727 F.3d 975 (9th Cir. 2013), 10-36094, Montana Shooting Sports Ass'n v. Holder
|Citation:||727 F.3d 975|
|Opinion Judge:||CLIFTON, Circuit Judge:|
|Party Name:||MONTANA SHOOTING SPORTS ASSOCIATION; SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION, INC.; GARY MARBUT, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Defendant-Appellee and STATE OF MONTANA, Intervenor,|
|Attorney:||Quentin M. Rhoades (argued), Sullivan, Tabaracci & Rhoades, P.C., Missoula, Montana, for Plaintiffs-Appellants. Mark R. Freeman (argued), Mark B. Stern, and Abby C. Wright, Appellate Staff, Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Michael W. Cotter, United States Attorney, United States Department ...|
|Judge Panel:||Before: A. Wallace Tashima, Richard R. Clifton, and Carlos T. Bea, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge Clifton; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge Bea. Carlos T. Bea (In Part) BEA, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part:|
|Case Date:||August 23, 2013|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|
Argued and Submitted, Portland, Oregon March 4, 2013.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana. D.C. No. 9:09-cv-00147-DWM. Donald W. Molloy, District Judge, Presiding.
The panel affirmed the district court's dismissal, for failure to state a claim, of an action brought by Gary Marbut, the Montana Shooting Sports Association, and the Second Amendment Foundation challenging federal firearms regulations.
Plaintiff Marbut sought to manufacture firearms under the Montana Firearms Freedom Act (MFFA), state legislation that declared that the manufacture and sale of certain firearms within the state was beyond the scope of Congress's commerce power. The panel first held that Marbut had standing on account of economic injury. The panel then held that the complaint failed to state a claim in light of Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 125 S.Ct. 2195, 162 L.Ed.2d 1 (2005), and United States v. Stewart, 451 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. 2006), and that Congress could rationally conclude that unlicensed firearms made in Montana would make their way into the interstate market. The panel held that the MFFA was necessarily preempted and invalid.
Concurring in part and dissenting in part, Jude Bea agreed with the majority's conclusion that Marbut was subject to federal licensing laws. He stated that it was unnecessary for the majority to hold that the MFFA was preempted by federal law.
Plaintiffs Gary Marbut, the Montana Shooting Sports Association, and the Second Amendment Foundation appeal the
dismissal of their action challenging federal firearms regulations. Marbut wants to manufacture firearms under the Montana Firearms Freedom Act, state legislation that declares that the manufacture and sale of certain firearms within the state is beyond the scope of Congress's commerce power. The district court dismissed the action because no plaintiff had standing to bring the claim and, in the alternative, because the complaint failed to state a claim in light of Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 125 S.Ct. 2195, 162 L.Ed.2d 1 (2005), and United States v. Stewart, 451 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. 2006). On appeal, we conclude that Marbut has standing to sue, but we agree with the district court that Marbut has failed to state a claim. Thus, we affirm the judgment.
The Montana Legislature passed the Montana Firearms Freedom Act (" MFFA" or " the Act" ), which declares that a firearm or ammunition " manufactured . . . in Montana and that remains within the borders of Montana is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of congress [sic] to regulate interstate commerce." Mont. Code Ann. § 30-20-104. It purports to authorize the manufacture and sale of firearms within the state, but imposes certain requirements for a firearm to qualify under the Act, notably that the words " Made in Montana" be " clearly stamped on a central metallic part." Id. § 30-20-106.
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP