Friday, February 24, 2017

MT: Governor Bullock Vetoes Constitutional Carry, again

Governor Bullock (D) of Montana vetoed constitutional carry again. This year,2017, it was HB 262. Bullock vetoed the bill on Thursday afternoon, the 22nd of February. In an article, Governor Bullock stated that allowing individuals to decide whether they are eligible to carry concealed weapons is absurd:
Bullock noted in his veto letter that he had rejected two bills identical to Harris' measure in past sessions. The governor says the idea of allowing individuals to decide for themselves whether they are eligible to carry concealed weapons is absurd.
Governor Bullock did not mention that in Montana, individuals can already do so in 99% of the state.

It is unlikely that there will be a veto override attempt.  The bill passed with strong margins, about 60% of the votes, but it did not collect the two thirds necessary for an override.

 ©2017 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch


ScienceABC123 said...

Governor Bullock 'absurdly' believes it's the government's to decide what rights the people can exercise.

Anonymous said...

Wtf is wrong in Montana. Elect a gov who has an IQ higher than a Lemur.

Anonymous said...

Let us take a look as this case carefully. The united States supreme Court has ruled it is an individual right guaranteed by the second amendment in the bill of rights In our federal constitution. Where does this governor find the authority that gives him the right to deny any of our guaranteed rights to any one? Personally I want to see that authority in writing. the United states supreme court has ruled even weapons created after the second amendment was ratified are covered under the second amendment. Now try to show me where any state has the authority to define what a weapon is. Now for the big one show me in writing where any state or for that matter the federal government has the authority to requires a license or a permit to exercise any one or more of our guaranteed and protected rights. Remembering the United States Supreme court has ruled that if the authority is not written in the constitution it does not exist. You can not add or change words to construe that the words do exist only the words actually written have any value.

Anti discrimination laws state no one can be denied their federally guaranteed rights on the basis of age, sex, national origin or political beliefs/ creed. No one is all legal American citizens that our constitution belongs to and protects. the people being the legal citizens of this nation are the ones these laws and constitutional guarantees are designed to protect. we the people do ordain and establish this constitution for our posterity meaning the descendants of those original citizens. foreigners did not ratify the constitution the American citizens did. The legal American citizens are the people it protects. American citizen's blood was spilled to secure that constitution and our guaranteed rights under that constitution. the wording is there, You must be an American citizen to enjoy the rights and protections of OUR constitution. become a legal American citizen or stay the hell out. this governor is violating his oath of office by not upholding and enforcing the constitution and the laws of this nation he should be impeached and removed from office. all of these weapons laws are unconstitutional infringements and have no constitutional authority to exist in the first place.

Anonymous said...

Doesn't matter what weapons are defined as what anyway, ALL of them are protected anyway. All bearable arms, period. The right to keep and bear arms is left to the people, which is different than leaving it to the states. This is plain construction self evident truth. Now, seeing as how the SCOTUS told us that the second amendment is no different from the first amendment, the SOURCE of the firearm you possess is something we can keep SECRET, just like a reporter, right? We can put guns in our pockets, just like we can books, even Torahs, right? How could it be any different when SCOTUS said it is no different?

Face it yall, modern day gun control is dead - all of it. Gee man, it looks lime we have to go back to actual crimes again instead of gun grabbing.

Anonymous said...

The Bill of Rights was specifically passed to tell the government we created what it could not touch and the reason the tenth amendment in the Bill of Rights must be enforced by the states. the separation of powers is very clear if it is an issue covered in the federal constitution the states must enforce it and have no authority to change it. If it is not in the federal constitution then the states can address it if it is addressed in their constitution. If it is not addressed in the federal or the state constitution then it is an issue left to the individual person of we the people. The federal government can not pass laws or acts for an issue that is not specifically addressed in the constitution unless the constitution is legally amended to include that issue and it has to be specific. any thing not addressed in the constitution and the government creates or passes laws and acts to address the issue then those laws and acts are repugnant to the constitution and therefore are void and unenforceable. the same goes for the state constitutions. Our governments federal or state are not permitted to increase their own power. How do they get away with what they do ? they create unconstitutional departments and agencies and then start writing regulations. Regulations is another word for unconstitutional laws and acts. because of the 1964 civil rights laws, any law that places an age on the right is unconstitutional. You really have to pay close attention to the words in laws. any open ended statement is unconstitutional because it leave the issue open to interpretation. this is the very reason that interpretation is forbidden and only the actual words written can be enforced. Judges are required by their oath to enforce the law there is no authority to interpret. Interpretation drags in opinion and bias. American jurisprudence clearly states judges can not issue an opinion or declare any bias or they are disqualified from issuing a ruling. Presidents can not create unconstitutional agencies or departments that we have to pay for. Congress and legislatures can not create laws that they were not delegated the authority in the constitution to do. wake up people we have millions of laws, acts and regulations on the books that are purely unconstitutional and have no legal authority to be enforced and are repugnant to our constitution because they violate the delegated authority that we the people allow.

Anonymous said...

I write a lot of post hoping that reasonable common sense will be recognized by at least a few. Maybe some great attorney will be inspired to use some of my arguments. The real problem is finding a great attorney that is not a simple, closed minded half wit, pompous ass hole that is capable of applying the laws to the gun rights argument. why is it that I can find these laws and bar certified attorneys cant? the only answer can be just like in medicine. there is no profit in a cure or a permanent solution. there are only 26 words in the second amendment to argue about, they either exist or they do not. the tenth amendment enforces the second. States have no authority to add words to the second amendment. we keep electing legal professionals that refuse to enforce the legal authority and the legal limits placed on our elected officials. Congress refused to impeach Obama when they had over 100 valid issues that the constitution requires them to take action on. Clinton was impeached and the congress too a plea bargain. show me the written authority to accept a plea bargain when the constitution requires impeachment and removal? the squeakiest wheel gets the grease we had better start making some noise.

Anonymous said...

I spent 20 years watching the horrors of what we call health care in this country. Many of the doctors I worked with were like the person in the basement that missed the intruder they had the gun had the ammo and could not hit the target right in front of them. some of those doctors would not be good doctors if they lived on the target range. they will happily treat you your entire life for something that could be cured. this is what we are getting from attorneys representing the gun rights people. cure the condition before the patient dies. the revenue for office visits and useless tests may go down but you never run out of patients. too bad we have to pay for practice rather than results. To practice is in hopes of eventually getting it right. and we have to pay for every minute of practice even if they never get it right. I pay very close attention to my health. I really fear having to get medical care. I study law for my own benefit.

Anonymous said...

In my life time I have personally met millions of people and I read faces. the guy in this picture has a smile that should belong to a shady used care dealer. If I met him face to face I would keep my hand on my wallet.