• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

montana's Sovereignty

Hanta Yo

Well-known member
Thanks for posting this, I thought it was a done deal and I was very ticked that no one got a chance to testify for it because they tried to slide it right through. :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I've never even seen or heard about this bill...Nothing in the papers or on the radio or TV that I saw....Apparently it has little impact or no chance of passing because the Montana Sheriffs and Peace Officers Assn has sent nothing out, nor have anything about it on their website- nor have I heard anything being talked about it...

Some rightwingernut from over west did have a bill in that would allow anyone and everyone to pack a concealed weapon-anywhere- including convicted felons, adjudicated mentally ill, and child sexual predators... :roll: I think the association got that one killed....

Another one was introduced that would do away any gun laws relating to gun products made in the state- I think that died too....

There is quite a group of those rightwingers that are/were tied to the Aryan Nation, Freemen, and extremist hate groups over in the western part of the state- Hamilton, Libby areas and spread around the state--and they're so extreme that the press and folks don't pay much attention to their ranting- until they pull some standoff stunt- or get shot by the Sheriff in a shootout...
 

Hanta Yo

Well-known member
Just because YOU never heard of this bill doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We heard that it was held to the very last minute for vote, and no one got to testify. Made a pile of people angry because a bunch showed up to give testimony and were told to leave, they were too late....
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Hanta Yo said:
Just because YOU never heard of this bill doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We heard that it was held to the very last minute for vote, and no one got to testify. Made a pile of people angry because a bunch showed up to give testimony and were told to leave, they were too late....

Never said it doesn't exist- just that its sure never made the news- and even my rightwingnut buddy I talked to the other day never mentioned a word- even tho I was giving him a bad time about a few of Repubs in Helena's escapades again this year...

Who's sponsoring it- which legislators and which groups .. :???:
 

Liberty Belle

Well-known member
Here is what South Dakota just passed without ANY out of state group lobbying either for or against. A couple of SD citizens came to the legislature wanting to know if there was any way that our state could get behind this movement to put the feds in their place and this is what our legislative research council wrote up for them.

It is interesting to note that EVERY no vote was from the Democrats. What that means is anyone's guess, but a few of the more conservative Dems voted with the republicans.

HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 1013

A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION, Reasserting sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over certain powers and serving notice to the federal government to cease and desist certain mandates.

WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."; and

WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more and the scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and

WHEREAS, today, in 2009, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government and many federal mandates are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and

WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states; and

WHEREAS, any Act by the Congress of the United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States of America, or Judicial Order by the judicatories of the United States of America which assumes a power not delegated to the government of the United States of America by the Constitution of the United States of America and which serves to diminish the liberty of any of the several states or their citizens constitutes a nullification of the Constitution of the United States of America by the government of the United States of America; and

WHEREAS, a number of proposals from previous administrations and some now pending from the present administration and from Congress may further violate the Constitution of the United States:

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the House of Representatives of the Eighty-fourth Legislature of the State of South Dakota, the Senate concurring therein, that the State of South Dakota hereby reasserts sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that all compulsory federal legislation that directs states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties or sanctions or requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this concurrent resolution serve as Notice and Demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Adopted by the House of Representatives,

March 3, 2009

Concurred in by the Senate,
March 5, 2009
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
I've never even seen or heard about this bill...Nothing in the papers or on the radio or TV that I saw....Apparently it has little impact or no chance of passing because the Montana Sheriffs and Peace Officers Assn has sent nothing out, nor have anything about it on their website- nor have I heard anything being talked about it...

Some rightwingernut from over west did have a bill in that would allow anyone and everyone to pack a concealed weapon-anywhere- including convicted felons, adjudicated mentally ill, and child sexual predators... :roll: I think the association got that one killed....

Another one was introduced that would do away any gun laws relating to gun products made in the state- I think that died too....

