Author Topic: Montana Carry update, straight from the horse's mouth (Read 23215 times)

PTK · « **Reply #25 on:** April 27, 2011, 02:40:13 PM »

That's more like it. Hopefully some of the people I've spoken to have actually called and voiced opinions. :)

41magsnub · « **Reply #26 on:** April 27, 2011, 06:33:51 PM »

The vote on 174 is this evening, no word yet on 271.

41magsnub · « **Reply #27 on:** April 27, 2011, 08:33:35 PM »

174 passes the Senate 2nd reading with an amendment that has nothing to do with suppressors.

The amendment is innocuous, it just ties the bill in with SB 124 that clarifies but does not seem to substantively change the hunting laws.

I'm not sure if it has to do a 3rd reading in the Senate or if it goes back to the house.

Tallpine · « **Reply #28 on:** April 27, 2011, 10:33:18 PM »

I hope 271 won't be suppressed

41magsnub · « **Reply #29 on:** April 28, 2011, 09:25:59 AM »

Alright! 271 is scheduled for its 2nd reading in the Senate today. 174 is scheduled for its 3rd reading in the Senate today.

41magsnub · « **Reply #30 on:** April 28, 2011, 11:02:29 AM »

271 has passed the second reading in the Senate. I think it needs a 3rd reading, then it is off to the Governor.

174 is still on the schedule for its 3rd reading this morning.

PTK · « **Reply #31 on:** April 28, 2011, 11:04:10 AM »

At least we're making progress. Cutting it a wee bit close though, aren't they.

Tallpine · « **Reply #32 on:** April 28, 2011, 11:05:06 AM »

If passed, when is the effective date ?

PTK · « **Reply #33 on:** April 28, 2011, 11:13:49 AM »

For which bill?

HB271 reads as it would be effective upon the Governor signing it, and upon seeing the revised (revised, revised, revised...) HB174, it too would be effective immediately upon signing.

41magsnub · « **Reply #34 on:** April 28, 2011, 11:16:11 AM »

174 is supposed to be effective as soon as it is signed. There is no verbiage about effective date on 271 but presumably it would be the same way.

41magsnub · « **Reply #35 on:** April 28, 2011, 11:53:02 AM »

On HB 271 the bill text contradicts the info we've gotten from the sponsor and Gary Marbut. The current text online still has the enhanced training requirement under 45-8-321(3) (b) or (c).

(g) a person eligible to apply for OBTAIN or issued a permit under 45-8-321, or a person with a permit recognized under 45-8-329, OR A PERSON ELIGIBLE TO OBTAIN A PERMIT UNDER 45-8-321 WHO HAS COMPLETED A COURSE AS REQUIRED UNDER 45-8-321(3)(B) OR (3)(C) AND HAS IN THE PERSON'S POSSESSION EVIDENCE OF COMPLETION OF THE COURSE;

Hunter's safety is under (a)

B and C:
(b) completion of a firearms safety or training course approved or conducted by the department of fish, wildlife, and parks, a similar agency of another state, a national firearms association, a law enforcement agency, an institution of higher education, or an organization that uses instructors certified by a national firearms association;
(c) completion of a law enforcement firearms safety or training course offered to or required of public or private law enforcement personnel and conducted or approved by a law enforcement agency;

PTK · « **Reply #36 on:** April 28, 2011, 01:29:08 PM »

41magsnub · « **Reply #37 on:** April 28, 2011, 03:30:10 PM »

174 is headed back to the house for their approval on the amendment. No word yet on when that will be scheduled.

271 is still waiting for its 3rd reading, that is not yet on the calendar.

41magsnub · « **Reply #38 on:** April 28, 2011, 06:53:21 PM »

174 is getting its second reading in the house this evening.

No update on 271 yet, but the senate is still in session and have not yet posted the schedule for tomorrow morning.

Matthew Carberry · « **Reply #39 on:** April 28, 2011, 07:04:49 PM »

Sent Gary M. the email in red, got the response in black.

On 04/28/2011 03:05, Matthew Carberry wrote:

Looks like it passed Second Reading today! Congrats!

The text still has the training proof requirement if I’m reading it right per the link at

http://leg2.mt.gov/advagenda/advagenda.asp?Chamber=S&Agenda_DT=4/28/2011&AgendaNo=1&LegID=0&BillDftNo=LC0709&oob=2R

Is that correct?

The conference committee version is not posted online. The sponsor assures me that the only criteria is that the carrier be eligible to possess a handgun under state or federal law.

PTK · « **Reply #40 on:** April 28, 2011, 07:06:09 PM »

Here's hoping. Time will tell...

41magsnub · « **Reply #41 on:** April 29, 2011, 12:36:21 AM »

oookay... HB 271 made it through the 3rd reading and I believe the next steps are the house and senate leaders need to sign it and it goes to the governor. yay.

However...

