(MT) Permitless CC denied!!! Read this... - Page 2

(MT) Permitless CC denied!!! Read this...

This is a discussion on (MT) Permitless CC denied!!! Read this... within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by Lewis128 Owning one and keeping it at home is not the same as carrying it. bear1     [bair] Show IPA verb, ...

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 25 of 25
Like Tree5Likes

Thread: (MT) Permitless CC denied!!! Read this...

  1. #16
    VIP Member Array chiefjason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Hickory, NC
    Posts
    2,804
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewis128 View Post
    Owning one and keeping it at home is not the same as carrying it.

    bear1    
    [bair] Show IPA
    verb, bore or ( Archaic ) bare; borne or born; bear·ing.
    –verb (used with object)

    to carry; bring: to bear gifts.


    To bear arms? Carry maybe? Just a thought. Keep covers owning and having them in your house. Bear covers carrying them. It's pretty simple really. It's the liberal whacks that make it difficult.
    kaboomkaboom and packinnova like this.
    I prefer to live dangerously free than safely caged!

    "Our houses are protected by the good Lord and a gun. And you might meet 'em both if you show up here not welcome son." Josh Thompson "Way Out Here"


  2. #17
    VIP Member Array paramedic70002's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Franklin, VA
    Posts
    5,150
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewis128 View Post
    This is just my opinion... if you don't like it... tough!
    I don't necessarily agree with any of the legal-ese.
    I think it's a GOOD thing to have reasonable standards for getting a permit. Legal or not, some people have no more business with a firearm than they do propelling a 12,000 pound SUV. Some folks are just a tragedy waiting to happen. The process to earn a permit to carry won't prevent 100% of those accidents any more than earning a drivers license keeps Iphone addicts from texting while driving.
    But unlike the drivers license which is a right of passage which carries year after year until the day you die regardless of actual ability, a CCW can be revoked immediately with any act that would have precluded a permit.
    Also the process of getting it, the firearm safety class, the background check, the fingerprinting, tend to filter out the "riff-raff".

    That being said, I would support a bill that imposes a fine, say $1000 for carrying without a permit, provided they would not have been barred from obtaining a permit.
    Edit:
    Or perhaps an income scaling as someone who make six figures wouldn't see a $1000 fine in nearly the same light as someone struggling just to get by. But starting at $1000 regardless.
    Because permitless carry has been an overwhelming failure in Vermont, Alaska and Arizona?

    Wait...
    "Each worker carried his sword strapped to his side." Nehemiah 4:18

    Guns Save Lives. Paramedics Save Lives. But...
    Paramedics With Guns Scare People!

  3. #18
    Senior Member Array Lewis128's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Cape Girardeau, Mo.
    Posts
    657
    Quote Originally Posted by paramedic70002 View Post
    Because permitless carry has been an overwhelming failure in Vermont, Alaska and Arizona?

    Wait...
    Ok, I see your point there.
    The views expressed above are the opinion of the poster and may or may not be total bunk.
    Viewer discretion is advised.

  4. #19
    Senior Member Array Phillep Harding's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    821
    Quote Originally Posted by paramedic70002 View Post
    Because permitless carry has been an overwhelming failure in Vermont, Alaska and Arizona?

    Wait...


    And, permitless carry and carry by felons was /such/ a problem before 1968 across most of the nation.

    Uh, wasn't it?

  5. #20
    VIP Member
    Array ksholder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    3,977
    Quote Originally Posted by Phillep Harding View Post


    And, permitless carry and carry by felons was /such/ a problem before 1968 across most of the nation.

    Uh, wasn't it?
    Permitless carry by felons is still a problem, but one that laws, by themselves, won't solve. Enforcement and tougher sentencing could make an impact, but it will never solve it.
    It's the Land of Opportunity, not the Land of Entitlements - Vote America!!!

    "When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny." Thomas Jefferson

    You are only paranoid until you are right - then you are a visionary.

  6. #21
    VIP Member
    Array ksholder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    3,977
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewis128 View Post
    Owning one and keeping it at home is not the same as carrying it. I don't think it should be a crime, just that if you're going to make that decision, you really should take the responsible path. If you are legally permitted to own one and wish to carry I don't see how the permit process is such a burden.
    I frankly don't see how repealing a constitutional right come into play. Seems like a straw man argument, but I'm not a constitutional scholar.

    I don't have any idea what an SUV weighs. But for some reason I remember that a fully loaded tractor trailer has a weight limit of 48,000. Go figure. That may have changed, it's been years since I worked at a warehouse with it's own scale that weighed most trucks before they left to ensure they weren't over-weight.
    That last bit is veering off the topic. If you wish to comment or correct me about ODOT regs, please send it via PM.
    You are right, keeping and bearing arms are different. However, the 2A expressly authorized both to US citizens. The definitions of keep & bear have already noted by another poster.