There is quite a group of those rightwingers that are/were tied to the Aryan Nation, Freemen, and extremist hate groups over in the western part of the state- Hamilton, Libby areas and spread around the state--and they're so extreme that the press and folks don't pay much attention to their ranting- until they pull some standoff stunt- or get shot by the Sheriff in a shootout...


http://laws.leg.mt.gov/laws09/LAW0203W$BSRV.ActionQuery?P_BLTP_BILL_TYP_CD=HB&P_BILL_NO=228&P_BILL_DFT_NO=&P_CHPT_NO=&Z_ACTION=Find&P_SBJ_DESCR=&P_SBJT_SBJ_CD=&P_LST_NM1=&P_ENTY_ID_SEQ=

woops-- wrong again OT :cry: last vote was 60% for :D
READ THE BILL!! just common sense stuff in there, some of the best parts were stricken but we'll take what we can get
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
I've never even seen or heard about this bill...Nothing in the papers or on the radio or TV that I saw....Apparently it has little impact or no chance of passing because the Montana Sheriffs and Peace Officers Assn has sent nothing out, nor have anything about it on their website- nor have I heard anything being talked about it...

Some rightwingernut from over west did have a bill in that would allow anyone and everyone to pack a concealed weapon-anywhere- including convicted felons, adjudicated mentally ill, and child sexual predators... :roll: I think the association got that one killed....

Another one was introduced that would do away any gun laws relating to gun products made in the state- I think that died too....

There is quite a group of those rightwingers that are/were tied to the Aryan Nation, Freemen, and extremist hate groups over in the western part of the state- Hamilton, Libby areas and spread around the state--and they're so extreme that the press and folks don't pay much attention to their ranting- until they pull some standoff stunt- or get shot by the Sheriff in a shootout...


woops wrong again OT--- starting to see a trend here!!

http://laws.leg.mt.gov/laws09/LAW0203W$BSRV.ActionQuery?P_BLTP_BILL_TYP_CD=&P_BILL_NO=&P_BILL_DFT_NO=LC0671&Z_ACTION=Find&P_SBJ_DESCR=&P_SBJT_SBJ_CD=&P_LST_NM1=&P_ENTY_ID_SEQ=
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Lonecowboy--I have no problem with the concept of the bill and most the bill- and I know where they are coming from on self defense as I've ran into some over zealous county attorneys....And I don't walk across the street that I'm not packing...But I'm also not a convicted felon- have a state concealed weapons permit- and fall under the Federal law of retired officers being allowed to carry concealed firearms....

The problem I see is that this will allow anyone- whether he's been just let out of Warm Springs State Hospital the day before- or been in Montana State prison for the past 20 years for homicide to legally under state law pack a concealed weapon anywhere and everywhere- display it and intimidate with it- and as long as he isn't caught packing it while committing a crime- its OK... Might be 4-5 dead people by then :???:

When I was Sheriff- I turned very few down for concealed weapons permits- as I strongly support the 2nd Amendment- and a persons right to personal protection...One was a fellow that had spent 10 years in Warm Springs after being adjudicated mentally ill after he kidnapped, raped, and tortured a young girl from the Fairgrounds-who he had every intention to kill had she not snuck away from him....The other 2 were spaced out meth freaks... None of which you would feel secure knowing they were walking your streets packing a concealed firearm...

This law essentially does away with the state law outlawing convicted felons from packing/possessing firearms- which I have to question...
It does set up quite a Constitutional challenge between states rights and federal law-since there still is a federal law-altho the last few years I was in office the US attorneys office was so busy with meth and drug cases they'd reject prosecution on most felon in possession cases anyway unless you had them on additional charges or drug related charges....

One of the questions brought up by Probation Officers was, would this essentially end the District Judges ability to put gun ownership/possession restrictions on probationers- which I believe it would...

The other question raised by the County Attorneys is what qualifies a person under this law...Does it mean a 14 year old High School student :???: Would it interfer with the school rules not allowing firearms in the school :???: Theres also an open question whether business's (banks, bars, courthouses) would be able to restrict or refuse service to someone packing a firearm- since they specifically say some business's can't :???:

Lots of questions not answered in it...But just like I told a brand new out of recruit school Highway Patrolman one day when he couldn't believe that carrying a pistol stuffed between your seats in your vehicle wasn't considered concealed-- in Montana you just figure that 1 out of 10 folks are packing- and 1 out of 3 have a firearm in their vehicle- and you deal with each one thinking that is the one...

