Talk:Montana Firearms Freedom Act

Firearms Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Montana Low‑importance

	Montana portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Montana, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Montana on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MontanaWikipedia:WikiProject MontanaTemplate:WikiProject MontanaMontana articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics: Gun politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Gun politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Article name

I believe this article should be renamed, from "Montana Firearms Freedom Act (2009)" to "Montana Firearms Freedom Act". There's only one law by that name, so the article name should not be disambiguated with the year. See WP:DAB#Deciding to disambiguate and WP:DAB#Naming the specific topic articles. — Mudwater^(Talk) 12:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are correct. I have renamed it.
-- Jeff Ussing^(Talk) 01:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?

This, respectively, reserves to the people the right to keep and bear arms, guarantees to the people rights not granted in the constitution and to the states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in the constitution.

Um, can this be better worded? Some commas at least. I would do it but I'm not sure what it's trying to say. 71.155.241.19 (talk) 05:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to clear this up. Please make comments or changes. --
Jeff Ussing^(Talk) 16:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Better, but it's still unclear to someone unfamiliar with the act. It seems unnecessarily wordy but maybe I'm still misunderstanding it.

Couldn't the part "It guarantees to the people rights not granted in the constitution" simply be "It grants people rights not in the constitution"? Doesn't the "granting" have to happen before someone can "guarantee" it? Or does "not granted in the constitution" refer to actual restrictions and not omissions of rights? In other words, is it telling people they have these rights in contradiction of, or in addition to, the constitution? "all powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in the constitution" Isn't this obvious? States always had "all powers not granted to the federal government", right? I feel like I'm missing the significance. And how can a state grant other states rights (or their people, for that matter)?

BTW, the compact link in the intro would be more useful if it went to the compact itself or somewhere that shows this agreement. At least that's what a thought it lead to. I'd google it if I wanted a definition. 71.155.241.19 (talk) 04:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Call for opposing views

This article seems to be leaning on the pro side of this issue. I think that there should be more information on opposition to this law and or this type of law. My point being that we should strive to maintain the neutrality of the article.
-- Jeff Ussing^(Talk) 16:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I thought it was good for the stage it's at. There's only two sentences, one giving supporters' view, one giving critics' view. The critics view come first and the section is called "Conflict and controversy" even though it describes both views. If anything, more weight has been given to the opposing side since the whole "ATF response" section is also describing a opposing view. The rest of the article is information about the facts of the legislation itself, which it needs more of. Too often on Wikipedia, the "controversy" and "criticism" sections far out-weigh the general descriptive stuff. I want to know more about the law itself, not what people think about it. I'll form my own views. Opinions are everywhere, information is rare. 71.155.241.19 (talk) 04:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be easy to turn this article into a highly political one. Best to focus on the plain facts here, I think. --Kris Schnee (talk) 04:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning facts, why isn't the full text of the act included?JWhiteheadcc (talk) 04:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about this? "Molloy shoots down Montana-made guns lawsuit, makes everyone happy"

http://missoulanews.bigskypress.com/IndyBlog/archives/2010/09/30/molloy-shoots-down-montana-made-guns-lawsuit-makes-everyone-happy —Preceding unsigned comment added by ElizaBarrington (talk • contribs) 23:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dismissal of Suit

The PDF of the suit is here http://firearmsfreedomact.com/updates/4.%20Notice%20&%20Consent%20to%20Exercise%20of%20Jurisdiction%20by%20US%20Magistrate%20Judge%20-%20100509.pdf but that link isn't working as a reference for some reason. It contains the quote""for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim" which I reference in the mention of the dismissal. ElizaBarrington (talk) 23:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Montana Firearms Freedom Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:46, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]