Montana House Gives Preliminary Nod to Gun-Rights Bill
By Courtney Lowery, 2-09-09
 |
|
 | |
|
Quick update: House Bill 228, sponsored by Krayton Kerns, R-Laurel, on Tuesday passed final reading in the Montana House of Representatives.
The Montana House of Representatives voted 58-42 Monday in favor of a bill that would, among other things, expand self-defense protections and allow people to carry concealed weapons without a permit in Montana’s cities.
House Bill 228, sponsored by Krayton Kerns, R-Laurel, would also allow people to brandish a gun to stave off an attack, make it legal for a private person to use “reasonable force” to arrest another person and it would shift the burden of proof in self-defense cases to the state.
The bill will now go on to third reading in the House and if it passes there, it will move on to the Senate.
Several Democrats spoke up against the bill, saying it would put undue burden on law enforcement officials in the state.
“If we do this, we are putting our best and our brightest in the way of harm,” Rep. Margaret MacDonald, D-Billings said.
“This bill is wrong, we don’t need it and we ought not inflict this bill on our entire law enforcement community, which is saying ‘no,’” said Rep. Brady Wiseman, R-Bozeman, who also reminded the House that a similar bill in the 2007 session, was so controversial it drew death threats to lawmakers.
Two amendments were introduced on the floor Tuesday, one by Kendall Van Dyk, which would have stricken the entire section on concealed weapons. But, that amendment failed.
An amendment from Kerns did pass, however. That amendment inserted language in the section of the bill that covered brandishing to protect “the safety of our police officers,” he said. Under the new section, it would continue to be illegal to show a gun in defense if the person were “negligently or purposefully threatening a peace officer with a firearm; displaying a firearm during the commission of a forcible felony; or displaying a firearm as part of a pattern of criminal street gang activity as defined in 45-8-405”
In advocating for his bill, Kerns said a main point of the bill a person’s right to defend him or herself—and that’s a right that should not be confined to the home.
“The right to self-defense is personal, it travels with you wherever you may be,” he said.
As originally drafted, the bill would have allowed guns in the workplace, but that section was removed before the bill hit the House floor.
The bill does, however, make sure the rights of renters and homeowners alike are protected—something that Deb Kottel, D-Great Falls, cited as one of the reasons that she was one of the Democrats to cross the aisle and support the bill.
Click here for a breakdown of the vote.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
You do realize that you're probably surrounded by people everyday who are carrying concealed, right?
And remember, when guns are outlawed, only cops will have guns!
Like I always say, Take Care of Number II, and It'll Take Care of YOU!
Larry - there are many people in Montana with differing views. So, when there are differing views among those who represent Montanans in the legislature they are all there representing Montanans. You may not like the fact that some dissent from your opinion but that does not make other opinions less important than your own.
Also, it is wrong to imply that opposition to this bill has anything at all to do with outlawing guns.
AN ABSOLUTE MUST READ BY EVERY AMERICAN!
PLEASE PASS THIS ON. If you don't consider this serious enough to be concerned, merely delete.
Juval Aviv was the Israeli Agent upon whom the movie ' Munich ' was based. He was Golda Meir's bodyguard -- she appointed him to track down and bring to justice the Palestinian terrorists who took the Israeli athletes hostage and killed them during the Munich Olympic Games.
In a lecture in New York City a few weeks ago, he shared information that EVERY American needs to know -- but that our government has not yet shared with us.
He predicted the London subway bombing on the Bill O'Reilly show on Fox News stating publicly that it would happen within a week. At the time, O'Reilly laughed and mocked him saying that in a week he wanted him back on the show. But, unfortunately, within a week the terrorist attack had occurred.
Juval Aviv gave intelligence (via what he had gathered in Israel and the Middle East ) to the Bush Administration about 9/11 a month before it occurred. His report specifically said they would use planes as bombs and target high profile buildings and monuments. Congress has since hired him as a security consultant.
Now for his future predictions. He predicts the next terrorist attack on the U.S. will occur within the next few months.
