Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Matthew Carberry on April 20, 2011, 06:58:13 PM
-
I sent mssa an email and heard back from Gary Marbut himself. My text is in red.
Been following this with a great deal of interest and got excited on Monday with Gary Marbut’s post on a hunting website Monday that the bill had passed the Second Reading of the Senate. I looked at the Legislature’s site and found nothing and it doesn’t show as even having been on the agenda Monday through today.
Did Gary jump the gun a little? What’s the status?
Matthew,
The conference committee report on HB 271 passed the House on Second and Third Reading, but is still awaiting action by the Senate. We were told that the Senate would bring HB 271 up on Monday, but that didn't happen and it keeps getting put off by Senate leadership, for reasons unknown to us. We are very near the end of our 90-day session so we sure hope the Senate acts on HB 271 soon. Stay tuned.
BTW, a permit has not been required for two decades to carry concealed in 99.4% of Montana (outside of city limits) or to carry openly anywhere in Montana. Our HB 271 would make the remaining 6/10ths of 1% like the rest has been since 1991. Under HB 271, the only qualification for carrying concealed inside city limits would be that the person is eligible to legally possess a handgun under state or federal law.
A couple questions I’ve been getting conflicting word on, does the bill your Senate will be looking at still have the “carry of training card” requirement? Does it still allow muni’s to “opt-out”? Obviously neither are preferable but if it gets it passed, as I’m fond of pointing out to all-or-nothing-ists on “our side”, it can be cleaned up later when it isn’t so high profile.
The conference committee stripped the training and training credential feature out of HB 271. The only criteria now is eligibility to possess a handgun. There never was and is not now any provision in HB 271 allowing local communities to opt out.
BTW, we don't call this "constitutional carry" in Montana, but "permitless carry" because the RKBA provision in the Montana Constitution specifically excludes concealed carry from the constitutional RKBA protection. It's a cultural thing from 1884 when the current RKBA language was formulated for the territorial constitution. Back then they felt that if you were a manly man you wore your gun outside your clothes where everyone could see it. Otherwise you were a wimp, sneak and neer-do-well.
-
So the good news is that the training reqt has been removed. =)
The bad news is that the Senate has not yet approved the conference committee version =(
-
From the subject, I thought you meant Janet Reno and I was like "WTF?"
>:D
-
Legislature is in adjournment til the 26th.
The bill does not appear to be on the agenda for the first half of the session that day.
-
http://www.kraytonkerns.org/postings/stbaca_power_of_acronym.html (http://www.kraytonkerns.org/postings/stbaca_power_of_acronym.html)
The above is from the blog of the bill's sponsor and is worth a read.
I just sent an email and left a voicemail for the Senate president who is the hold up in this process.
-
That makes sense.
Thanks for the update.
-
I will be in a CCW class with Mr Marbut tomorrow and will ask if he has any inside info.
-
I will be in a CCW class with Mr Marbut tomorrow and will ask if he has any inside info.
Tell him hi from Alaska. =)
-
Response to an email I sent to the sponsor:
Bill,
Senate Majority Leader Esseman has assured me HB271 will be passed by the Senate next week. They will schedule and pass it at the most opportune PR moment.
Krayton
-
Well, I hope so ... I'm going to be royally pissed if they fail to pass it this time =(
-
If it passes, though.... we'll have permitless carry on par with AK and VT, no? If you're eligible to own a pistol, you're able to conceal it.
Man, if that goes through and then Schweitzer vetos it, I'll cry.
-
If it passes, though.... we'll have permitless carry on par with AK and VT, no? If you're eligible to own a pistol, you're able to conceal it.
Man, if that goes through and then Schweitzer vetos it, I'll cry.
You've always been able to conceal it, whether you are eligible or not.
Now, they would just make it legal for decent folks as well as criminals.
-
Able to legally conceal without a permit, then. ;)
Phrasing really is part of the battle. Being that I grew up when I did and where I did, the idea that we can legally own guns is already alien. :)
-
That was a really good class I was just in with Gary. I just got back from the post class burger and a beer. Gary confirmed the above on where 271 is at. HB 174 (the suppressor one) he thinks can be salvaged.
The FWP really pulled some bullcrap with 174. They went around to the farmers and ranchers in the districts of the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary committee and told them that this is the "enable poaching bill" and they needed to put pressure on the lawmakers to oppose it. The new head of the stockgrowers association knows better and is trying to get the word to the land owners. However, you know how things go with people. The lawmakers now know the opposition is total BS but are afraid to vote in favor of it because of what was told to their constituents and what going against their will will do to their reelection chances. The FWP got the first round in on the information battle and it is going to be difficult to overcome that.
-
Lame. At least the head of the stockgrowers association has his head on straight about silencers.
-
a-hem...
