You know moe, after your little insulting reply to my divest Israel comment, I was thinking of lighting you up (or down as the case may be) with my mod points.
But I actually agree with most of your other comments. In a quick reading, I can't decide whether or not you are liberal or libertarian, but on the off-chance you are liberal or left-leaning, I'd like to point out that the only dissenters in Raich v. Gonzales were from conservative members of the court (specifically, Thomas & Rehnquist, with the moderate O'Connor rounding out the dissent). Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer can almost always be counted on to be a vote for the statist agenda (unless it's intruding on abortion or homosexual activity). See Kelo v. New London for more of the same.
In any event, the Feds are going to come down like a hammer sooner or later on all of the states pushing their "Firearms Freedom Acts" and the SCOTUS will almost certainly uphold them doing so. Stare decisis is pretty well established, and if the growing of a few marijuana plants by a cancer patient who has never actually bought marijuana, and will never sell it can be somehow interpreted to be affecting interestate commerce, then it logically follows that a "Montana only firearm" will affect it as well, since the Federal government can argue that well that person would have otherwise bought a non-Montana made firearm. Incidentally, Thomas's dissent was pretty devastating in Raich v. Gonzalez. The Federal Government basically won the right to regulate anything and everything under the sun. Washing dishes...affects interstate commerce. Mowing your lawn? Same thing. We no longer have a government constrained by enumerated powers. We have an all consuming leviathan.