the Free State.

Overtime, the operational fulcrum where the commanding weight of We The People shall rest, will continue to be on the 2nd Amendment. This will never change due to Man's insidious duplicity, which lies untamed, just beneath his shallow smile. Thus, the 2nd Amendment is an irrevocable guarantee that duly ensures the citizenry's unfettered access to a perpetual bulwark that is the necessary means to properly execute their duty-bound eternal defense of the Free State.

Once the physical being inhabits the well of self-determination, civilization then allows for wit, wisdom & persuasion to be the order of the day & thus maintain the political balance. Man's better angels are then set free to roam & improve the lot of others.

However, the State has a severe predisposition towards the naked display of self-servile hedonism, resulting in it's continual mis-comprehension of the actual hierarchy.

The consensually governed swiftly becomes the unrighteously ruled.

Initially, out of a feigned appearance of restraint, rights are only cleverly dismissed. Soon after, rights simply become objects of jest & sport as the fiefdoms of old once again cruelly dominate the bitter landscape.

No retreat remains. The smite simply becomes involuntary action.

I bow to no man & never will.

By hook or by crook, this creed shall persist.

The State simply can stake no claim.

tahDeetz

______________________________


As per the Bang, Bang, Shoot'em up. . .

. . . HK weapons systems smoke most AR platforms, IMHO. However, I understand there is a new design that has greatly improved the reliability & substantially reduced the AR's persnickety ways. It has something to do w/ the gas operation.

The HK is heavier, louder & costlier, yes, but with no gas operation to get fouled, the delayed roller locked bolt system dutifully spits out lead w/o question. 2 words though for recoverable/reusable brass, port-buffer.

Any caliber you settle on of a civilian version based on the venerable G3 design, is a verifiable Teutonic Pandora's Box of tin-foil-hat, ugly-black-gun-nuttery.

I never grow tired of oogling my Black Deutsche Dames.

Just research & be very careful of cheap, 3rd-world, knock-off, reproductions.

If not mistaken, only the Springfield Armory version is true to German MilSpec.

The SAR8 is a slightly better value than the HK91, thus you wont mind as much the invariable ding or scratch.

In a world of compromise, some don't.

BTW....For the not-so-latest real deal Santa refuses to bring me, the HK416 & 417 is the HK redesigned M4 for the US Military in 5.56 & 7.62. There are plenty utubevidz of these puppies for your drooling pleasure.

BTW, btw. . . Ya' can't go wrong w/ a Match Springfield M1A.

pieces,
tahDeetz

Posted by: tahDeetz at May 07, 2009 05:59 PM (PpH3e)

131 Hopefully other states will grow a spine and stand up to the federal government for states' rights. That is how America is supposed to be governed anyway.

STATE SOVERIGNTY !! what if EVERY state did this? ...........up urs feds!!?

Posted by: JD at May 07, 2009 06:33 PM (NigPJ)

132


ماسنجريات 
منتديات ماسنجريات

توبيكات ماسنجر

 صور ماسنجر

برامج ماسنجر 

خلفيات ماسنجر 

ثيم ماسنجر




توبيكات
صداقة


توبيكات غرور قوية


توبيكات ضحك
صرقعه


توبيكات نوال الكويتية


توبيكات
نصراوية


توبيكات اسماء



توبيكات فراق وداع


توبيكات
عبدالمجيد عبدالله

 توبيكات كول كيوت


توبيكات عتاب زعل


توبيكات عيد ميلاد


توبيكات
دلع



توبيكات دينيه اسلامية


توبيكات جديدة
2009


توبيكات حزينة


توبيكات حزينة
وضيقة


توبيكات رومانسية حب
وشوق



توبيكات حلوه جديدة


توبيكات حامد
زيد


توبيكات خيانة وغدر


توبيكات هلاليه


توبيكات هبال
وفله

توبيكات بنات بنوتيه



توبيكات شباب
شبابيه

توبيكات انجليزية


توبيكات اغاني

توبيكات سعد علوش

توبيكات
وطنية سعودية

توبيكات راشد الماجد



توبيكات رابح صقر


توبيكات

 زاحفة
رجه


طريقة عمل
التوبيك + وضعه بالماسنجر



طريقة تصوير
التوبيك





صور ماسنجر رومنسيه


صور ماسنجر حزينة


صور ماسنجر جديدة 2009


صور ماسنجر نصراوية للنصر



صور ماسنجر فنانين مطربين


صور ماسنجر هلاليه للهلال


صور ماسنجر سعوديه


صور ماسنجر دلع روعه




صور ماسنجر حروف


صور ماسنجر رسوم متحركة كرتون


صور ماسنجر هبال دجه


صور ماسنجر اسلاميه



صور ماسنجر كيوت كول


صور ماسنجر أسماء


صور مسن حلوه
 

صور ماسنجر راشد الماجد




صور ماسنجر شباب شبابيه


صور ماسنجر بنات بناتيه


صور ماسنجر شماغ


صور ماسنجر منوعه



صور ماسنجر حلوه جديدة


صور ماسنجر كيوت كول


صور ماسنجر اطفال
 

صور ماسنجر متحركة



زخرفة الحروف الانجليزية
 

سكربت اوف لاين سكربت الظهور دون اتصال

أصوات تعبيريه للماسنجر


سكربت تصوير التوبيك حصريا وبالعربي



سكربت زخرفه التوبيكات


سكربت الساحر حصريا وعربي


طريقة نقل المضافين لايميلك الجديد من القديم


سكربت اول جهات الاتصال





سكربت سارق التوبيكات والصور بالعربي


طريقة الغاء حفظ المحادثات بالماسنجر


سكربت الساحر بالانجليزي


سكربت الحاله الجويه





سكربت تغيير التوبيك والرساله الشخصيه كل
دقيقه

شرح كشف تلغيم سكربت الماسنجر للحماية من
الاختراق


سكربت زخرفه الكتابه بالماسنجر




سكربت Background Changer لوضع
خلفيه للماسنجر


سكربت تدرج لون الخط
 

سكربت Love Test لاظهار نسبه الحب





سكربت Hopperlive للدخول بالمسن بـ 6 كلمات في
وقت واحد
 

سكربت الترجمة للماسنجر من Google





سكربتات للماسنجر


سكربت اليوتيوب


سكربت الأذكار


سكربت اختصارات الماسنجر


 شرح عمل قروب للماسنجر





برنامج سرقة صور الماسنجر الاصدار الاخير


برنامج استعاده كلمه المرور اصدار جديد


برنامج Messenger Discovery





برنامج لتغيير صورة العرض الخاصة بك في
الماسنجر

برنامج اضافة الاشكال للماسنجر


برنامج كاشف البلوك الحظر





طريقه لكشف من حاظرك بالماسنجر


برنامج لحل مشاكل الماسنجر + شرح باصور


برنامج لحفظ سمايلات واختصارات الماسنجر على
جهازك





برنامج لاسترجاع كلمة السر للدخول الى ايميلك
 



الماسنجر التاسع

للتحميل عربي +انجليزي مع الشرح





ثيم للماسنجر التاسع 


ثيم للماسنجر الثامن


ثيم ماسنجر 9


ثيم ماسنجر 8.5


ثيم ماسنجر 8


ثيم ماسنجر حلو




ثيم ماسنجر وردي


ثيم ماسنجر اسود


ثيمات ماسنجر التاسع


ثيمات ماسنجر الثامن


ثيمات ماسنجر جديدة




ثيمات ماسنجر 2009


ثيم ماسنجر بلس


ثيم ماسنجر فيستا


ثيم ماسنجر بناتي


ثيم ماسنجر روعه



ثيم ماسنجر التاسع رايق ويشتغل على 8.5 & 9.0 

شرح طريقة تركيب ثيم ماسنجر بالصور





 


Posted by: msnxmsn at August 31, 2009 03:27 AM (1bnnP)

133 By means of a distance workout, rolex watches
a GPS running watch can record how far you've run and let you know at what time you've attained your target. replica watches
In a timed workout, the watch acts like a count-down timer.
omega watch
It lets one realize when your selected time period has ended. replica watches
The heart rate workout monitors your pulse and sounds a caution if it goes past your higher limit or falls under your lower limit. rolex watches
In the calorie burn workout, the GPS running watch alerts you once you have burned your target amount of calories.

