Gallstones wrote:http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2011/billhtml/HB0271.htm
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2712220/posts
House Bill 271 allows for any person eligible to carry a concealed weapon to do so without applying for a license. This would extend concealed carry rights to cities. Rural areas already allow concealed carry without a permit.
Supporters of the bill said the legislation stops discrimination against the urban population and increases public safety.
Law enforcement associations spoke out against the bill saying it would endanger officers and would effectively do away with the licensing process.
I suppose the fear level and the outrage of some will go up now. The Governor still has to sign it, and since he's out as a gun rights advocate and lobbied in Wash DC, I expect he will sign it.
Silly LE administrators... Every cop knows that you treat EVERY person as if he or she is armed until you know otherwise. And if you have probable cause or reasonable suspicion to stop someone, you already have the legal right to disarm them for your safety, that's even true in most shall-issue states.
And if you don't have RS or PC to believe the person is involved in a crime, its none of your fucking business as a cop if they are legally carrying a gun. The rights of citizens to exercise their fundamental rights are not subject to being vetoed by 'frady-cat police officers. If a cop can't do his job properly because he's afraid of law-abiding citizens carrying guns, then he needs to be a not-police officer.
This one went down. I think it should have. Silencers for hunters--WTF!?
House Bill 174 would allow silencers to be used in the field for hunting. Big game would not be allowed to be hunted with a silencer.
Gun advocacy groups say the bill is a health and safety issue and the use of silencers would protect hunters' hearing. Opposition groups voiced concern about landowner rights and being able to hear someone hunting on their land.
Silencers are a great idea for small-game and varmint hunting, and I see no reason why big game should be exempt. What legitimate purpose is served by the government mandating that hunters risk their hearing just so the report of a gunshot can be heard? After all, the biggest complaint people have about shooting sports is the "sound of gunfire." You'd think that reducing the sound signature of gunshots would be well accepted.
Landowners lose no rights, but the issue of hearing someone hunting on their lands has some legitimacy. However, making it easier for landowners to patrol their land by preventing everyon from LAWFULLY using silencers while hunting is just plain silly. Trespass is trespass, and illegal hunting is illegal hunting, and if a poacher is going to poach on private property, he can just as easily use a silencer as not.
Besides, silencers are HEAVILY regulated by the BATFE. You have to have a Class III license to own one, pay a $200 tax stamp, and comply with all NFA restrictions, including notifying the BATFE and getting permission before moving the device interstates. This means that people who own silencers have been through an extensive and exhaustive criminal background check by the BATFE before they receive approval to own one, just as with machine guns. I think it's highly unlikely that poachers are going to pass such a check or bother with the paperwork, particularly since they can make their own silencers pretty easily if that's how they want to go about it. Completely illegal of course, but so is poaching.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
