In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
MT Governor Vetos Constitutional Carry
dfletcher
Member Posts: 8,175 ✭✭✭
So much for Democrats who are "good on guns" and from pro-gun states -
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/national-politics/article134612009.html
"Montana Gov. Steve Bullock vetoed his first two bills of the legislative session on Thursday, one that would have allowed guns in post offices and another that would have eliminated the need for concealed weapons permits.
Both gun bills passed by wide margins in the Republican-dominated Legislature, and are among several proposals to loosen gun restrictions in Montana this legislative session."
"While I will fiercely defend the Second Amendment rights of our citizens, I cannot support an absurd concept that threatens the safety of our communities by not providing for the basic fundamentals of gun safety or mental health screening," Bullock wrote in his message."
Note the Democratic Party line of "I support the 2nd Amendment but ....." and that constitutional carry is "absurd".
We should never forget that regardless of region or stated position, and we should have learned this long ago and were reminded when Senator Manchin turned, that gun owners vote for any Democrat at their own peril. To be a Democratic Party politician is to be in the den of anti-gunners, subject to their influences and not so subtle "get along to go along" directives.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/national-politics/article134612009.html
"Montana Gov. Steve Bullock vetoed his first two bills of the legislative session on Thursday, one that would have allowed guns in post offices and another that would have eliminated the need for concealed weapons permits.
Both gun bills passed by wide margins in the Republican-dominated Legislature, and are among several proposals to loosen gun restrictions in Montana this legislative session."
"While I will fiercely defend the Second Amendment rights of our citizens, I cannot support an absurd concept that threatens the safety of our communities by not providing for the basic fundamentals of gun safety or mental health screening," Bullock wrote in his message."
Note the Democratic Party line of "I support the 2nd Amendment but ....." and that constitutional carry is "absurd".
We should never forget that regardless of region or stated position, and we should have learned this long ago and were reminded when Senator Manchin turned, that gun owners vote for any Democrat at their own peril. To be a Democratic Party politician is to be in the den of anti-gunners, subject to their influences and not so subtle "get along to go along" directives.
Comments
quote:I support the 2nd Amendment but .....
Many of those types right here on GB.
Sadly SO true.
You forgot to mention that it would also allow guns in schools. The MT legislature has a history of passing bills that are later thrown out in the courts as contrary to the US Constitution and Federal laws. The existing CCWP law works just fine. The existing law provides for local control, (a conservative rallying point).
Given that the governor vetoed it we'll not know if permitless carry would have survived review. Although the many other states having done so without federal rebuke suggests the MT permitless carry law would be safe.
State pre-emption and not local control is desirable. Missoula recently passed local anti-gun legislation, for example, and state pre-emption would have prevented it.
Depending on one's point of view there are all sorts of things that "work OK" such as "separate but equal" and the CA AW law. At issue it seems to me is the Democratic Party's consistent anti-gun interest and the theory that folks are presumed not qualified to exercise a right; and that a government approved permission slip must be issued.
If public safety is the Governor's concern one wonders if MT currently requires gun safety training and mental health screening, cited by the Governor, before issuing their CCW permit. The answer is no. So what is the purpose of requiring a permit - might it be the $50.00 fee? [;)]
You forgot to mention that it would also allow guns in schools. The MT legislature has a history of passing bills that are later thrown out in the courts as contrary to the US Constitution and Federal laws. The existing CCWP law works just fine. The existing law provides for local control, (a conservative rallying point).
So what?
quote:Originally posted by cbyerly
You forgot to mention that it would also allow guns in schools. The MT legislature has a history of passing bills that are later thrown out in the courts as contrary to the US Constitution and Federal laws. The existing CCWP law works just fine. The existing law provides for local control, (a conservative rallying point).
So what?
You know it's unfortunate. Gunowners want the public to have a bit of faith in us. That we're not a bunch of irresponsible goofs just itching to draw down on someone who looks at us sideways. That we'll exercise good judgement and not privately sell guns to some mumbling, deranged lunatic just because "it's our right". Yet so often we don't trust each other, as evidenced by "OMIGOD!!! they could carry on school grounds". As you rightly point out - so what.
Well, liberty is risky. Do we trust our fellow citizens to be responsible, are we comfortable treating them as we would like to be treated - or are we going to treat them the same way anti-gunners treat us?
You know it's unfortunate. Gunowners want the public to have a bit of faith in us. That we're not a bunch of irresponsible goofs just itching to draw down on someone who looks at us sideways. That we'll exercise good judgement and not privately sell guns to some mumbling, deranged lunatic just because "it's our right". Yet so often we don't trust each other, as evidenced by "OMIGOD!!! they could carry on school grounds". As you rightly point out - so what.
Well, liberty is risky. Do we trust our fellow citizens to be responsible, are we comfortable treating them as we would like to be treated - or are we going to treat them the same way anti-gunners treat us?
Yep. Me thinks cbyerly is not a Montana native.
quote:Originally posted by dfletcher
You know it's unfortunate. Gunowners want the public to have a bit of faith in us. That we're not a bunch of irresponsible goofs just itching to draw down on someone who looks at us sideways. That we'll exercise good judgement and not privately sell guns to some mumbling, deranged lunatic just because "it's our right". Yet so often we don't trust each other, as evidenced by "OMIGOD!!! they could carry on school grounds". As you rightly point out - so what.
Well, liberty is risky. Do we trust our fellow citizens to be responsible, are we comfortable treating them as we would like to be treated - or are we going to treat them the same way anti-gunners treat us?
Yep. Me thinks cbyerly is not a Montana native real American.
FIFY[:(!]
Why would you want to limit the location of where you're allowed to exercise a right codified in the Bill of Rights? You are either a free man, with the rights and responsibilities that go along with it, or you are a servant to The State.
What would you rather be?