Talk:Montana Firearms Freedom Act

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Article name[edit]

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)

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

Huh?[edit]

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)

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)

Call for opposing views[edit]

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)

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

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 (talkcontribs) 23:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


Dismissal of Suit[edit]

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)

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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)