Posts Tagged ‘Montana’

Constitutional Carry update: Republicans are pro gun..?

March 17, 2012

Constitutional Carry is the basic principle that if you are legally eligible to purchase a firearm, you should be able to carry that weapon, concealed, for self-defense without government permission.

Passage of Constitutional Carry does not abolish existing permit systems, or their corresponding reciprocity agreements. It merely provides law-abiding citizens with an alternative avenue for armed self-defense.

Passing Constitutional Carry in state legislatures across the country is a key goal of the National Association for Gun Rights’ State Legislative program. The National Association for Gun Rights’ activists successfully passed Constitutional Carry in Wyoming in 2011.

Constitutional Carry is law in Vermont, Alaska, Arizona and Wyoming.

  • Colorado: Two Constitutional Carry bills have been introduced, one in each chamber. SB-25 (Neville) has been procedurally killed in committee. HB-1092 (Priola) was on third reading but they sent it back to Judiciary to clear up a language dispute.
  • Georgia: HB-679 (Spencer) is in Public Safety & Homeland Security. It was heard on February 13th, but the committee’s chair, Republican Ann Purcell, refused to allow an up or down vote. Georgia’s important “crossover” deadline has since passed, but there is still time to add it as an amendment to another gun bill.
  • Iowa: Working with our ally Iowa Gun Owners, two Constitutional Carry bills have been introduced in Iowa (HF-291 and HF-2113). They are in the Public Safety Committee. Again, Republican leadership has blocked the vote in effort to quietly kill both bills, but pressure to revisit this legislation is mounting.
  • Kentucky: HB 280 (Harmon) is in the House Judiciary Committee.
  • New Hampshire: Working with our ally New Hampshire Firearms Coalition (NHFC), HB-536 (Hoell) passed the House and received a favorable hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee. This is the second year in a row that it has passed. However, anti-gun Republican leadership is trying to kill it behind the scenes. NAGR and NHFC have worked hard to expose the anti-gun backroom dealings.
  • Maine: Two 2011-12 bills were killed by leadership.
  • Mississippi: HB 596 (Formby) was introduced this past month; however it contains some bad language that needs to be amended out.
  • Montana: In 2011, NRA “A-Rated” rated Governor Brian Schweitzer vetoed Constitutional Carry. Montana does not hold a legislative session in 2012. NAGR is continuing to work in Montana to see that this becomes the standard in all areas of the state next year.
  • Ohio: HB 256 (Adams) is the 2011-12 bill. It is in the State Government & Elections committee.
  • Oklahoma: There are dozens of gun bills floating around the capitol this year. While most of have an emphasis on open carry, one proposed floor amendment from last March (FA-7 by Derby) to HB-1796 (Tibbs) came close to doing away with the permit requirement.
  • Rhode Island: S 2133 (Picard) is in Senate Judiciary.
  • South Carolina: The concept was introduced earlier in the 2011-12 session, but didn’t make it far before the anti-gunners stalled it and watered it down. NAGR members in the Palmetto state are working to get a recorded vote on Constitutional Carry in the South Carolina Legislature.
  • South Dakota: NRA “A-Rated” Republican leadership violated the state constitution to prevent HB 1015 (Kopp) from receiving a floor vote. They substituted it with language that at best still requires a permit in the form of your driver’s license and still mandates ALL the requirements including a background check. South Dakota Gun Owners and NAGR will continue to work toward a real Constitutional Carry law in the future.
  • Tennessee: Several Constitutional Carry bills have been introduced in the last two years including SB 397, which awaits a hearing in the Judiciary Committee. On February 2, companion legislation was introduced in the Tennessee State House — HB 3818.
  • Virginia: HB 139 by Delegate Cole was left in committee after crossover without being continued. Cole was unwilling to respond to the demands of NAGR members to file a discharge petition to bring Constitutional Carry to the House floor. NAGR will be working with our allies on the ground in Virginia to find a more courageous sponsor to bring this to the floor going forward.
  • Wisconsin: Last year, Wisconsin became the 49th state to recognize concealed carry in SB 93 (Galloway). The bill originally began as a Constitutional Carry bill.
  • Elsewhere: 2011-12 Constitutional Carry bills were considered in Nevada, Idaho, Indiana, Oregon, Utah, and West Virginia. However, those initiatives failed to become law.

    This brings the total to 26 states that have, are considering, or have considered Constitutional Carry during this legislative cycle.

For Freedom,

Dudley Brown
Executive Vice President

NAGR FRONTLINE DEFENDER

Is the Bill of Rights toilet tissue?

