Mazure comment

I was very impressed with the system from the standing to the standing again as Magistrate Lynch entered and exited. Very intelligent people making intelligent arguments in a well-controlled environment. It renewed a little faith in our system of governance with the procedures even though I think the whole "boiler-plate" ploy of trying to dismiss the questions is shady.

That being said, I will comment as you did on the players and what I think were strengths and weaknesses from my ignorance-of-law-procedures background.

Jessica Lienwand: I was initially struck by her youth to be representing the USA in such an important case. Yet, her articulate nature soon proved one should not judge a book by the cover. She was very prepared and by the book, referencing cases and trying to fulfill guidelines to support her case. She also threw most of her energy at what I (in my legal wisdom) think is the weakest part of MSSA's argument (more on this later). I think she did a good job despite the environment and sheer numbers lined up against her. She seemed unflustered by her peers and the judge, but curiously, when returning to her seat and too-quickly glancing at the audience/gallery, I would surmise I saw mild fear/ trepidation in her face. I don't think East Coast, upper-social-stratus types know what to think of rangy western folks.

Quentin Rhoades: I felt a little for Quentin. He had what I felt was the toughest argument to make: He had the most "resistance" from Mag. Lynch: He had the most energy pushed against his argument by Ms. Leinwand. My vast legal experience (ha!) says that unfortunately your grounds for the case are weaker than the amici, Gary. The economic harm -- and this is where Ms. Leinwand attacked. It is where Lynch questioned her, and where he questioned Mr. Rhoades. I think the opposition's thrust here was to say that there is no economic harm because you are free to manufacture weapons and sell them right now under prior federal regulations and then could even sell interstate. They tried to make regulation out to be no economic harm -- part of business. Mag. Lynch made the point that he saw no shortage of firearms manufactured in the USA (or even MT). Mr. Rhoades made the point that harm appeared when the MFFA came into effect, but I don't believe this helped your grounds as much as it did the State of Montana's. Unfortunately, I think Mr. Tweeten's argument (amici for the State of Montana) was quite weak and may give Mag. Lynch an easy out.

Mr. Tweeten (not in chronological order of appearance, but because he was just mentioned): Mr. Tweeten's words, which I remember vividly, and which Mag. Lynch made the point of saying "I agree with you on that.", that he felt the State had the right to make such a law (MFFA) as a political statement was tantamount to giving the judge an easy out. Like saying this whole case is a sparsely-populated state's way of venting. His wishy-washy argument was the reason Mr. Renz had to make such a strong argument about Federalism and the divisions of powers between jurisdictions such as States and the Feds. Mr. Tweeten made me totally disappointed with the State of Montana's bureaucrats, while quite proud of our legislators.

Mr. Dranias: Good arguments, but unfortunately, my gut feeling was that Mag. Lynch didn't really want to hear IX and X Amendment arguments. It was interesting to see how Freedom can produce strange bedfellows. Usually you don't think medical marijuana and gay marriage have much to do with firearms, but when it comes to authority to regulate, and where that authority comes from; they do.

Mr. Herb Titus: I just liked this guy. From an emotional standpoint, it would be great to have this fellow argue for you even if all he did was read "Cat in the Hat"! He made excellent points (as did Mr. Dranias) distancing Raich (marijuana) and Wickert (wheat) for not a really applying well in this incidence by tying in the national importance of the question here and how firearms are in both the MT State and US Constitutions. Also, made important distinctions between the Gun Control Act and Controlled Substance Act in that one regulates a legally transferable good and the other illegally transferable. For example -- to my knowledge, a gun can be sold at a garage sale. Not so with "left-over" percocet.

Mr. Jeff Renz: I agree with you, Gary. Mr. Renz really anchored the arguments. I think we feel this way for two reasons: 1) Because we intuitively know Mr. Tweeten's argument was dangerously weak. State bureaucrat's are similar to Federal one's in that they always see reasons to need more regulatory power. They see societal ugliness in their business lives and want to be able to have tools to deal with it. "A chance to cut is a chance to cure." They want the newest, and best scalpels and resist having tools taken from their surgical tray. They do not really trust the citizen. 2) He made the argument general and national which is where it is strong. He said we could trust Gary Marbut to not break the law and said if you broke the law, the State of Montana would deal with you. He said we do not Federally "supersede" (great word I learned when Mag. Lynch "schooled" Ms. Leinwand with it) Montana's laws to make it convenient for other states that may have (and want) stronger gun laws. Finally, he brought the argument to it's strength, that being what you called the struggle (tsunami) being brought forward against federal encroachment. Insert Civil War (sorry War of Northern Aggression Southerners) references

Magistrate Lynch: This guy is very intelligent, I would guess. I do not think he is sympathetic to your (Gary's) particular case, and unfortunately, I do not see his pride at wanting to have his name associated with a landmark case entering into his decision that the case should not be dismissed (He didn't bite at Mr. Dranias' juicy insertion of the brand new 3rd Court of Appeals reference, nor at the Duke Law Journal study). He seems utilitarian in that he wants what will "work" well in the area of, unfortunately, enforcement. Judicially, he seems to shy towards the executive rather than legislative side of power separation. With all the MFFA clones, I feel he may believe it "prudent" to dismiss your case. Dang -- Am I a wet blanket or what?

argument that MT has its own regulations in the MFFA that will apply -- so back off ATF, and it could also bring in the universality of the States having the ability to regulate their own intrastate commerce. I believe the interview I saw him in had him using a turnip as the intrastate object. He made it clear that firearms, while of extreme importance to Montanans, were only the vehicle to an important principle nationwide.