Arizona – -(Ammoland.com)- Governor Bullock (D) of Montana vetoed constitutional carry, HB 298. Bullock called the bill an “absurd concept that threatens the safety of our communities by not providing for the basic fundamentals of gun safety or mental health screening.” Governor Bullock is, at a minimum, mistaken . . .
HB 298 would not have eliminated Montana’s concealed weapons permit process. It would only have removed legal restrictions from carrying concealed without a permit. The permit system itself would not have been changed.
It should be noted that if we agreed with the Governor’s assumptions about the nature of reality, then no one would be allowed to own a firearm without Government permission. It is hard to believe that Governor Bullock does not know that his “absurd concept” is the law in over 98 percent of Montana, and has been for some time.
It is unlikely that there will be any attempt to override the veto. HB 298 passed with strong margins, but far from veto proof ones. The bill passed the Senate 28 to 21. It passed the House 56 to 43.
Governor Bullock also recommended that the gun muffler (a.k.a., suppressor) reform in HB 250 be improved to include all legal hunting. It is unknown if there will be time for the legislature to amend the bill, pass the bill again, and return it to the Governor.
Governor Bullock won a squeaker of an election in 2012 with 48.9 percent of the vote, while the Republican candidate received 47.3%. The Libertarian candidate got 1.75% of the vote, more than twice the difference between the two major candidates of 7,571 votes.
Governors are a target in gutting popular gun reforms because they are a focal point where media pressure and billionaire money can be brought to bear. It may be that a similar phenomena occurs when local officials go to federal office. Suddenly, the focus of the old media is on them, and all the power of the progressive establishment it used to convert or defeat them.
If you must ask the government for a permission, it is no longer a right. Governor Bullock joins Governor Tomblin (D) of West Virginia, who also vetoed a constitutional carry bill this year.
One Democrat Governor, Governor Beebe of Arkansas, has signed a constitutional carry bill that restored carry rights to what they were when the Bill of Rights was ratified. But there is good evidence that he did so by accident. Some Republicans have vetoed constitutional carry bills, notably in South Dakota and Utah. But Republican Governors have signed constitutional carry bills in Alaska, Arizona, and Wyoming. The Kansas constitutional carry bill will be going to Governor Brownback soon.
c2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included. Link to Gun Watch
About Dean Weingarten;
Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of constitutional carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and recently retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.
It always astounds me the complete lack of trust Democrats have in their constituency.
It is to be expected from a party whose core belief is that Communism has failed only because they haven’y found the right dictator to run it yet.
EXACTLY.
A favorite leftist tactic is to claim ‘We will do (X) smarter this time!’
Yes. Though, to be fair, some GOP governors have also vetoed positive bills recently.
We’ll soon see whether Brownback in Kansas and Abbott in Texas keep their promises and sign. If so, that adds a lot more credit to the GOP freedom side of the scales.
Two thoughts: First, what in the heck has Montana done electing a Democrat governor? Second, talk of mental health “screening” is problematic, and a likely Freudian slip. How much reporting and what type of screening? None of us on either side want the seriously, violently mentally ill running around with guns, but I do see the potential for a slippery slope here. If your 16 year old son needs some mild anti-depressant, is the doctor going to be required to provide it to the authorities, and is he thereafter going to be prevented from possessing a gun for life?
The majority of Montana’s population is in the western parts of the state where the colleges are. There are many transplants. Until recently the only Republican in Congress was our one congressman.
A mentally ill person who is adamant about attacking someone is going to do it whether or not the state criminalizes concealed carry without a license. Governor Bullock’s claim that he vetoed constitutional carry because it would have enabled mentally ill people to go on rampages is meaningless.
Here in Florida the answer to that is yes. We had a kid come in to buy a pistol. When I looked at his form I saw he was 20 years old and ineligible. So I told him come back on your birthday and I we will give you a discount. Nice kid going to school to be an engineer. He came back on his 21st birthday and was denied. No felonies, nothing. He did the paperwork to have it reconsidered and called me back. When he was 13 his mom caught him smoking pot with some kids and freaked out. She immediately had him put in a drug treatment facility. That action counted as involuntarily commitment and thus denied his right to own a gun for life. P
How about mental screening and a reality ID card for politicians?
hopefully, there will be enough pissed off gun owners that voted for this guy to kick him out of office next time around. if not, meh… you get the government you deserve.
Another case where runoff elections might have prevented this.
NOBODY should win ANY public office with less than 50% of the vote.
Fewer are voting because they realize the parties are 1 in the same.
That’s why I said 50% of the vote, not 50% of the population.
This guy is supported by less than half of those who even bothered to vote!
Democracy in action. No wonder the founding fathers tried(unsuccessfully) to establish a Constitutional republic.
If no one wins 50%, all candidates should be disqualified for life.
There should also be a “none of the above” choice such that all candidates are ousted. The American people would get along fine with absolutely no “representation” at all.
Look at the bright side. 25 years ago these same jerkwads were vetoing “shall issue” CC, using the same arguments. We just have to keep presenting the facts, and let the chips fall. He is saying that the people he represents are stupider and more criminal than those in AZ, VT, etc, and they need for him to personally look out for them or they’ll be likely to buy a tool which will turn them into mass murderers. They might be insulted. or maybe he’s right!
I guess he sees the constitution as a silly or perhaps dangerous document?
A Democrat who favors infringements on the Second Amendment? Bullocks!
There are no “pro gun Democrats”. Citizen disarmament is in the party platform and no Democrat strays far from the party platform. They will talk nice to get elected, maybe even throw you some crumbs, but push comes to shove they will try to disarm you 100%, every time, guaranteed. There are no pro gun Democrats.