Posted by: watches at September 04, 2009 05:24 AM (tmSWT)

134 This ceremony can be held in a house of worship , at home, or at a place of your choosing.vintage wedding dress
Can be 6 - 12 bridesmaids / groomsmen.wholesale wedding dresses
Bride wears ballerina or floor length wedding dress, with a short veil.cheap wedding dresses
Bridesmaids wear ballerina or street length dresses, all of the same length but not longer than the brides.wedding dress factory
Mothers wear street length dresses.wedding dress shopsThe groom, fathers, and groomsmen wear dark business suits.

Posted by: wedding dress factory at September 16, 2009 12:41 AM (YEHDM)

135
Best DVD Creator Help you convert movies to DVD and burn DVD movie to DVD disc, DVD folder and ISO files, being played on portable or home DVD players. QuickTime Converter

Posted by: fewr at September 21, 2009 02:04 AM (dUUbd)

136 www.replicaseller.com As a professional replica watch dealer we are 100% committed to your satisfaction.

Posted by: replica watches at September 24, 2009 06:26 AM (gQ1AB)

137

دردشة بنات الجنوب شات بنات الجنوب دردشة بنات شات بنات شات دردشه شات كتابي دردشة كتابيه منتدى بنات الجنوب منتديات بنات الجنوب دردشة جازان دردشة ابها دردشة نجران دردشة ظهران الجنوب دردشة خميس مشيط دردشة عسير دردشة تنومه دردشة النماص دردشة بيشه دردشة القنفذة دردشة الرياض دردشة وادي الدواسر دردشة جده دردشة مكه المكرمه منتديات بنات الجنوب دردشة المدينه المنوره دردشة الشرقيه دردشة الدمام دردشة الخبر دردشة الهفوف دردشة عرعر دردشة القصيم دردشة تبوك دردشة الجوف دردشة حائل دردشة الشمال دردشة اماراتيه دردشة كويتيه دردشة بحرينيه دردشة عراقيه دردشة عمانيه دردشة قطريه دردشة يمنيه دردشة ابو ظبي دردشة بغداد دردشة المنامه دردشة الدوحه دردشة مصريه دردشة مغربيه دردشة تونس دردشة الجزائر دردشة ليبيا دردشة السودان دردشة سوريا دردشة لبنان دردشة الاردن دردشة فلسطين دردشة موريتانيا اناشيد اطفال اناشيد اسلامية صور اسلامية صور جديدة صور انمي تحميل انمي توبيكات توبيكات رومانسية رسائل جوال جوال نوكيا العاب فلاشية pc العاب جديدة، موضه العاب باربي ديكور واثاث منتديات باربي دليل باربي منتديات منتديات نسائية دليل مواقع العاب دردشة جنوبيه

منتديات منتديات نسائية العاب فلة العاب بنات دليل مواقع اضف موقعك دردشة شات دردشة لهفة شوق شات كتابي دردشة سعودية منتديات لهفة شوق دردشة بنات الجنوب العاب باربي دليل منتديات باربي العاب اون لاين العاب مجانية كورة موقع كورة دليل مواقع مدونة مدونة طبية دليل مواقع طبية شات بنات دردشة بنات دردشة نسائية بنات العرب مواقع نسائية دليل شات دليل دردشة اثاث وديكور الموضة اناقة ازياء مكتبة اسلامية نبض دردشه نبض الغلا الغلا نبض غلا موقع تحميل تحميل

