Montana’s ‘Second Amendment and Firearms Protection Act’ – the model for Florida’s draft legislation – was struck down by federal court.
by Lee Williams
A story published last week introduced the “The Second Amendment and Firearms Protection Act,” a bill which its supporters said declares weapons and ammo manufactured in a state that remain in a state as intra-state commerce, and thus immune from federal regulation.
The draft bill was patterned after laws already in effect in Kansas and Montana and eight other states.
It’s supporters said the bill would protect Floridians in the event that an executive order is issued or a federal law is passed that targets specific firearms, ammunition or magazines.
However, after nearly three years of litigation, which probably won’t end here, the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has just ruled in the Montana “Firearms Freedom Act” case.
The Court invalidated the Montana law.
The Montana law is the law after which the Kansas law was patterned and subsequently the “Second Amendment and Firearms Protection Act” in Florida that is currently being promoted by the SWFL Citizens Alliance.
Marion Hammer, executive director of the Unified Sportsmen of Florida and an NRA past president, strongly opposes the legislation, which she says is “not really about guns.”
“I have said repeatedly that it is folly to drag Florida into legislation that has been involved in a court battle for around 3 years. The time to consider such legislation is when it is finished playing out in the courts. Further, when it comes to guns, this legislation is really symbolism over substance and that does nothing for average, law-abiding gun owners,” Hammer said. “To be clear, this is a Commerce Clause case, not a Second Amendment case. This case is about state’s rights under the 10th Amendment, and not really about guns.”