Until Montana allows all non-prohibited persons, resident or non-, to carry without a permit in Montana it won't be "as good as" AK/AZ/VT.
You'll be stuck in the second-rate "haters" tier requiring permits for non-residents like Wyoming.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Commies ;/
=D
-
I should learn to read ALL of the bill. I thought this was for all, not just residents. We're going the way WY went, it seems. :(
I WISH we had AK/VT carry.
-
I should learn to read ALL of the bill. I thought this was for all, not just residents. We're going the way WY went, it seems. :(
I WISH we had AK/VT carry.
Dude, that's why the good Lord made next year's session. You already have top shelf reciprocity, improvements (described as simplifying the law) can be made a lot more easily after the anti's panties unbunch from the main bill's passage.
The important thing is when this passes we can use it to beat the Brady's about the head and sunken chest.
-
HB 271 is not on the agenda for today. It must not be the best day for PR yet...
-
HB 271 is not on the agenda for today. It must not be the best day for PR yet...
They were too busy cracking down on the pot heads who were causing so much "trouble" ;/
-
They were too busy cracking down on the pot heads who were causing so much "trouble" ;/
Legislative security can now carry in the capital on their CCW, if the Governor signs.
-
FINALLY. That's one thing that was insanely dumb - not allowing security to have guns in the Capital building.... I can't imagine that Schweitzer will veto it.=|
They were too busy cracking down on the pot heads who were causing so much "trouble" ;/
This "pot head" is still hoping for the revised CCW legislation. I hate how much media coverage went into all the failed repeals, and yet there's very little about real issues, such as silencers while hunting, permitless carry, etc. Frustrating. :(
-
271 is not on the schedule for tomorrow morning.
-
Not on the schedule for this afternoon.
-
Woo hoo.. HB 174 (suppressors) has some movement! It is out of committee and is going to the floor for the second reading.
-
That's more like it. Hopefully some of the people I've spoken to have actually called and voiced opinions. :)
-
The vote on 174 is this evening, no word yet on 271.
-
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.
-
I hope 271 won't be suppressed =|
-
Alright! 271 is scheduled for its 2nd reading in the Senate today. 174 is scheduled for its 3rd reading in the Senate today.
-
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.
-
At least we're making progress. Cutting it a wee bit close though, aren't they.
-
If passed, when is the effective date ?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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;
-
=|
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Here's hoping. Time will tell...
-
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$BSRV.ActionQuery?P_BLTP_BILL_TYP_CD=&P_BILL_NO=&P_BILL_DFT_NO=LC0702&Z_ACTION=Find&P_SBJ_DESCR=&P_SBJT_SBJ_CD=&P_LST_NM1=&P_ENTY_ID_SEQ= (http://laws.leg.mt.gov/laws11/LAW0203W$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?
-
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$BSRV.ActionQuery?P_BLTP_BILL_TYP_CD=&P_BILL_NO=&P_BILL_DFT_NO=LC0702&Z_ACTION=Find&P_SBJ_DESCR=&P_SBJT_SBJ_CD=&P_LST_NM1=&P_ENTY_ID_SEQ= (http://laws.leg.mt.gov/laws11/LAW0203W$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.
-
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.
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$BSRV.ActionQuery?P_BLTP_BILL_TYP_CD=&P_BILL_NO=&P_BILL_DFT_NO=LC0702&Z_ACTION=Find&P_SBJ_DESCR=&P_SBJT_SBJ_CD=&P_LST_NM1=&P_ENTY_ID_SEQ= (http://laws.leg.mt.gov/laws11/LAW0203W$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. =|
-
I just emailed Krayton Kerns asking what the deal is. He is the bill sponsor and is in the house...
-
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.
-
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
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?)
-
No, that's the old law text, now it's like AK, VT, AZ. :)
Here:
http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2011/billhtml/HB0271.htm
Also, no, it's perfectly legal to grant rights to state residents while not granting the same rights to visitors. ;)
-
What's the news on the Governor?
Looking good for a signature?
-
As far as any of us knows it will be signed.
-
As far as any of us knows it will be signed.
The sooner, the better, though ;)
-
Come on Schweitzer....
-
I sent him a short sweet email urging him to sign HB 271.
I was hoping before the next time I go to town...
-
I sent him a short sweet email urging him to sign HB 271.
I was hoping before the next time I go to town...
Don't bring your guns to town son.
-
Don't bring your guns to town son.
Actually, I will anyway. :P
It's just a matter of whether I can let the hem of my vest flop over the grip of my sidearm, in order not to alarm some of the townies and discourage the wrong hands in a crowd.
Amazing that so much fuss would have to be made over three inches of fabric =(
-
No kidding. :(
-
The only reason 3 inches of fabric should matter is if mini-skirts or tank tops are involved.
