Posted on 03/30/2015 4:53:21 AM PDT by marktwain
Governor Bullock (D) of Montana vetoed constitutional carry, HB 298. It seems that he did so on Friday the 27th of March. He did not give a good reason for the veto; he simply applied the "we require a permit for everything else" excuse. Perhaps we need to rethink this excessive requirement for permission from the state before we engage in our daily lives. Five states have constitutional carry, and there is no evidence that it causes any problems. Governor Bullock recommended that the gun muffler reform in HB 250 be improved to include all legal hunting. It is unknown if there will be time for the legislature to amend the bill, pass the bill again, and return it to the Governor. From greatfallstribune.com:
Bullock also vetoed House Bill 298, sponsored by Rep. Bill Harris, R-Winnett, which he said would eliminate Montana's concealed weapons permit process and is an "absurd concept that threatens the safety of our communities by not providing for the basic fundamentals of gun safety or mental health screening."Governor Bullock is, at a minimum, mistaken. HB 298 would not have eliminated Montana's concealed weapons permit process. It would only have removed legal restrictions from carrying concealed without a permit. The permit system itself would not have been changed. It should be noted that if we agreed with the Governor's assumptions about the nature of reality, then no one would be allowed to own a firearm without Government permission. It is hard to believe that Governor Bullock does not know that his "absurd concept" is the law in over 98 percent of Montana, and has been for some time.
A classic example of "how can we fool them today?"
Voting for 'rats is immoral.
Maybe it’s time you got rid of all kinds of other government permissions for human activity. Liberty marches on.
This is what happens when you vote for a RAT.
Bullock will also join Tomblin in soon being former governors..
Possibly the LIB idiot MT voters thought they were voting for Sandra bullock?
I have been thinking about this issue.
In MASS we have a pretty restrictive carry process. While the state is an Open Carry state, you would insane to walk around with a pistol hanging off your hip.
I figure it this way. I have a firearm in my vehicle at all times. I have firearms in my house at all times.
I live in a low crime area. Concealed Carry is not a big issue for me (other than the legality of it.)
That said, when the time comes where Concealed Carry is a necessity people will carry. But by the time that happens, I hope to be in the big red truck and out of the area.
With the fools running things, that the is least we can do. I am an Eagle Scout from a long way back. Be Prepared is still part of my mantra.
“we require a permit for everything else”
Is this ass clown afraid of losing the registration fees?
He should be afraid of losing his damned job.
Most old time Montanans are damned fed up with the new arrivals mostly from Seattle, Portland and damned Calif.
Libs all.
I don’t remember seeing the word “permit” in the 2nd amendment. I do remember seeing the words “shall not be infringed” though. Thankfully, our rights derive from God, not governors or other men.
I was wondering how in heck MT could be a Dimocrat state.
Concealed carry in Montana is defined as concealed by an article of clothing. Anyone can carry in a backpack, fannypack, purse, rolled up towel or brown paper bag without a permit.
Only within city limits is a permit required to carry concealed ... < 2% of our state. Once we get a Republican Governor we will have Constitutional Carry. In the meantime we are a shall issue state.
My first libertarian bumper sticker:
“Legalize Freedom”
What propelled a Democrat to the governship in Montana? I always had the impression it was an independence minded state.
Democrats have been always strong up there due to miner’s union.
Whenever there is an “importance of licensure” argument, it reminds me of a statement by the chief of the Florida Highway Patrol.
He estimated that 300,000 or more Floridians drove without proper drivers licenses, and efforts to apprehend them clogged the court system and accomplished little or nothing, because, he said, licensing bears no relationship with good driving. He continued by saying that he wanted the emphasis of the Highway Patrol to be getting bad drivers off the street, instead of fussing about whether drives were properly licensed or not.
He was told to hush up about it. As it turns out, drivers licenses have little or nothing to do with safety, but are tools of government control over the citizenry. Bureaucrats adore them as a form of identification, and because they associate a person with a home address and vehicle, it makes them much easier to control.
I mention this because the same bureaucratic rationale is used for gun licenses. Gun licenses have nothing to do with safety, and everything to do with control.
I love it! This virtually guarantees that Montana will go Repub in November. Oh, and there's a new party in MT that very likely won't be supporting Governor Bully either....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.