What the heck is going on out in Montana

[TechMan]

http://www.nbcmontana.com/news/Background-check-ordinance-takes-fire-from-lawyers-gun-rights-advocates/35473342

An ordinance under consideration by the Missoula City Council is taking heavy fire from gun rights advocates. Sponsored by Council Members Bryan von Lossberg, Marilyn Marler and Emily Bently, the draft ordinance aims to close a loophole that allows private transactions and gun transfers to happen without a background check. Licensed firearms dealers are required to run a check on gun buyers, but there is no federal or state law that requires the same check for private parties.

Have you been infiltrated by liberals like Colorado?

[230RN]

Have you been infiltrated by liberals like Colorado?

No, I suspect they've been "infiltrated" by huge Foundation money feeding local campaign funds and anti-gun organizations.  I further suspect this flow of dollars is being "laundered" <ahem> through a succession of front organizations or by means of preferential advertising dollars being subtly funneled to the local media.  That's what I suspect.

I suspect, moreover, that it isn't hard to get a juicy grant from one of those Foundations if your group parrots all the social justice blather in your grant application.  Then all you have to do is have a bunch of shills write letters to legislators (and in this case, city council members) to push for this kind of drivel.  (As well as in social media.)

"They" (you know who I mean) have basically decided that anti-gun stuff isn't working too well nationally, so they decided to go after the states individually.  I suspect also that "they" have decided that since this seems to be a working strategy (e.g. Washington State and Colorado), why not apply it as well to smaller political subdivisions?

After all, if you can get that kind of crap through a municipality in Montana as an experimental test, you can expand that strategy to other municipalites.  And since cities (and States) tend to copycat each others' legislation, and since legislators (and council members) have a crying need to generate legislation in order to be re-elected, the concept of "they did it in Such-and-such city, why shouldn't we do it here?" takes over and you have an oncological spread of this kind of nonsense from city to city... and then the whole state.

Those are my paranoidal high suspicions.

Terry,  

[Doggy Daddy]

Have you been infiltrated infected by liberals like Colorado?

Correction inspired by Terry's description, above.

After all, if you can get that kind of crap through a municipality in Montana as an experimental test, you can expand that strategy to other municipalites.  And since cities (and States) tend to copycat each others' legislation, and since legislators (and council members) have a crying need to generate legislation in order to be re-elected, the concept of "they did it in Such-and-such city, why shouldn't we do it here?" takes over and you have an oncological spread of this kind of nonsense from city to city... and then the whole state.

[Scout26]

Does Montana have pre-emption?

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Does Montana have pre-emption?

It seems too which makes this law puzzling



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[230RN]

^ ^ Didn't matter with respect to Denver versus Colorado, which has pre-emption. But Denver is "home rule," and legally founded before Colorado was a State, so pre-emption with respect to firearms law is moot.  Open carry is legal under the State Constitution, but Denver can and does prohibit it.

Besides of which, see my current signature line:

Trouble is, these jerkwads can pass dumb, self-serving, agenda-driven stupid laws much faster than we can beat them down in the courts.  And they're well aware of that.

The beating them down in the courts is the thing.  I reckon if the OP's observation is carried through one city at a time, it will have to go through several iterations of court cases involving individual cities, one at a time.

The main thing about this is the jerkwads can just go ahead and do it and then let the courts settle it after taking years and years and years and taking dollars from us and dollars from us and dollars from us.

And, as I said, ...they're well aware of that.

The major courts are more or less on our side, following at least part of the Second Amendment as written and not re-interpreted... but the Court system is against us in terms of dollars and time.

And they're well aware of that, too.

Terry

[Perd Hapley]

An ordinance under consideration by the Missoula City Council is taking heavy fire from gun rights advocates. Sponsored by Council Members Bryan von Lossberg, Marilyn Marler and Emily Bently, the draft ordinance aims to close a loophole that allows private transactions and gun transfers to happen without a background check. Licensed firearms dealers are required to run a check on gun buyers, but there is no federal or state law that requires the same check for private parties.

Ah, yes. Liberty as loophole. The theory by which anything not specifically prohibited is a dangerous omission in our laws. Unless it is the fashionable perversion of the week.

[tokugawa]

This is the new strategy for registration. They can't get a "registration" bill passed, but the "common sense" background check slips by the people who don't realize it is  registration in disguise.

[41magsnub]

It's the Missoula city council.  We have an uber liberal mayor and a stacked city council.  Normally I'd think even they could not be this stupid, but recent history says they actually can be.  Hopefully the city attorney shuts this down as it will get overturned in a lawsuit if they pass the ordinance.

They need to read MCA 45-8-351 (2):

1) Except as provided in subsection (2), a county, city, town, consolidated local government, or other local government unit may not prohibit, register, tax, license, or regulate the purchase, sale or other transfer (including delay in purchase, sale, or other transfer), ownership, possession, transportation, use, or unconcealed carrying of any weapon, including a rifle, shotgun, handgun, or concealed handgun.