Forget hijacking airplanes, because he says terrorists will NEVER try and hijack a plane again as they know the people onboard will never go down quietly again. Aviv believes our airport security is a joke -- that we have been reactionary rather than proactive in developing strategies that are truly effective.
For example:
1) Our airport technology is outdated. We look for metal, and the new explosives are made of plastic.
2) He talked about how some idiot tried to light his shoe on fire. Because of that, now everyone has to take off their shoes. A group of idiots tried to bring aboard liquid explosives. Now we can't bring liquids on board. He says he's waiting for some suicidal maniac to pour liquid explosive on his underwear; at which point, security will have us all traveling naked! Every strategy we have is 'reactionary.'
3) We only focus on security when people are heading to the gates.
Aviv says that if a terrorist attack targets airports in the future, they will target busy times on the front end of the airport when/where people are checking in. It would be easy for someone to take two suitcases of explosives, walk up to a busy check-in line, ask a person next to them to watch their bags for a minute while they run to the restroom or get a drink, and then detonate the bags BEFORE security even gets involved. In Israel , security checks bags BEFORE people can even ENTER the airport.
Aviv says the next terrorist attack here in America is imminent and will involve suicide bombers and non-suicide bombers in places where large groups of people congregate. (i. e., Disneyland, Las Vegas casinos, big cities (New York, San Francisco, Chicago, etc.) and that it will also include shopping malls, subways in rush hour, train stations, etc., as well as rural America this time (Wyoming, Montana, etc.).
The attack will be characterized by simultaneous detonations around the country (terrorists like big impact), involving at least 5-8 cities, including rural areas.
Aviv says terrorists won't need to use suicide bombers in many of the larger cities, because at places like the MGM Grand in Las Vegas , they can simply valet park a car loaded with explosives and walk away.
Aviv says all of the above is well known in intelligence circles, but that our U. S. government does not want to 'alarm American citizens' with the facts.
The world is quickly going to become 'a different place', and issues like 'global warming' and political correctness will become totally irrelevant.
On an encouraging note, he says that Americans don't have to be concerned about being nuked. Aviv says the terrorists who want to destroy America will not use sophisticated weapons. They like to use suicide as a front-line approach. It's cheap, it's easy, it's effective; and they have an infinite abundance of young militants more than willing to 'meet their destiny'.
He also says the next level of terrorists, over which America should be most concerned, will not be coming from abroad. But will be, instead, 'homegrown' -- having attended and been educated in our own schools and universities right here in the U. S. He says to look for 'students' who frequently travel back and forth to the Middle East . These young terrorists will be most dangerous because they will know our language and will fully understand the habits of Americans; but that we Americans won't know/understand a thing about them.
Aviv says that, as a people, Americans are unaware and uneducated about the terroristic threats we will, inevitably, face. America still has only have a handful of Arabic and Farsi speaking people in our intelligence networks, and Aviv says it is critical that we change that fact SOON.
So, what can America do to protect itself?
From an intelligence perspective, Aviv says the U.S. needs to stop relying on satellites and technology for intelligence. We need to, instead, follow Israel 's, Ireland 's and England 's hands-on examples of human intelligence, both from an infiltration perspective as well as to trust 'aware' citizens to help. We need to engage and educate ourselves as citizens; however, our U. S. government continues to treat us, its citizens, 'like babies'. Our government thinks we 'can't handle the truth' and are concerned that we'll panic if we understand the realities of terrorism. Aviv says this is a deadly mistake.
Aviv recently created/executed a security test for our Congress, by placing an empty briefcase in five well-traveled spots in five major cities. The results? Not one person called 911 or sought a policeman to check it out. In fact, in Chicago , someone tried to steal the briefcase!
In comparison, Aviv says that citizens of Israel are so well 'trained' that an unattended bag or package would be reported in seconds by citizen(s) who know to publicly shout, 'Unattended Bag!' The area would be quickly & calmly cleared by the citizens themselves. But, unfortunately, America hasn't been yet 'hurt enough' by terrorism for their government to fully understand the need to educate its citizens or for the government to understand that it's their citizens who are, inevitably, the best first-line of defense against terrorism.