-
He has until the 12th to sign or veto the bill before it goes into law without his action.
-
What's the date of enactment or whatever? When does it go into effect?
-
I think upon signature but I'm not 100% sure. The bill does not specify so I believe in those circumstances it is immediate.
-
The only reason 3 inches of fabric should matter is if mini-skirts or tank tops are involved.
In that case, "partially concealed" takes on a whole new meaning :lol:
-
What's the date of enactment or whatever? When does it go into effect?
Because there is no enactment date on the bill, it will simply go into effect the moment it's signed, or if our governor ignores it, on the morning of the 13th it goes into effect. I sincerely doubt it'll get vetoed, as Schweitzer is quite gun friendly. :)
-
He's seems to be too busy mucking around with the budget right now to sign anything else ;/
-
Fine by me. 5/12, and it's ours. I can wait until Thursday.
-
Two con carry this year, maybe Wisconsin but at least they go shall and Texas might get campus carry?
Looking like a good summer so far.
-
...the SOB vetoed it. :mad:
http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2011/AmdHtmH/HB0271GovVeto.pdf
-
I think some of my brain cells committed suicide reading that.
-
Son of a....
I honestly did not expect this based on his earlier general statements. [barf]
-
Nor me. His worry about reciprocity and NICS are incorrect, as well.
-
Nor me. His worry about reciprocity and NICS are incorrect, as well.
This.. 271 would not have affected either of those in the slightest.
-
...which leads me to believe he didn't read it after the revisions, before vetoing it.
-
GOD DAMN SON OF A BITCH ! :mad:
-
I just sent him an email asking him to reconsider and countered all of the points given in the veto.
-
...the SOB vetoed it. :mad:
http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2011/AmdHtmH/HB0271GovVeto.pdf
Is he planning a presidential run?
-
Is he planning a presidential run?
Or something...?
IIRC he is term limited out as governor.
@#$%^&*! "Blue Dog" Democrats :mad:
Liars and Hypocrites all!
-
Can the legislature come back and override?
If your papers do "comments from the community" and such write a detailed, polite point by point refutation of his veto. Also write a letter to the editor.
Get all involved to do so, again, polite; address him, subtly, like he's an addled elder or slow child.
Make it clear that he is not only wrong but that he didn't read the bill. Public humiliation is a just dessert.
-
I also just emailed the NRA ILA asking them to quickly and publicly revoke their endorsement of Gov. Schweitzer.
-
lol.. got an email back from the NRA that they would review his endorsement when he is up for reelection. I responded that he is term limiting out and if they were on the ball they would revoke the endorsement right now to show they are watching events and care about Montana.
-
I'm so upset right now that I couldn't write even a marginally polite letter.
Besides, I don't think he's open to changing his mind. He either did this because:
a) to spite the Republican legislature that he's been scrapping with the last four months,
b) the cops got to him with an "oh my gosh we won't be safe" campaign
=(
Considering my options:
1) move to Wyoming :P
2) open carry everywhere (pretty much what I've been doing anyway, except sometimes in Billings when I don't have time to deal with any possible hassle)
3) get a snubbie and fanny pack carry (legal - not "clothing")
-
Did you have the votes for an override?
Can the Legislature call themselves back?
-
Did you have the votes for an override?
Can the Legislature call themselves back?
I don't think we do, this thing barely squeaked by the Senate. We do not have a super majority on this.. 29/21 in the Senate and 69/29 in the House.
-
Better make it an election criteria for the new Governor if you can then. Clear "Will of the People" and all that.
-
I and four other local folks have sent polite e-mails and made polite phone calls. I've also been composing a letter to the Belgrade newspaper and the Bozeman Daily. Since I've had other letters published, it shouldn't be hard, especially on such a hot button issue.
Makes me sort of glad I went and picked up my permit the other day. I hate that they're needed, though. =|
-
By the way, please don't take my "you should" posts like I'm telling you something you don't know or anything.
I was all excited about this bill and am projecting my anger at your gov.
-
Oh, of course. Trust me, there are now a LOT of pissed off people, and some in the most shocking places. Today, I bumped into people talking about HB 271 at Macy's (cash register ladies), at the hospital (staff and patients), at the grocery store (manager talking to a few employees), and at the gas station (other gent pumping gas mentioned it to me and how mad he was).
We're PO'd, we're mobile, and we're motivated to get this governor looking like the backstabbing fool he is. He is not be a very popular person between this and the medical marijuana "renovation" bill (SB423 (http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2011/billhtml/SB0423.htm), a repeal wearing a dress, makes 5ng/mL THC in blood a DUI offense - that amount is akin to having a smoke six to eight weeks previously and having none after that), and the media has already been getting plenty of articles and TV spots out there about him.