    You don't see how the permit process is a burden - OK. I admit, for many people it is neither a time nor money issue, however, for some it is. For all, it is an infringement on the 2A & therefore a constitutional issue. We should address this from the constitutional perspective then we don't have to figure out how to determine to whom the time and cost of a permit are a burden - trust me, for some it is. I know people who come to work sick as a dog because if they don't, the family goes hungry. The cost of a permit - roughly $200 in Ohio (course, ammo for course and permit fees) would be a huge burden for those folks, however, their right to self defense is no less than yours or mine.

    Repealing a constitutional right would be required to properly apply the permitting process. This is so because the 2A states "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." If my friends that have to go to work sick to make ends meet can't afford a CCW permit, and the states makes them outlaws for exercizing their constitutional rights, those rights have been infringed. To bring the constitution into line with the current permit system, the 2A would have to be amended or repealed and replaced with current laws. I am not advocating this.

    Finally, you think it is a good thing to have reasonable standards for getting a permit and failure to obtain said permit should result in a $1,000 minimum fine. You also don't think concealed carry should be a crime. I am having trouble reconciling these thoughts. Ignoring the obvious constitutional issue, how is something not a crime when you get fined by the government for doing it?
    Last edited by ksholder; May 12th, 2011 at 01:17 PM. Reason: Spelling
    Snider and Spidey2011 like this.
    It's the Land of Opportunity, not the Land of Entitlements - Vote America!!!

    "When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny." Thomas Jefferson

    You are only paranoid until you are right - then you are a visionary.

  7. #22
    VIP Member Array Eagleks's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    7,837
    HB 271 would entirely remove the Sheriff's authority and discretion to issue or deny concealed weapons permits.
    and depending upon if you donated money to the Sheriff's reelection campaign, were drinking buddies, a nephew, etc. ... and the whole reason why "shall issue " is the only way to go.

    It's saying.... if you are legal to own a gun, then you are legal to carry it. So ? If you shouldn't be carrying it , then should you be allowed to own it ? Seems like a no-brainer to me.

    Some of the other comments made by the Governor, and the comparisons, are soooo idiotic they are not worth addressing at all. I hope the Legislature over-rides his veto. That's the stupidity we had to get over in our state, and finally had a legislature that over-rode the Govenor every single time to even get CC at all.
    I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts. --- Will Rogers ---
    Chief Justice John Roberts : "I don't see how you can read Heller and not take away from it the notion that the Second Amendment...was extremely important to the framers in their view of what liberty meant."

  8. #23
    Senior Member Array Spidey2011's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    887
    Quote Originally Posted by Eagleks View Post
    and depending upon if you donated money to the Sheriff's reelection campaign, were drinking buddies, a nephew, etc. ... and the whole reason why "shall issue " is the only way to go.

    It's saying.... if you are legal to own a gun, then you are legal to carry it. So ? If you shouldn't be carrying it , then should you be allowed to own it ? Seems like a no-brainer to me.

    Some of the other comments made by the Governor, and the comparisons, are soooo idiotic they are not worth addressing at all. I hope the Legislature over-rides his veto. That's the stupidity we had to get over in our state, and finally had a legislature that over-rode the Govenor every single time to even get CC at all.
    Bingo. What burns me the most is that when the Self-Defense bill passed in 2009, he commented about how much he wished permitless carry had been kept in it. Then he goes and contradicts himself with this stupid move. He's been on a veto spree lately, too. Not much has gotten through at all.

  9. #24
    Member Array rhenriksen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Houston, Tx
    Posts
    129
    That's a pretty strongly worded, and informally written, letter. Are things just that much more casual in Montana?

    Good luck w. the legislative override of his veto - sincerely, not being snarky. When is your next gubernatorial election?

  10. #25
    VIP Member Array automatic slim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    The western edge of The Confederacy
    Posts
    2,198
    What do you expect from a friend of Al Gore?
    "First gallant South Carolina nobly made the stand."
    Edge of Darkness

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

cc denied
,
gun laws helena, mt
,

hb 271 montana

,

hb271 montana

,
helena mt gun laws
,
helena, mt gun laws
,
laws for bb guns in helena, mt
,
linda mcculloch pro 2nd amendment?
,
montana ccw laws
,

montana gun laws 2011

,

montana hb 271

,
montana house bill 271
,
montana permitless carry
,
mt hb 271 veto
,
permitless carry in oklahoma
Click on a term to search for related topics.