Aviv also was concerned about the high number of children here in America who were in preschool and kindergarten after 9/11, who were 'lost' without parents being able to pick them up, and about ours schools that had no plan in place to best care for the students until parents could get there. (In New York City , this was days, in some cases!)
He stresses the importance of having a plan, that's agreed upon within your family, to respond to in the event of a terroristic emergency. He urges parents to contact their children's schools and demand that the schools, too, develop plans of actions, as they do in Israel ...
Does your family know what to do if you can't contact one another by phone? Where would you gather in an emergency? He says we should all have a plan that is easy enough for even our youngest children to remember and follow.
Aviv says that the U. S. government has in force a plan that, in the event of another terrorist attack, will immediately cut-off EVERYONE's ability to use cell phones, blackberries, etc., as this is the preferred communication source used by terrorists and is often the way that their bombs are detonated.
How will you communicate with your loved ones in the event you cannot speak? You need to have a plan.
There is a wonderful thing on the Internet, that's called Urban Legends, and they validify or not the facts in such e-mails. This one in particular is FALSE Best check that site before posting some of the 'e-mail' MUST READS
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/soapbox/juvalaviv.asp
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/soapbox/juvalaviv.asp
I honestly do not care whether this bill passes or not. It just seems to me there are MUCH more important issues to be dealing with in light of the state of the State and the state of the world. Nevertheless, a vote of 58-42 hardly lends validity to the notion that anyone who opposes this bill does so as part of a "teensy, tiny minority". Again, I do not oppose or support the bill per se. By the way, I own many guns: rifles, shotguns and handguns. However, I have never felt the need or fear-based desire to carry them around on my person lest I be attacked by a criminal. You should try and admit to yourself that in all likelihood you could NEVER carry around a gun in Montana and probably never be subjected to an attack... that is unless, of course, you go around looking for a fight and this would not surprise me given your angry comments above.
You say: "ALLOW Montanans their freedom to own and carry guns" Where did I ever suggest otherwise?!? Again, I could care less whether or not this bill passes. There are more important issues to be dealt with. Does that mean I do not support the 2nd amendment? Of course not.
The thing I believe you fail to understand is that this bill has nothing to do with a "defense" of the second amendment. In other words, prior to the introduction of this bill, there was no action, situation, other proposed legislation, etc. that took place as a threat to the second amendment requiring such immediate and dire legislative action. Why do you continue to imply, if not outright state, that I sit in opposition to this bill? Again, I really do not care whether it passes or not! I just hate to see time wasted on "clarifying self-defense laws" when there are so few incidents of conflict involving self defense within the confines of our state court system. Can you understand the difference here? I just hope they go ahead and vote in and expedited fashion and find something more important to do. Pass it or not... I do not care. You seem unable to understand the theme of my posts and yet instead wish to brand me as some sort of anti-second amendment loony! It is actually somewhat hysterical. Keep on posting, however, and you may get your wish... someone may decide to take up the position that all guns should be outlawed, etc. I am not that person though. In the meantime, at least you supposedly hold the intention of living up to Joe Friday's creed. Unfortunately, it seems you do not understand the difference between facts and conjecture.
Methinks you distort thine ownership. You have consistently riffed against anything gun-rights supporters approve, and now you're claiming you own "many guns." I can't resist asking -- what's your favorite firearm and why? I just want to see if my BS meter goes off on your response.
That said, I will concede that there is probably little risk of home invasion in Montana...crime doesn't really have the "economies of scale" that it would have in other, more densely-populated states. But there's also the fact that a firearms-free home in Montana is a rather rare beast. There's also the fact that those firearms with homes are usually occupied by persons for whom firearms are second-nature. There's a reason that military snipers are disproportionately from Montana and IIRC Alaska. Why? Duh.
I think a castle bill is a good idea. Let's see what the great firearms toting Guv BS does when it passes the Senate.