October 7, 2009

The Bill of Rights places restrictions on what government may, and may not do. A pretty simple concept really. However, big government types and lawyers over the years sound a lot like economist’s do. As in making something that is fairly simple to understand into something utterly unfathomable. It’s understandable, after all. Lawyers need to make a living, as do bureaucrats. Politicians for the most part are driven by inner forces and recognition needs, that are  for the most part  noted by Maslow.

That’s all well and good as far as understanding what drives people to do what they do. In fact, I think that a lot of the people who I mentioned above are well intentioned. However, a well intentioned rogue is still a rogue, and unintended consequences may not be all that unintended.

By example, we are more than aware that the current administration is filled with people who are not only hostile to the Constitution but also are outspoken enemies of the Bill of Rights.

Across this nation the States are taking on the Federal Government over the usurpation of States Rights in numbers not seen since the War of Northern aggression.

Just short of secession many states are telling the Federal Government to just plain back off. Enough is enough if you will. Perhaps if the Supreme Court had issued a blanket ruling that incorporation of the Bill of Rights applied to all of the states, all the way down to the smallest level of government this would not be happening. But, they didn’t, and things are getting a bit dicey as a result.

Montana is leading the charge, and the people that brought you Ruby Ridge and the American Holocaust are, like good little serfs fighting back.

Read about that here.

Don’t fall into the trap that this is about gun control even if that is in fact the direct issue at hand. It is about your freedom and liberty.

Urgent Alert: Montana Pro-Gun Bill Needs Your Help Now!

February 21, 2009

From NRA/ILA;

Urgent Alert: Montana Pro-Gun Bill Needs Your Help Now!
Friday, February 20, 2009

Please Stand-Up and Make Your Voices Heard!

Today, House Bill 427 was defeated by the Montana House by a 42-58 vote.  The bill could be resurrected as early as tomorrow (Saturday) but we need your help to achieve that.  Any State Representative who opposed the bill can vote to have the bill reconsidered.

HB427 repeals an unwarranted Prohibition-era law that prohibits the possession of suppressors on firearms “in the field or forest” while hunting. The current prohibition on suppressors is so archaic, so poorly written it even criminalizes benign conduct, like simply being outdoors with a suppressor.

Hunting laws should be designed to benefit law-abiding sportsmen, not to restrict what they may do in order to more easily apprehend the small minority of law breakers.

Suppressors for hunting should be allowed as one means of decreasing the conflict between hunters and non hunters who complain about the noise associated with gunfire. In addition, a growing number of hunters seek to use suppressors as a means of protecting their hearing and that of their hunting partners.

The idea that suppressors are the sole domain of criminals is one generated by Hollywood. It sets a dangerous precedent to enact or reject laws based upon this fallacy rather than the reality that the vast majority of hunters comply with all laws and regulations and simply seek to exercise options that best address their individual circumstances.

Under existing law, the Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks can prosecute the criminal misuse of suppressors (poaching).  Anti-hunting zealots believe that the use of suppressors gives hunters an unfair advantage over game animals. This illustrates their failure to understand the most fundamental principles of centerfire rifle ballistics.

Please contact the following State Representatives and respectfully urge them to support HB427 and to bring it up for reconsideration tomorrow (Saturday). Contact information can be found here.

Duane Ankney (R-Colstrip)
Bob Ebinger (D-Livingston)
John Fleming (D-St. Ignatius)
Dennis Getz ( D-Glendive)
Dennis Himmenberger (R-Billings)
Cynthia Hiner (D-Deer Lodge)
Mike Jopek (D-Whitefish)
Harry Klock (R-Harlowton)
Bill McChesney (D-Miles City)
Robert Mehlhoff (D-Great Falls)
Mike Milburn (R-Cascade)
Art Noonan (D-Butte)
Pat Noonan (D-Butte)
Jesse O’Hara (R-Great Falls)
Don Roberts (R-Billings)
Cheryl Steenson (D-Kalispell)
Ted Washburn (R-Bozeman)
Jeffrey Wellborn (R-Dillon)

Copyright 2009, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.
This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.
Contact Us | Privacy & Security Policy

Montana leads the way!

January 22, 2009

Hat tip to The Liberty Sphere!

The federal government has for years had the idea that it is in fact omniscient. Built in safeguards from the Bill of Rights are largely ignored and from were I sit things do not appear to be changing at all. However, Montana is taking the bull by the horns and challenging the Federal choke hold that the states have been enduring for more years than I care to remember.

2009 Montana Legislature

Additional Bill Links PDF (with line numbers)

HOUSE BILL NO. 246

INTRODUCED BY J. BONIEK

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 –

source


%d bloggers like this: