Canadian Business Online
South Dakota will support Montana in a federal lawsuit asserting states' rights to regulate guns that are manufactured and sold within a state's borders, Attorney General Marty Jackley said.
The Montana law targeted by the lawsuit was the template for a bill approved by the South Dakota Legislature this year and signed by the governor. It says guns manufactured and sold within South Dakota are exempt from federal regulation.
Jackley said his office would file a friend-of-the-court brief in the Montana case.
"We joined because we can do it very cost-effectively, there is the impact directly to South Dakota because of our (firearms) manufacturers, and because we have a statute now in law that is very similar and could receive a very similar challenge," Jackley said.
The federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives sparked the legal fight when it wrote to all licensed gun dealers in Montana last year telling them they were still bound by federal gun regulations.
The Montana Shooting Sports Association and other pro-gun groups then sued the federal government.
Attorneys general in Wyoming and Utah, which have passed similar laws, also are filing briefs supporting Montana.
"This is our ability to say to the Montana court that this is an important issue more than just in Montana," Jackley said. "We have similar legislation in South Dakota, we have similar concerns about the expansion of the federal government into states' rights, and therefore we want you to take a close look at this."
Montana was the first state to pass a "firearms freedom" law. The various states claim that as long as the guns aren't involved in interstate commerce, the federal government should have no say over them. The Montana trial is scheduled for December.
The chief sponsor of the South Dakota bill, Sen. Larry Rhoden, said the number of states considering similar legislation offset the sentiment of some lawmakers that fighting for states' rights is "futile."
"I think we convinced them that if we were going to take a run at states' rights and pick an issue and a hill to stand on, that this might be a likely candidate," he said.
Jackley said a federal court ruling in Montana would not be binding in South Dakota because the states are in different federal court circuits.
"But it certainly would set a very valuable precedence for us," he said.
The Montana law targeted by the lawsuit was the template for a bill approved by the South Dakota Legislature this year and signed by the governor. It says guns manufactured and sold within South Dakota are exempt from federal regulation.
Jackley said his office would file a friend-of-the-court brief in the Montana case.
"We joined because we can do it very cost-effectively, there is the impact directly to South Dakota because of our (firearms) manufacturers, and because we have a statute now in law that is very similar and could receive a very similar challenge," Jackley said.
The federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives sparked the legal fight when it wrote to all licensed gun dealers in Montana last year telling them they were still bound by federal gun regulations.
The Montana Shooting Sports Association and other pro-gun groups then sued the federal government.
Attorneys general in Wyoming and Utah, which have passed similar laws, also are filing briefs supporting Montana.
"This is our ability to say to the Montana court that this is an important issue more than just in Montana," Jackley said. "We have similar legislation in South Dakota, we have similar concerns about the expansion of the federal government into states' rights, and therefore we want you to take a close look at this."
Montana was the first state to pass a "firearms freedom" law. The various states claim that as long as the guns aren't involved in interstate commerce, the federal government should have no say over them. The Montana trial is scheduled for December.
The chief sponsor of the South Dakota bill, Sen. Larry Rhoden, said the number of states considering similar legislation offset the sentiment of some lawmakers that fighting for states' rights is "futile."
"I think we convinced them that if we were going to take a run at states' rights and pick an issue and a hill to stand on, that this might be a likely candidate," he said.
Jackley said a federal court ruling in Montana would not be binding in South Dakota because the states are in different federal court circuits.
"But it certainly would set a very valuable precedence for us," he said.
No comments:
Post a Comment