Here is an inventory of my guns:
1. I own a german made replica of a Colt .45 single action revolver. I have a leather holster in the style of the old gunfighters. Why do I own this gun? Because I have always loved the Old West and all things to do with it. So, I bought a gun just like the old gunfighters used. Love old Gary Cooper movies.
2. Browning 30.06 with a stainless steel barrel and BOSS (ballistic optimization shooting system). It is a mountain weight rifle great for hunting in Montana. Why do I own it? uh... hunting in Montana. duh.
3. Savage 12 gauge shotgun. Why? Occasional bird hunting but less each year. Don't get out much for upland birds and I do not like most waterfowl
4. Browning 12 gauge shotgun. Why? Turkey hunting. Love those turkeys!
5. Winchester 30-30 Buffalo Bill Cody Commemorative Edition (with an octagonal barrel) that my grandfather bought for me as a child. It has never been shot. Collector's edition. Why do I own this? Nostalgia and it was from my grandfather.
6. I have an old side by side 12 gauge that my grandfather left me made my a german gunsmith from Dusseldorf. Cannot recall the name and it is displayed to high on my wall to be worthwhile to get it down for these purposes. It is a beautiful gun and has not been shot in many years.
7. I also have another old side by side 12 gauge that does not have much monetary value but I keep it because it was my grandfather's.
8. Oh yes, I also have a pellet gun that my 11 year old boy loves to shoot.
So, did your BS meter go off?! Haha! Oh yes, I forgot to say which is my favorite. I probably love that 30-30 the most because of its uniqueness and the fact that it was gifted to me when i was an infant. Second to that I do love that 30.06. Great all around rifle that is very good at putting meat on the table. Love elk tenderloin!
That's your right, of course, and it seems to me that you are satisfied with your current pattern of exercise of that right. That's how it should be -- not only for you, but for every citizen.
Again, the consistent theme of my posts has been that this bill is much ado about nothing... a waste of legislative time. The absence of legislation clarifying previous self-defense legislation is, in my opinion, NOT a threat to the second amendment. You may disagree with this opinion but it seems ridiculous and paranoid to, as a result, attempt to brand me as someone who "hates freedom and democracy" (as Larry attempted) simply because I hold this opinion. That kind of behavior makes gun enthusiasts look like paranoid wackos in the same way that a tree-spiker makes all "environmentalists" look like radical extremists. Larry - do you have any further insightful comments to put forth here? Would you like to call me a "dumbass" again, perhaps?
The world is just not as black and white as some would like to believe. That is a fact, Jack.
I suspect the romanticism represented in his movies about the wild west still influences a lot of folks here in ol' Montana.
Those rightwingspastics who believe the second amendment should have all of us walking around waving armaments seem to have forgotten that most towns in the early west made the yokels leave their guns with the sheriff when they came to town--at least according to the movies I've watched.
The National Riflemen's Association seems to have succeeded in turning a majority of this state back into fearful romanticists...
Slang term for a "casual" gun owner; eg; a person who typically only owns guns for hunting or shotgun sports and does not truly believe in the true premise of the second amendment. These people also generally treat owners/users of so called "non sporting" firearms like handguns or semiautomatic rifles with unwarranted scorn or contempt.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fudd
Walt: You are completely misstating the law. The presumption of innocence has never left our system of justice. There is no law currently on the books that removes that presumption of innocence and this legislation will do nothing to "fix" a problem that does not exist. So, to say that "the way it is now is that the accused must prove innocence" is patently false. If a person shoots and kills another person the circumstances of the situation may or may not result in a decision by the prosecutor to prosecute. I will put it in a hypothetical: if there are numerous witnesses (with non-conflicting testimony) to a shooting in a convenience store in which the clerk behind the counter shoots and kills a criminal in his attempt to rob the store at gunpoint it is highly doubtful that the prosecutor would choose to bring a case for murder against the clerk... it was a clear case of self defense.