It's not the first time something like this has happened.  A number of years ago (before I moved here) the city tried to sue the county into banning gunfire.  Their reasoning was the health and safety risk to the city of errant bullets and the lead.  It didn't work as planned.

People are getting super pissed at our current council and mayor.  The biggest recent deal is they have spent a buttload of money we don't have in legal fees to condemn the water company so they can eminent domain it and take it over as a city department.  Money for legal fees we don't have, then we will have to do a bond issue to cover the costs of the water system.  More money out the door.  The local city employee judge found for the city.  I don't think we have seen anything yet for legal costs because the company is still fighting it and it will move up in the court system.  

Another gem is the local minor league ball field, a few years ago it was not bringing in the revenue to cover the loans they took out to build it.  So, the city took it over and guaranteed those loans.

We might actually get a single conservative city council member in the current election (in my ward even).  Baby steps...

[230RN]

.... The theory by which anything not specifically prohibited is a dangerous omission in our laws. ...

I may steal that line.  Thanks in advance.

41magsnub pointed out:

The local city employee judge found for the city.

Probably operating under the Kelo decision from SCOTUS?

"The greater good for the greater number and screw the individual."

Terry
REF (Possibly appropriate?)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

...involving the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development. In a 5–4 decision, the Court held that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified private redevelopment plans as a permissible "public use" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

MORE (Ancillary and local to Colorado, but illustrates the cancerous spread of stuff like the Kelo decision):
http://www.clearthebenchcolorado.org/2009/05/15/colorado-supreme-court-clears-the-way-for-future-abuses-of-eminent-domain-for-property-seizures-in-colorado/

I don't think your left pinky fingernail is safe from being grabbed by da gooberment any more.

[T.O.M.]

It's the Missoula city council.  We have an uber liberal mayor and a stacked city council.  Normally I'd think even they could not be this stupid, but recent history says they actually can be.  Hopefully the city attorney shuts this down as it will get overturned in a lawsuit if they pass the ordinance.

It's not the first time something like this has happened.  A number of years ago (before I moved here) the city tried to sue the county into banning gunfire.  Their reasoning was the health and safety risk to the city of errant bullets and the lead.  It didn't work as planned.

I wondered about that.  I know a lot of states have passed supremacy laws which prohibit cities from instituting laws on firearms that are inconsistent with the state laws. I also chuckled thinking about the real impact of the law.  Wanna make a deal for my pistol?  Sure, I'll sell it to you.  But we need to cross the street so we're outside of city limits.  Then they have no jurisdiction to prosecute under the stupid law they passed.

[Hawkmoon]

It seems too which makes this law puzzling

There was a video making the rounds awhile ago of a municipal board of governors (whatever their correct name was) when they were discussing an anti-gun ordinance. The star of the video was one councilman who plainly acknowledged that he knew the proposed ordinance could not be enforced because it was preempted by state law, but he was going to vote for it anyway because, "We have to do something."

Worse ... they breed.

p.s. Looked for the video but couldn't find it.

[41magsnub]

From the linked article, a comment from my state senator:

Sue Malek · Works at Senator, Montana State Senate
Montana guns are sold and used in out of state crimes more often than guns from any other state. Background checks are absolutely reasonable.

I've had it out with her before over 2A stuff.  She played the "my family are all hunters and I support the 2A, but..." card.

It's not worth signing up for facebook over it since their comments require it, but I'd love to get in a "citation needed" reply.

[230RN]

Well, see that'a another case where her "reasonable" differs from your "reasonable."

Your reasonable, as a citizen fully apprised of the true facts, is that among firearms' legitimate usages are self defense, sport, competition, and defense against tyranny.

Her "reasonable" is "Ewww, I don't like guns 'cause they're heavy and noisy and go bang and are only used to kill people.  So let's make a law to use as another choke point against gun ownership. Besides, I might not get Party funding for my next re-election campaign if I don't toe the Party line."

See?

I like the [citation needed] remark.

Terry, 230RN

[vaskidmark]

[quote}Sue Malek · Works at Senator, Montana State Senate
Montana guns are sold and used in out of state crimes more often than guns from any other state. Background checks are absolutely reasonable.[/quote]

Now just a minute there!

I was told that guns from Virginia were sold and used in out of state crimes more than guns from any other state.  And guns from Georgia.  And guns from North Carolina since they did away with the purchase permit.  And guns from Idaho and from Missouri and ....

If there's going to be an arms race we need to get some rules agreed to and some sort of independent judging organization.  Do you think the ATF would take the job?

stay safe.

[Jamisjockey]

http://www.nbcmontana.com/news/Background-check-ordinance-takes-fire-from-lawyers-gun-rights-advocates/35473342

Have you been infiltrated by liberals like Colorado?

Yes.  It's where Californians go to escape California, and then immediately start making the place just like California.