Posted by: بنات الجنوب at September 27, 2009 06:47 AM (rqCw7)

Posted by: fdsfsd at September 29, 2009 04:58 AM (eqMrT)

Posted by: retailike at October 17, 2009 11:29 AM (zFgZJ)

Posted by: Alexis Suen at October 23, 2009 03:45 AM (zsqzB)

Posted by: hair straighteners at October 24, 2009 10:55 AM (9oMrs)

142 UGG Classic Cardy Boot makes me different form the other girls. The UGG Bailey Button Boot is a good choice for female. If you want to be more attractive this winter,the UGG boots will make your dream come true.

Posted by: ugg boots at October 26, 2009 02:42 AM (/STCO)

Posted by: fdsfds at October 27, 2009 09:09 AM (8kvkz)

Posted by: ugg boots at October 27, 2009 11:10 AM (pgfU2)

Posted by: australia ugg at October 27, 2009 01:05 PM (c6EK2)

Posted by: airforceoneshop at November 03, 2009 02:45 PM (LHCCE)

147 UGG Classic Tall is one of our brand's heritage styles. The UGG Classic Tall features genuine twin-face sheepskin for refreshing comfort.UGG boot Sheepskin boots are the taller version of UGG Australia's signature luxury sheepskin boot.UGG Classic Tall is a classic article for autumn and winter seasons. It has become a new favorite for fashionable ladies.

Posted by: ugg classic tall at November 06, 2009 12:12 AM (Lhqv8)

Posted by: reviewups at November 06, 2009 01:30 AM (XxrVz)

Posted by: ttrtrtrert at November 06, 2009 02:48 AM (wYEI1)

150 Come to our website for shopping with high quality and best service! There have new products,MBT M. Walk
and MBT Lami,Welcome everybody to buy it.

Posted by: mbt shoes at November 08, 2009 09:09 AM (QhfLM)

Posted by: reviewups at November 10, 2009 02:20 AM (UHjri)

Posted by: ugg boots at November 12, 2009 02:19 AM (IeIJx)

153  The <a href="http://www.gouggs.com/products_all.html">UGG Classic Cardy</a> woman's boot features colorful, knit uppers (composed of a wool blend) and a <a href="http://www.gouggs.com/products_all.html">sheepskin sock</a> liner for extra comfort. A light and flexible outsole along with a suede heel guard provides durable wear all season long. Detailed with three oversized wood buttons, this style <a href="http://www.gouggs.com/">UGG Classic Cardy</a> can be styled up and buttoned, slouched and slightly unbuttoned,or completely cuffed.if you want read more information about <a href="http://www.gouggs.com/">cheapest ugg boots,2009 new ugg at www.gouggs.com</a>http://www.gouggs.com

Posted by: gouggs at November 13, 2009 11:44 AM (sFO24)

154 nike dunk sb

Do anything needed to support an idea, a good idea usually brings good results, doing


business is like that.http://www.dunksky.com/.This site has always been on

Posted by: nike dunk sb at November 14, 2009 01:32 AM (APB+g)

155 buy [url=http://www.reviewups.com/]discount ugg shoes[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]cheap ugg shoes[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]cheap ugg[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-coquette-casual-shoes-c-22]ugg rainier[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]buy ugg[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg usa[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]discount ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-classic-short-c-1]ugg 5825[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg shoes sale[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-sundance-c-5]ugg sundance[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg shoes[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]cheap ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-classic-tall-c-3]ugg 5815[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg sale[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg uk[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-knightsbridge-c-27]ugg knightsbridge[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]womens ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg australia[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-classic-cardy-c-2]ugg 5819[/url]from usa

Posted by: cheap at November 14, 2009 05:03 AM (s7MB5)

156 I love Women's UGG Classic Cardy Boots 5819 very much.The Women's UGG classic tall boots makes me carzy this year.And aslo the new design UGG Bailey Button Boots is aslo a good choice in 2009.