Can anybody really familiar with the legislative process explain WTF just happened with 174??? http://laws.leg.mt.gov/laws11/LAW0203W$BSRV.ActionQuery?P_BLTP_BILL_TYP_CD=&P_BILL_NO=&P_BILL_DFT_NO=LC0702&Z_ACTION=Find&P_SBJ_DESCR=&P_SBJT_SBJ_CD=&P_LST_NM1=&P_ENTY_ID_SEQ=

The Senate threw an amendment at it, it went back to the house with the amendment. The next step was a motion in the house to suspend the rules to allow late transmittal which failed but with 61 in favor of suspending the rules and 34 against.

Is it dead?

Matthew Carberry · « **Reply #42 on:** April 29, 2011, 12:44:45 AM »

Quote from: 41magsnub on April 29, 2011, 12:36:21 AM

oookay... HB 271 made it through the 3rd reading and I believe the next steps are the house and senate leaders need to sign it and it goes to the governor. yay.

However...

Can anybody really familiar with the legislative process explain WTF just happened with 174??? http://laws.leg.mt.gov/laws11/LAW0203W$BSRV.ActionQuery?P_BLTP_BILL_TYP_CD=&P_BILL_NO=&P_BILL_DFT_NO=LC0702&Z_ACTION=Find&P_SBJ_DESCR=&P_SBJT_SBJ_CD=&P_LST_NM1=&P_ENTY_ID_SEQ=

The Senate threw an amendment at it, it went back to the house with the amendment. The next step was a motion in the house to suspend the rules to allow late transmittal which failed but with 61 in favor of suspending the rules and 34 against.

Is it dead?

I dunno, the amendment looked like boilerplate to make the two bills identical but didn't seem to affect teh suppressor part.

PTK · « **Reply #43 on:** April 29, 2011, 12:48:20 AM »

It seems that the motion to allow a late transmittal of HB174 failed; this means that it may indeed be dead for this session, yes.

Quote from: 41magsnub on April 29, 2011, 12:36:21 AM

oookay... HB 271 made it through the 3rd reading and I believe the next steps are the house and senate leaders need to sign it and it goes to the governor. yay.

However...

Can anybody really familiar with the legislative process explain WTF just happened with 174??? http://laws.leg.mt.gov/laws11/LAW0203W$BSRV.ActionQuery?P_BLTP_BILL_TYP_CD=&P_BILL_NO=&P_BILL_DFT_NO=LC0702&Z_ACTION=Find&P_SBJ_DESCR=&P_SBJT_SBJ_CD=&P_LST_NM1=&P_ENTY_ID_SEQ=

The Senate threw an amendment at it, it went back to the house with the amendment. The next step was a motion in the house to suspend the rules to allow late transmittal which failed but with 61 in favor of suspending the rules and 34 against.

Is it dead?

Basically, from my understanding of the way laws here in MT work, you can request (on a case-by-case basis) an extension of the legislative session to deal with really important matters. From the reading of the MT.gov website, it LOOKS like it should have been allowed - 61 for allowing the extension, 34 against. I'm hoping whomever updated the website simply goofed, but it may have been overruled by the speaker, for all I know. There's no online vote record to elucidate matters.

41magsnub · « **Reply #44 on:** April 29, 2011, 01:18:35 AM »

I just emailed Krayton Kerns asking what the deal is. He is the bill sponsor and is in the house...

41magsnub · « **Reply #45 on:** April 29, 2011, 01:29:15 AM »

Gah.. trying to get into the bill audio and all the links point to private IP addresses on the state network. If I thought it was ethical I would jump into the LAN of one of my state clients inside the State's NAT and try to download it from there. Instead I sent an email to the webmaster asking them to fix it.

41magsnub · « **Reply #46 on:** April 29, 2011, 09:46:55 AM »

Quote

Bill,

HB 174 died when it failed to get the supermajority necessary in the House for the House to accept a late bill from the Senate to concur with Senate amendments to HB 174. However, we did get half a loaf in SB 124 which clarifies that the prohibition of possession of suppressors in the "field or forest" only applies "while hunting."

Gary

Matthew Carberry · « **Reply #47 on:** April 29, 2011, 07:08:04 PM »

Still a win for incrementalism and lawful, casual outdoor recreational shooting at least.

Now's the time to figure out the key figures in the stockman's groups and what not and invite them to try shooting suppressed rifles themselves.

Bring up how nice it would be if when they were out and about and saw a coyote or some other legal varmint they could pop it without needing make their ears ring. Turn them from "non-opponent" to hard ally.

Does shooting varmints and such even count legally as "hunting" in Montana?

Tallpine · « **Reply #48 on:** April 29, 2011, 07:30:01 PM »

Quote

Does shooting varmints and such even count legally as "hunting" in Montana?

Coyotes and a bunch of other critters are non-game and you can shoot them without a license any time of the year.

Hawkmoon · « **Reply #49 on:** May 02, 2011, 12:42:31 AM »

Did I miss something here?

Is it correct that Montana is in the process of enacting a law that allows Montana residents to carry concealed without a permit, but does NOT allow turistas to do so?

That's gotta be unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution. (Doesn't it?)

News:

Author Topic: Montana Carry update, straight from the horse's mouth (Read 23215 times)