The court was filled with anticipation and excitement as the first hearing was about to begin. Representing the US was a very young well-polished female lawyer so green I assumed she was someone’s assistant.  Her presence was almost dismissive to the validity of this matter.   The plaintiff’s attorneys varied in age and stature all appearing to have many years and a variety of experience.  Pleasantries where shared and the magistrate entered the court room.

The defendant stuck to a very well-rehearsed and polished presentation siting case law of past decisions they felt supported their claim for dismissal.  After which the plaintiff’s attorney’s presented their case, again each siting case law and also rebutting the validity of the defendants claims due to the plaintiff not having taken action to further challenge the implied threat conveyed by the letter sent in September.

One lawyer for the Goldwater Institute, Nick Dranias presented a very insightful and sound presentation referencing a case in Massachusetts decided on the week previously.  It too dealt with the ability for a State to have laws recognized within the state that would not be recognized or valid outside of it, specifically same sex marriage.

The magistrate seemed to have predetermined questions for the plaintiff as if he was already weighing in favors of the defendant. Having no really challenging questions for the defendant, especially in regards to cases sited like that which Dranias presented giving direct relevancy to this matter before him.

Overall I felt as though I witnessed a critical moment in Montana’s and perhaps the USA’s history.  I found it quite frustrating how little reference was given directly to the constitution or the bill of rights but much was given to past cases where decisions have been made perhaps with both good and bad outcomes.  It seemed to this observer that the nature of this case, the validity of MFFA is based solely on the constitutional rights we all have as citizens. Therefore, siting cases not directly related made little sense and gave merit to some people’s complaint about law being made from the bench.

In summary, I believe the entire argument on behalf of the federal government was that they have supremacy since items produced in Montana or any state for that matter ultimately can be transported into other states or countries.  Not once did they consider the current process for selling new firearms where the MFFA is not applicable, where after the weapon is sold it can change ownership multiple times and have no bearing on interstate commerce.  The entire argument of the defense hinged upon the fact that Montana has the right, as any state to monitor the business practices that will only directly affect the intrastate commerce of that state.

James Knox

Billings, Montana

Thank you,

James Knox

Montana House of Representatives, HD 47 Candidate

Freedom is never free, this is why I am running.