The proposed legislation includes the following verbatim language.:
"if self-defense is asserted by a defendant in a criminal action, the state has the burden to prove the absence of justification beyond a reasonable doubt;"
It seems wrong to me to state, as this article does, that this language "shifts" the burden of proof to the state. Currently, if you are charged with murder or some lesser criminal offense the burden on the State is to prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Simply making the argument that the defendant acted in self-defense does not, in any way, change that burden. Perhaps the more correct way to state the effect of this language is that it "creates" an "additional" burden of proof upon the prosecution in cases where self defense is asserted... specifically, that being that the State must (in addition to proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt) prove the "absence of justification beyond a reasonable doubt".
Also, you asked me to show you were you called me a dumbass. Here is a quote from one of your posts above. "Where in the hell did you get THAT dumbassed idea?" So, I suppose you could argue that you did not actually refer to me as an actual dumbass... that you were referring to an idea of mine instead. However, the spirit of this question coupled with the anger you vent towards me makes your message pretty clear. For the record, I have not called you any names nor do I intend to. The only observation I can make about you is that you seem to be a very angry person. I hope you get over that someday because it truly will shorten your life.
Let me remind you that "many" is often a relative term.
I'm in a position where I probably have as "many" guns as I need but not nearly as many as I want.
Furthermore, I guess you aren't aware of what Townsend Whelen once said...basically, only accurate rifles are interesting.
So, my fave is my Mauser based 22BR. It's had a feline life. After it cut me open while I killed a depredation cow elk, after a long history of routinely turning my shoulder into a Green (can't have that), it hid in the closet for a long time until I drug it out for the Frankenstein treatment.
After about ten years of experiments, about the only original part left is the set trigger assembly. Just about everything else either burned out or blew up. It's a VERY interesting shooting iron, and therefore my fave. Well, actually my second fave, but I'm not telling about that.
It is, however, lousy for close-quarters "castle doctrine." I have other, less interesting, implements for that role.
And thank you for that, Rusty.
Dave: I would venture a strong guess that, unless you have been a soldier at war, you have never truly "needed" a gun any more than I have. I want guns and I have guns but there has never been a situation where I really needed one. The statistical probability of either you or I ever really needing a gun is extremely low. However, make no mistake about what I am saying here: This point should not be taken to be an argument against the second amendment! It is just a statistical fact that the great majority of people (especially Americans) can live a full life without ever being in the position of needing a gun. Regardless, I am very sorry if my characterization of myself as having "many" guns does not meet your minimum requirements for one to be able to make such a claim. I am not in a contest with you here. You own more, perhaps many more, guns than I do. Good for you. I hereby pat you on the back. :-)
Look at the Guy in Arizona that is now being sued by illegals because they (illegals) treaspassed on his property(entered the country illegally, and he held them at gun-point till the authorities arrived to take them away. 32 MILLION dollars they are suing him for. Then we have the guy in CO. That shot the intruder, now they are looking strangely at him. Or the guy that shot the intruder INSIDE his house, and the guy (robber) sued the homeowner. These are the types of stupid things that happen to people just trying to protect their homes, and property.
Also, you can initiate a lawsuit for just about anything. Doesn't mean you are going to win. Of course, however, all that has nothing to do with the second amendment.
Tim - nobody proposed taking any gun rights away. This bill is simply attempting to clarify the self defense language of existing statutes. So, this is not a case of the evils that be coming to take our guns.
Tell that to the Guy in Arizona, and the guy that LOST the suit to the burglar that he shot INSIDE his house. And to this Statement; "So, this is not a case of the evils that be coming to take our guns." All I can say is YET!
As I said earlier, this is a case of shutting the gate BEFORE the horses get out. NOT after.
You will need to provide me with a link on the Arizona case. I am not familiar with it. However, I can tell you this... the man had a right to bear arms and he exercised that right by owning a gun with which he shot the intruder. If a civil court case later resulted in a jury verdict awarding the intruder damages that in and of itself really has nothing to do with whether or not he exercised his right to bear arms. Who knows... maybe he had a crappy atty in the civil suit? I have no idea what the facts of the case are so I am only speaking in general terms here. Even if he lost the civil case he STILL has his second amendment rights. End of story.