Schweitzer went from a solid B+ in my book to an F with those two actions. :mad:
-
By the way, please don't take my "you should" posts like I'm telling you something you don't know or anything.
I was all excited about this bill and am projecting my anger at your gov.
You can project all the anger at him that you want, as far as I'm concerned >:D
-
PTK.. was this you? http://www.congress.org/congressorg/bio/userletter/?letter_id=6879091601&content_dir=politicsol (http://www.congress.org/congressorg/bio/userletter/?letter_id=6879091601&content_dir=politicsol)
-
I just edited the Governor's wikipedia page.. wonder how long it will last?
-
As I think about this more and re-read the veto document I am working myself into an unneeded low level rage.
-
I just edited the Governor's wikipedia page.. wonder how long it will last?
Very well put.
Schweitzer claims to be opposed to gun control[13] and is a vehement critic of the REAL ID legislation.[23] However, his veto of Montana House Bill 271 brings his gun rights credentials into serious question.http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2011/AmdHtmH/HB0271GovVeto.pdf
-
PTK.. was this you? http://www.congress.org/congressorg/bio/userletter/?letter_id=6879091601&content_dir=politicsol (http://www.congress.org/congressorg/bio/userletter/?letter_id=6879091601&content_dir=politicsol)
No. Now my letter seems like crap. :lol:
Seriously though, mine reads a heck of a lot like that, but no, that's not me. :)
Also, seriously, go do something else and relax. You DO NOT need the stress, my friend. =|
I just edited the Governor's wikipedia page.. wonder how long it will last?
It will last, because it is factually correct and with a reference attached. ;)
-
actually.. it is gone already
-
EDIT: Dang, the wiki page is gone, I thought you meant your low-level rage. =|
-
I just edited the Governor's wikipedia page.. wonder how long it will last?
Approximately thirteen and eleven minutes, respectively, to the two edits. The cited reason for removing the statement was "original research." ;/ I'm not really sure how listing someone's on-public-record veto as governor counts as original research. In that case we better delete everything on wiki that is included from public record.
Here's where they removed the note about his recent veto, twice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brian_Schweitzer&diff=428702714&oldid=428701789
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brian_Schweitzer&diff=428701448&oldid=428700341
-
Does he still have that old gun on the wall in his state office?
Can we get him arrested for that ???
-
Also, what would it take to organize an open carry march in Helena? =|
-
http://helenair.com/news/article_84e6ab88-7b94-11e0-b3c1-001cc4c002e0.html?mode=comments (http://helenair.com/news/article_84e6ab88-7b94-11e0-b3c1-001cc4c002e0.html?mode=comments)
These comments in the Helena paper are just disappointing as hell.
-
I shouldn't have tried to read any of those. If you're already PO'd about this, DON'T read those comments.
-
Well, I hope Gov Shyster and all those people enjoy seeing me open carry :P
-
Pretty much what I've been seeing today so far, yesterday was a bit more than usual but not by much.
-
On top of everything else, Gov Shyster could have vetoed the medical marijuana crackdown, but instead chose to let it become law without signing it. That would have at least been a sorta Democratic type issue.
So apparently he is a tyrant who has no regard for any type of civil liberties :mad:
-
Pretty much. Again, as a friend said to me "I hope Schweitzer doesn't plan to live in Montana after his term is up. In both meanings of "live... in MT.""
-
Pretty much. Again, as a friend said to me "I hope Schweitzer doesn't plan to live in Montana after his term is up. In both meanings of "live... in MT.""
Unfortunately, I bet he's planning on living in DC =(
-
http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/article_059dc39a-7f07-11e0-9c53-001cc4c002e0.html
-
Unfortunately, I bet he's planning on living in DC =(
Same. He's planning on a Federal job, methinks.:(
-
http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/article_059dc39a-7f07-11e0-9c53-001cc4c002e0.html
In that picture he looks like a Joss Whedon impersonator.
-
No, Schweitzer is much more of a self-serving d*ck.... =|
-
I just realized something... this vote is the only thing keeping MT from having a perfect 0 on our Brady score!
http://www.bradycampaign.org/stategunlaws/scorecard/MT/ (http://www.bradycampaign.org/stategunlaws/scorecard/MT/)
-
I just realized something... this vote is the only thing keeping MT from having a perfect 0 on our Brady score!
http://www.bradycampaign.org/stategunlaws/scorecard/MT/ (http://www.bradycampaign.org/stategunlaws/scorecard/MT/)
Perfect is 2 under par.
Although campus carry is what will keep a lot of states at zero IMO.
"But, but the children" has more legs, no matter how dumb, as an emotional argument in the eyes of the moms of America right now then the anti-Con carry argument which runs into the easily digested counter concept that "if you aren't legal you're carrying anyway, so if you're legal why require a permit?".