Posted by: UGG Bailey Button Boots at November 14, 2009 11:30 AM (Ht2aH)

157 Do you like sports? If you like it,the NIke Air Max TN and Nike Air Max 360 is a good choice for you.And now the there is a good news,CheapNike Air Max running Shoes is waiting for you.I think The New Nike Air MAX 2009 Running Shoes makes you great comfortable.

Posted by: Nike air max at November 14, 2009 11:59 AM (Ht2aH)

158 BJ's Restaurants links of london . Management might be tempted to belly up and drown cheap links of london their sorrows, links of london jewellery since the majority of this chain's 89 restaurants are in links of london jewelry deep-recession states like California, Arizona, links of london sale and Florida. links london

Posted by: mxc at November 16, 2009 07:56 PM (amVaT)

Posted by: replica watches at November 17, 2009 05:08 AM (xpuiO)

Posted by: nike shoes at November 17, 2009 05:25 AM (DuP3Z)

161 If you are looking for buying a quality pair of warm sheepskin boots you really need to try the ugg classic tall boots. The quality of the it means that they will last 4 or 5 times as long as the cheaper copies and the level of comfort they provide to the wearer is much higher.So when it comes to you finding a pair of ugg boots that will match up to any outfit in your wardrobe then it is worth considering investing money in a pair of Ugg classic tall this

Posted by: ugg classic tall at November 17, 2009 06:38 AM (CsraQ)

Posted by: replica watches at November 17, 2009 08:23 AM (xpuiO)

Posted by: replica watches at November 18, 2009 03:23 AM (C/zDM)

164 UGG BOOTS

Posted by: UGG BOOTS at November 18, 2009 08:34 AM (WPYlQ)

165 links london Rings A gathering of the Royal College of links london Charms , Elizabeth has also standard frequent links london new arrival celebrated accolades from interconnecting outline of gold or mellifluous links london Pendants . Product diversification has already begun and paradoxes of sappy away the links of london Rings sets the SS09 In 2006 and 2007 links london Necklaces , Elizabeth was condensed-designed appropriate for UK links london Bracelets Designer of the adversary anthology from the fluctuating rhythms and their policy to links london Silver Chain classify other unexplored satisfied links of london Ring ranges as fully as increasing and diversifying the women and men effete shingle contribution links london Earrings . In a clustered poised choker and fire successfully armlet links of london new arrival . She has imprinted a famed for as a cadenza links london Sweetie Bracelets , Elizabeth has been tasked with links of london Necklace Chipotle Mexican Grill links of london jewellery . The fast food at these casual links of london eateries feels slow, links london jewelry thanks to organic ingredients cheap links of london , custom combos

Posted by: links of london at November 18, 2009 09:41 PM (amVaT)

166 You exchange authentic and mean prices UGG Ultimate Short boots .Many individuals ask where to get sizeable ugg boots at a great cost without getting ripped off. There they can be assured that the inventive and the best australian ugg. Wish you can buy your favourite ugg boots. This kind of spaces to find a trusted and established dealer of d UGG Mayfaire boots .Ensure You should always show your ugg gumboot wisely and ensure that you are made in Australia.Some people buy online because There bags of ugg boots exchange the best eminence.You are ready to buy ugg boots online,and ugg boots promote online worth authentic boots are reduction and real ugg boots and of this you can buy UGG Bailey Button boots .It is the ugg gumboot you buy is authentic but you must elect the mass which has good status then you may buy the ugg boot you like.

Posted by: ugg boots at November 19, 2009 12:14 AM (amVaT)

167 links of london is the best online links london stores where you can buy the cheapest links of london jewellery and links london jewelry . Our huge selection of Ed hardy and ed hardy clothing

Posted by: links of london at November 19, 2009 02:50 AM (amVaT)






Processing 0.1, elapsed 0.0942 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0111 seconds, 176 records returned.
Page size 180 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.

MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat