No products in the cart.


High court declines to hear Montana gun case


From the Helena, Montana, Independent Record

High court declines to hear Montana gun case

The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected a request to review a ruling against a Montana law that attempts to exempt guns made and kept in the state from federal regulation, but the so-called Firearms Freedom Act isn’t dead yet.

The high court on Monday turned down a petition filed by Montana Shooting Sports Association President Gary Marbut to overturn a federal appeals court’s ruling against the law. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals previously ruled that the Supreme Court already has decided the issue in favor of federal regulation.

But a separate petition request filed by Attorney General Tim Fox’s office over the 2009 state law is still pending before the Supreme Court, and Marbut said he isn’t ready to cede defeat yet.

Read Entire Article:





  1. Then those judges MUST be fired s their constitutionally assigned lawful duty is to make sure that:

    Article VI, Clause 2 of the US Constitution: “THIS CONSTITUTION AND THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES WHICH SHALL BE MADE IN PURSUANCE THEREOF; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the JUDGES IN EVERY STATE SHALL BE BOUND THEREBY, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

    US Constitution, Article III. Section. 1: “The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.”

    US Constitution, Article III Section. 2:
    The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;
    –to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;
    –to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;
    –to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;
    –to Controversies between two or more States;
    — between a State and Citizens of another State,
    –between Citizens of different States,
    –between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

    In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

    The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

    Does that mean that any “law” created is to be upheld by the justices? No, The US Constitution says in Article VI that it does NOT apply to any law created. It is only those laws that follow (are in Pursuance thereof) the US Constitution

    Fire Them! They broke both the lawfully required Oath and the contract that they agreed to abide by when they accepted that position.

    Why did they break it when they did not take the case?

    Because that is their assigned duty, to determine if it is IN PURSUANCE THERE OF THE US CONSTITUTION. Because it IS “We the People…” who make the decisions if a judge is using “Good Behaviour” in the courts, doing the duty “We the people” assigned to them. It is NOT the executive or legislative branches duty, not is it the states duty, nor is it the duty of the judges themselves to decide because as Thomas Jefferson said:

    “…To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps…and their power is more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruption of time and party, its members would become despots….”

    Thomas Jefferson: “The government created by this compact (the Constitution) was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party (the people of each state) has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.”

    John Marshall: Opinion as Chief Justice in Marbury vs. Madison, 1802: “The particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”

    The courts were NOT given the power to decide what Constitution means, to “interpret it. They were given the power and duty to decide if the case in question follows the US Constitution, if it is in Pursuance thereof it. The US Constitution defines the standard that all laws must meet, that they MUST be in Pursuance thereof it to be lawful here in the USA.

    That is what the judges must decide, is it in Pursuance thereof the US Constitution. If it is, then it is lawful. If it is not then it is NOT lawful and no one is bound by it. When they are performing that duty, then, and only then are they using “Good Behaviour” and keeping the contract that they are under.

    The judicial was set to be totally separate from, and not under the power of, either the executive branch or the legislative branch. They were to be an independent branch that was taxed with the duty of making sure that the other two branches, plus the states, actions were “in Pursuance thereof” the US Constitution. They were to make sure that laws did not encroach on the people’s unalienable natural rights in any way. The courts were not given the power to make the decisions of guilt or innocence – that power is left with the people.

    Many have forgotten that the courts were set up to be directly under the influence of the people, as jurors. “We the People” are directly the decision-makers of the guilt or innocence of our neighbors, and of the laws presented to us as jurors. We are also the final decision makers on if judges are using “Good Behaviour” in the courtrooms or not; not the executive or legislative branches; nor is the judicial to decide it’s guilt or innocence itself. “We the people” are the final arbitrator of the decision if the judges within OUR courtrooms are using “Good Behaviour”.

    Early in US history, judges informed jurors of their nullification right. The first Chief Justice, John Jay, told jurors: “You have a right to take upon yourselves to judge both the facts and law.”
    And “The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.”

    Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Thomas Paine: “I consider [trial by jury] as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.”

    John Adams: “Representative government and trial by jury are the heart and lungs of liberty. Without them we have no other fortification against being ridden like horses, fleeced like sheep, worked like cattle, and fed and clothed like swine and hounds.”

    John Adams: “It is not only his [the juror’s] right, but his duty…to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.”

    “though in direct opposition to the direction of the court” is “We the people” deciding the court, prosecutors, lawmakers were all wrong. So why would anyone think that the final decisions over a judge using “Good Behaviour” would be left to anyone else?

    Samuel Chase: “The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts.”

    No where does it say that all judges hold their position for “life”. It says that they hold their position as long as they use “Good Behaviour”!

    “Good Behaviour” is keeping the lawfully required oath and making sure that ALL laws, bills, treaties, etc are IN PURSUANCE THEREOF THE US CONSTITUTION. (PERIOD!) BTW, it is a criminal action to NOT keep the oath.

  2. Montana needs to go forward in defiance of the fed, then use state law enforcement to block federal agents from enforcing federal statues, it’s time for open challenge and defiance

Comments are closed.