NEW SECTION. Section 3. Defensive display of firearm not offense. (1) A person who displays or shows a firearm for a harmless defensive purpose needs no justification for the display and may not be charged with or convicted of an offense for that display.

(2) Displaying or showing a firearm includes but is not limited to:

(a) openly wearing, carrying, or possessing a firearm;

(b) verbally informing another that one possesses a firearm; and

(c) holding a firearm in a position so that the firearm does not point directly at another person.

(3) The right to show or display a firearm does not include the following situations, and justification is required for the display:

(a) intentionally or recklessly pointing a firearm directly at another person or sweeping another person with the muzzle of a firearm;

(b) intentionally discharging a firearm in the direction of another person; or

(c) deliberately provoking another person into threatening words or actions when possessing a firearm;

(D) NEGLIGENTLY OR PURPOSEFULLY THREATENING A PEACE OFFICER WITH A FIREARM;

(E) DISPLAYING A FIREARM DURING THE COMMISSION OF A FORCIBLE FELONY; OR

(F) DISPLAYING A FIREARM AS PART OF A PATTERN OF CRIMINAL STREET GANG ACTIVITY AS DEFINED IN 45-8-405


"45-8-316. Carrying concealed weapons. (1) A person who carries or bears concealed upon his the person, if using it to commit a criminal offense, a dirk, dagger, pistol, revolver, slingshot, sword cane, billy, knuckles made of any metal or hard substance, knife having a blade 4 inches long or longer, razor, not including a safety razor, or other deadly weapon shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $500 or imprisonment in the county jail for a period not exceeding 6 months, or both.

(2) A person who has previously been convicted of an offense, committed on a different occasion than the offense under this section, in this state or any other jurisdiction for which a sentence to a term of imprisonment in excess of 1 year could have been imposed and who carries or bears concealed upon his the person, if using it to commit a criminal offense, any of the weapons described in subsection (1) shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $1,000 or imprisoned in the state prison for a period not exceeding 5 years, or both."
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
OT- how does NOT having this bill pass keep firearms out of "felon" and "mental patients" hands?? It doesn't!!
outlaws don't follow the law, only the law abiding do.

It just gives any law abiding citizen the right to carry and defend themselves. Without having to ask you for permission and having to be on any registration list. Why should someone have to ask you for permission for something that's our constitutional RIGHT??
Yes there appears to be a conflict with the feds -- who's in the wrong here?? Gun laws are a states right -- Not federal.

To me this bill just gives us more freedom -- and the ability to be more personally responsible for our own safety, and the safety of others.
If this passes the rest of the way I bet crime rates drop, not that they are all that high in MT anyway cause lots of people are armed.

look at that church shooter the other day, he wasn't scared to break numerous laws, somebody finally had to stab him to stop him.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Lonecowboy said:
OT- how does NOT having this bill pass keep firearms out of "felon" and "mental patients" hands?? It doesn't!!
outlaws don't follow the law, only the law abiding do.

It just gives any law abiding citizen the right to carry and defend themselves. Without having to ask you for permission and having to be on any registration list. Why should someone have to ask you for permission for something that's our constitutional RIGHT??
Yes there appears to be a conflict with the feds -- who's in the wrong here?? Gun laws are a states right -- Not federal.

To me this bill just gives us more freedom -- and the ability to be more personally responsible for our own safety, and the safety of others.
If this passes the rest of the way I bet crime rates drop, not that they are all that high in MT anyway cause lots of people are armed.

look at that church shooter the other day, he wasn't scared to break numerous laws, somebody finally had to stab him to stop him.

There is the part that burns me - "law abiding citizen the right"... Felons lose that right- and in my view should- unless they can lead an exemplary life and gain a pardon....And I've seen several cases where being able to take away a firearm from a mentally disturbed- developmentally disabled/retarded person has prevented a tragedy before it happens...One of these involved a Columbine type scenerio...This removes that option...

SHHEEESH-- The Dems want to give the Felons back their right to vote and hold office- and the Repubs want to give them back their right to not only own or possess a gun but to pack it down the street showing/intimidating everyone.... :roll:

I picked the right time to retire.....
 
Top