"if self-defense is asserted by a defendant in a criminal action, the state has the burden to prove the absence of justification beyond a reasonable doubt;". I don't see anything wrong with this. Why should I be dragged through the court system, at a rather substantial cost, when the prosecution cannot show absense of self-defense?
Ann - it does not look like there has been any resolution to this case. Again, anyone can sue anyone for anything. Does not mean they are going to win. I guess we can just stay tuned.
Then the vast majority of Montanans would have been properly described by Mencken as third or fourth rate booboisie...
If you dislike Montanans so much, JR, do us a favor and be somewhere else.
Finally, Elf, yep, I only needed a gun once. In Noo Yawk Midtown, not surprisingly. Once was more than enough.
I live here in Montana for a reason. When all the smoke clears, Montana will stand tall as the state that really understands the Constitution and did not buy into the federal story. Listen folks, we don't need to protest to get this stuff enacted. Our legislators just do it. When they made the real ID Act illegal here, 100% of our legislators agreed. There was no party BS. The feds do not have a single puppet string on anyone here. No other state can say that. The governor publicly told Bush to "go to hell".
Text of the Bill: (note that "accessories" are intended to include silencers which are legal here in Montana)
A BILL FOR AN ACT ENTITLED: "AN ACT EXEMPTING FROM FEDERAL REGULATION UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES A FIREARM, A FIREARM ACCESSORY, OR AMMUNITION MANUFACTURED AND RETAINED IN MONTANA; PROVIDING FOR THE DUTIES OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL; AND PROVIDING AN APPLICABILITY DATE."
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MONTANA:
NEW SECTION. Section 1. Short title. [Sections 1 through 7] may be cited as the "Montana Firearms Freedom Act".
NEW SECTION. Section 2. Legislative declarations of authority. The legislature declares that the authority for [sections 1 through 7] is the following:
(1) The 10th amendment to the United States constitution guarantees to the states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in the constitution and reserves to the state and people of Montana certain powers as they were understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889. The guaranty of those powers is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.
(2) The ninth amendment to the United States constitution guarantees to the people rights not granted in the constitution and reserves to the people of Montana certain rights as they were understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889. The guaranty of those rights is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.
(3) The regulation of intrastate commerce is vested in the states under the 9th and 10th amendments to the United States constitution, particularly if not expressly preempted by federal law. Congress has not expressly preempted state regulation of intrastate commerce pertaining to the manufacture on an intrastate basis of firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition.
(4) The second amendment to the United States constitution reserves to the people the right to keep and bear arms as that right was understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889, and the guaranty of the right is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.
(5) Article II, section 12, of the Montana constitution clearly secures to Montana citizens, and prohibits government interference with, the right of individual Montana citizens to keep and bear arms. This constitutional protection is unchanged from the 1889 Montana constitution, which was approved by congress and the people of Montana, and the right exists as it was understood at the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.
NEW SECTION. Section 3. Definitions. As used in [sections 1 through 7], the following definitions apply:
(1) "Borders of Montana" means the boundaries of Montana described in Article I, section 1, of the 1889 Montana constitution.
(2) "Firearms accessories" means items that are used in conjunction with or mounted upon a firearm but are not essential to the basic function of a firearm, including but not limited to telescopic or laser sights, magazines, flash or sound suppressors, folding or aftermarket stocks and grips, speedloaders, ammunition carriers, and lights for target illumination.
(3) "Generic and insignificant parts" includes but is not limited to springs, screws, nuts, and pins.
(4) "Manufactured" means that a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition has been created from basic materials for functional usefulness, including but not limited to forging, casting, machining, or other processes for working materials.
NEW SECTION. Section 4. Prohibitions. A personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately 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 to regulate interstate commerce. It is declared by the legislature that those items have not traveled in interstate commerce. This section applies to a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured in Montana from basic materials and that can be manufactured without the inclusion of any significant parts imported from another state. Generic and insignificant parts that have other manufacturing or consumer product applications are not firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition, and their importation into Montana and incorporation into a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured in Montana does not subject the firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition to federal regulation. It is declared by the legislature that basic materials, such as unmachined steel and unshaped wood, are not firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition and are not subject to congressional authority to regulate firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition under interstate commerce as if they were actually firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition. The authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce in basic materials does not include authority to regulate firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition made in Montana from those materials. Firearms accessories that are imported into Montana from another state and that are subject to federal regulation as being in interstate commerce do not subject a firearm to federal regulation under interstate commerce because they are attached to or used in conjunction with a firearm in Montana.
NEW SECTION. Section 5. Exceptions. [Section 4] does not apply to:
(1) a firearm that cannot be carried and used by one person;
(2) a firearm that has a bore diameter greater than 1 1/2 inches and that uses smokeless powder, not black powder, as a propellant;
(3) ammunition with a projectile that explodes using an explosion of chemical energy after the projectile leaves the firearm; or
(4) a firearm that discharges two or more projectiles with one activation of the trigger or other firing device.
NEW SECTION. Section 6. Marketing of firearms. A firearm manufactured or sold in Montana under [sections 1 through 7] must have the words "Made in Montana" clearly stamped on a central metallic part, such as the receiver or frame.
NEW SECTION. Section 7. Duties of the attorney general. (1) A Montana citizen whom the government of the United States attempts to prosecute, under the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce, for violation of a federal law concerning the manufacture, sale, transfer, or possession of a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured and retained within Montana must be defended in full by the Montana attorney general.
(2) Upon written notification to the Montana attorney general by a Montana citizen of intent to manufacture a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition to which [sections 1 through 7] apply, the attorney general shall seek a declaratory judgment from the federal district court for the district of Montana that [sections 1 through 7] are consistent with the United States constitution.
NEW SECTION. Section 8. Codification instruction. [Sections 1 through 7] are intended to be codified as an integral part of Title 30, and the provisions of Title 30 apply to [sections 1 through 7].
NEW SECTION. Section 9. Applicability. [This act] applies to firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition that are manufactured, as defined in [section 3], and retained in Montana after October 1, 2009.
- END -
Its also a good time to remember that crime always increases where gun ownership is suppressed. And crime always diminishes when gun ownership rights are expanded. But the feds conceal this and media cooperates.
Those of you that have bought the federal story about gun ownership will be the first to cry when government turns to tyranny. You will tell others to do something. They will tell you they can't. They are not armed any more.
I live in Montana because this state knows how to genuinely preserve the constitutional rights of its people. Our legislators don't just put on a show. They really get the job done. You would be outright crazy to commit any crime in Montana. You will be in someone's cross hairs immediately. My bank was robbed two weeks ago and the guy was followed and shot 2 miles away. There are many more guns than people here. If the federal story is correct, if its guns that kill people, we should have people killing people everywhere. Just the opposite is true. When I lived in California, I illegally packed. Now I can pack and I don't. Its just too safe here to bother.
Another thing everyone should understand about Montana law is the state definition of a concealed firearm. The law defines it as ON YOUR BODY CONCEALED BY CLOTHING. All other concealments are not concealments. So when a city makes a law against concealments, they are stuck with the state definition. Briefcase, purse, glove box, under the seat, are all protected and legal concealments. If you can own a gun you can get a concealed carry permit here. Its about $50 for 4 years. They are processed immediately by the county Sheriff. Who needs one? The cops don't give a damn if you pack here. So this legislation doesn't really expand any rights. It only prevents cities from making laws that would require the concealed carry permit. Just like Montana made the Real ID Act illegal here, this act is just to tell Obama to go to hell.
Who cares what Mencken said. He was a toff."
As opposed to a yokel, I suppose you're correct, skinner...
