Saturday, February 18, 2017

MT: Constitutional Carry Sent to MT Governor for Third Time

Montana has "permitless" or Constitutional carry, for areas outside of city and town limits, which is more than 99% of the state.  Bills to extend Constitutional carry to the entire state have passed the legislature three times.

The first time was in 2011. Democrat Governor Brian Schweitzer vetoed HB 271, and the legislature was not able to override the veto.

The second time was in 2015. Democrat Governor Steve Bullock vetoed HB 298.

The third time happened on February 15, 2017. The Senate passed HB 262, which will now go to Governor Bullock again.

HB 262 passed the house 60 to 39.  There are 59 Republicans and 41 Democrats in the House.

The bill passed the Senate 31 to 18. There are 32 Republicans, 17 Democrats, and 1 vacancy in the Senate.

Governor Bullock was re-elected with 50.25% of the vote in 2016. The Republican candidate received  46.35% and the Libertarian candidate 3.4% of the vote. Here is Governor Bullock's statement on Second Amendment Rights:
As a lifelong gun owner and as Montana’s former top cop, Steve Bullock is a staunch supporter of our Second Amendment rights and fights for the right of all law-abiding citizens to own and responsibly use guns.
The absence of any mention of self defense, or the right to *bear* arms are obvious "tells" that this politician is not serious about protecting the right to keep and bear arms.

In Montana, a Governor has 10 days to sign a bill, veto it, recommend amendments, or take no action. If he does not veto the bill, it becomes law in 10 days.

If the Governor vetoes the bill, the legislature may override the veto with a two thirds vote in both chambers of the legislature.

A veto seems likely.  It does not appear that there are sufficient votes to override a veto.

©2017 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch


Anonymous said...

Almost all cops think a civilian carrying a gun for self defense is undercutting their ego of authority. AND they fear their bullying ways just might get them shot. Most of them are too ignorant to treat people with respect of their rights. Self centered egotists make very bad politicians. Trump is clearly an egotist but he is not self centered. I voted for Trump because of his CEO experience and his ability to hit the nail on the head he sees the issues clearly and takes action. He does not have to care what the ignorant think. this top cop should take notice, he is making his successor a republican.

Robert said...

A nice little paragraph from Appendix 8 of Ken Powers' book "The End of the Beginning" applicable to "gun control":

While law enforcement agencies are proliferating like rabbits, there is a popular adage these days: “When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.” That is to say, no matter how many police there are, you can’t count on them to protect you in times of danger. And yet, it is a popular theory among liberal progressives in this country that guns are responsible for violent crimes. Although the private ownership of firearms is a constitutionally guaranteed right in this nation, they say that if we just made guns illegal, violent crime would cease forthwith. Indeed, the United States ranks third in murders among the 196 nations of the world. But here’s the rub: if you didn’t include the statistics from Chicago, Detroit, Washington D.C., and New Orleans, the United States would come in fourth from the bottom of the list. And the epiphany comes when you realize that these four cities have the toughest, most restrictive local gun-control laws in the entire country. [And, I would personally add, if I'm not mistaken, an above-average percentage of black population.] Think about it: criminals—by definition—do not obey the law. I neither own a gun nor want to, but the only logical conclusion I can draw is that statistically, private gun ownership does not cause crime—it tends to discourage it. So called “gun-free” zones are in reality “sitting-duck” zones.

Anonymous said...

The above paragraph makes the perfect point nobody is required to carry, If they want to hide behind something until the cops show up that is fine with me. for myself I do not intend to wait that long or take the chance the criminal might just seriously injure me or kill me minutes before the cops arrive. No body in their right mind would want to take a shot at me. I prefer to carry because I rarely miss when returning fire. I carry weapons that most people could handle well with little effort. I have large powerful guns but I do not choose to carry them for self protection. Not to many wild elephants in my neighborhood. some people prefer large guns and you know what they say about the size of the gun you carry, lol. I do not need a large caliber gun just one that hits what I am shooting at. just about any bullet will kill at close range or severely wound an attacker. with several well placed hits the attacker will be too busy trying to stop the bleeding to continue the attack. .22 caliber hollow point bullets will make a wound that will leak blood very well. certain spots on the body will facilitate massive bleeding. I prefer it be the attacker doing the bleeding and not me. I still need four more 10 round magazine for my PB 74. depending on what I plan to do during the day I have made several different gun belts and shoulder holster rigs that carry what I think I may need. especially if I think there may be an elephant I do not know about, Just incase there may be an elephant or a heard of cotton tails. I cant imagine me ever being a sitting duck. I do not believe in running around naked or unarmed.

Anonymous said...

The laws that have created gun free zones are unconstitutional because the supreme court has ruled that your right to self defense can not be denied. remember words written are the only ones that count. there were no exceptions written in the ruling. we have the right to self defense where ever we are, even crossing state lines. that in its self is national reciprocity. going from one state to another any time, the state can not deny your right to self defense. If you do not have a job and can not afford a required permit, your right of self defense is being denied.

years ago the US supreme court struck down the vagrancy laws about the time they struck down the jay walking laws, You can not be required to have a given amount of money on you. You are not even required to have a job. but you do have the right of self defense that according to the court nobody can deny. No reasons and no exceptions were written. So if you are not required to have money or a job. there is no way to force you to buy a permit to exercise your right to self defense. the court actually wrote that anything you choose to use as a weapon is covered by the second amendment. this mean they can not tell you how long your knife blade must be or how many rounds your magazine can hold. Read the rulings and start thinking about what they actually do.