Apply this scenario to a street, Would anyone in their right mind assault or rob people or perform any kind of crime if they thought someone nearby might be armed?
Such a rightwingcrazy..!
Geez. Absolutely no specifics? Absolutely no attack on facts? Just a critical modification of my real name. Who said I'm a Californian. I didn't come to MT. I came BACK to MT. People here are either totally oblivious or totally informed. One look at the recent legislation and its apparent that our lawmakers are fully informed and they are not Obamites. If you think that this president has made one single decision himself, you need to wake up. So don't spread this BS that Montanans like Obama. The state couldn't send a bigger F*#k You to Obama than they just did. You are here to spread BS. No way that you believe what you are saying. And what is this Evnironmental Rangers crap. You one of these Green Gangerine idiots that bought Al Gore's story? I bet you dollars to donuts that you are not even in Montana. You are a paid posters sitting in basement.
I grew up around people that taught us from an early age how to practice gun safety. I had to pass an NRA course once in grade school, and another time in Boy Scouts. When we would go shooting my dad would carry the gun and I carried the bullets, or vice versa. If more parents would teach their children about guns and what they can do and practicing gun safety there would be less problems with gun crime.
I think that this bill speaks reams about people from Montana that are still free thinking and shows how much Montanans still value something that no other state in this country has and that's a Montana State of Mind. After all Montana is not a state, it is a state of mind that you carry with you wherever you go. I have a concealed carry permit and I have to say in all my years of packing a gun, "I never shot anybody that didn't deserve shooting".
Peace.
George Crowe
Would that it were true, doglap; but Democrats are behaving as though they were middleschool dolts. I predict Obama, probably the brightest bulb in the west wing since Jimmuh will be allowed by Pelosi, Reid and Co. to waft into insignificance before Labor Day...
No way you can contend that MT is pro Obama when the state creates legislation like this. These bills are pan amount to an entire state throwing dog shit at Obama. On top of that, these bills are anticipatory. They are not trying to negate what Obama did. They are intended to stop him from doing what is now known to be his concealed agenda. Sorry, but you will never be able to reconcile this activity by MT with Obama's alleged popularity. Forget about how many votes he got because Obama's approval rating is dropping much faster than Bush did. All this because he obviously concealed his true agenda.
PS. I still don't believe you are a Montanan. You are a paid boiler room poster.
To stay on subject: If you care about your 2nd Amendment rights, join the the NRA, or your local shooting club. They will give you the information the media won't. Plus they are a single issue organization that only reports on gun-rights, not other political BS.
Environmental Rangers were an "eco-militia." I think Larry and his buddies went down to "protect" the EFers at Cove Mallard back in the 1990s. Of course, the "Rangers" were A-OK with the media, they were protecting the earth, ya know. On the "right" side, ya know.
Larry had his fun, that's for sure. If I'd had MY fun, protecting loggers and equipment from ecoteurs, now, I'd be on any number of blacklists.
Be thankful you live in Montana where people still have some rights and SOME have some common sense. Nobody is throwing dogshit at O'bama, but if you step in it--Well if the foo shits--Wear it.
George Crowe
So the environmental rangers do really exist? Tell me about them. I read your comment a little more carefully and I like full auto people. I grew up in the mountains and forests of Western Montana, and there are not many places in the state I love I have not been. I too love the land and will fight for my rights. One of the places i liked the best was Butte. I had many friends there. Most were juvenile delinquents like me. Mile High, Mile Deep, but all the people are on the level. I grew up in a land conscious family. My grandfather was the president of a major lumber company and built this land. My father was one of the heads of Montana Dept of Lands, and my cousins are like wise hunters and gunners. My other grandfather was the train master for the Northern Pacific between Spokane and Billings.
Anyway back to concealed carry in your butthole. Might be a good place to carry. Then all I would have to do is bend over and empty the magazine on full auto. Oh yea, Perhaps getting a 30 round clip up there might be something to put on You Tube. Any volunteers?
Best to all fellow Montanans
George A. Crowe