Good job, Libertarians!
And the Governor needs a remedial reading comprehension course. The second amendment reads, “…shall not be infringed.” It does not include “safety training” or “mental health screening” as constitutional infringements on the right to bear arms.
What about “good job republicans”?
If they could nominate a principled small-government candidate rather than these corrupt establishment hacks, maybe more people would vote for them.
I strongly disagree with the concept that voting for the candidate you think would represent you best is a “wasted” vote if they are not part of the 2 party system. How else are you going to change the current, incredibly messed up system unless you buck it? The only wasted vote is the one not cast.
If anything you should be thanking libertarians because had it not been for them the vast, vast majority of their voters would have voted……Democrat…. which has been statistically proven to be the voters who vote libertarian the most. So the results would have been much worse for the GOP without them.
Right. All those Ross Perot voters would have voted for Clinton, because Perot ran on such a left-wing platform.
The easy fix, of course, is to require 50% +1 for any/all elected offices. If that threshold is not met, have a runoff between the top two vote-getters.
Another convoluted Democrat governor. Great. When will the freedom loving citizens learn?
The subjects, serfs, peons need to monitored. So those serfs, peasants and peons that voted for this Governor/tyrant got what you deserve. So go ahead, continue vote for those that see you as “Special” and continue to be treated as incompetent, irresponsible, immature and dangerous over grown children,
Guys (and gals), I live in western Montana, not far from the state capitol. To answer the question about how we elected a Democrat as governor, please be advised that until the last election, both of our senators were democrats. Senator Baucus, who retired over a year ago to become ambassador to China, was the ‘author’ of Obamacare. Bullock had been serving as our AG, but manged to be elected governor, thanks in part to division within the Republican party, and to what I would term as chicanery on the part of progressive politicians and judges who tied up a good portion of their campaign funds until shortly before the election. It is true that some of our larger communities (I dare not call them cities) are rather liberal, and have used the machinations of gerrymandering to keep the conservative vote from being truly represented in the state legislature. Still, we muddle along. Ironically, we elected a conservative Republican to replace Bullock as AG.
As for the legislation he has fully vetoed so far, HB 203 prohibits the enforcement of a potential federal ban on semiautomatic guns and large capacity magazines by MT public employees. Vetoing it does not mean MT law enforcement will be required to enforce any federal ban, so its potential impact may be a wash. My guess is that he did not wish to offend his federal brethren and risk the state losing some federal law enforcement dollars (one must always be on guard in such matters, lest the suckling tit of federal pork be yanked from willing mouths).
At this juncture in our state’s legal history, HB 298, the bill allowing one to carry concealed w/o a CCW, might be an accident waiting to happen, precisely because it leaves it up to the individual to determine if he thinks he is eligible, whereas a cop or court may have a different opinion. You can’t use the defense “but I thought I was legal” and expect the court to concur. If we ever get back to our roots as they were clearly understood by the founders of this country, such arguments will become moot because by then we’ll be in consensus once again that if you are free to walk the earth, then you are free to defend yourself from unwarranted aggression by any means necessary. Contrivances such as the choice of weapons and discrete vs. open carry will be as meaningless and irrelevant as knowing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
I spent most of the last 50 years living in Montana and only recently made the final step to become a resident of Texas. I was going to comment on this new story but in truth Mr. Kohnke said it far better then I ever could since I would have made references to the tree hugging masses who make up a good part of the population of MT, The population centers have been liberal in all the years I lived in MT.
I was always shocked at how liberal the state was, Missoula was always called Granolaville because it was full of “Fruits, nuts and flakes” and still is.
I don’t know which way Montana will go in the long run but for now I find the political climate in Texas much better from my POV.
One person made the comment ” Thanks Libertarians” but you can’t blame them, blame the GOP for being the spineless bunch of RINO’s they are, I’ve been a life long Republican but I’ve watched them send people like McCain, Dole and Romney to run for president, all RINO’s, meaning nothing will change.
I now call myself a ” Independent-Libertarian-Anarchist” I like the sound of it but mostly I’m sick and tired of the same ol shit that the RINO’s put out, so saying, If the GOP pushes Bush or Christie or any of that ilk I will not be voting for the GOP, I want change, real change, I want to see a change back to the real Constitution, I want to see America once again the land of the Free. Won’t happen in my life time but we could start by stopping voting for the GOP RINO flavor of the year and go for a person pushing for real change.
Cruz, Paul, come to mind and no they can’t win if everybody believes that and won’t vote for them. Vote for the one “YOU” want, not the one they want.
If AIPAC owned, Goldman Sachs Banker-married Cruz is our best political hope….we are already DOA.
Welcome to Texas.
You’re right about Cruz and voting. Nobody thought Cruz could win in 2012 against well funded Establishment candidate Lt. Governor Dewhurst in the GOP U.S. Senate primary to replace Hutchison, not even me. I donated money and talked him up wherever I could, but mostly just to get our views out there and make that RINO Dewhurst work for it.
Cruz went down in defeat in that primary, scoring just a third of the vote and trailing Dewhurst by 10%, but……it was enough to keep Dewhurst under 50% and force a runoff. On a hot as hell July, three years ago, we all trudged back to the polls, driving around town and standing in lines, because there are fewer stations open for runoffs. In the end, Cruz won that runoff, walloping Dewhurst by about a 14% margin. And here we are, again, the GOP establishment saying a vote for Cruz is a wasted vote, the Dems calling him crazy.
This man can win and this man can be a history-changing man, but he needs our help. ANY money you can give (FIVE bucks is great!), send it in. People want to back a winner. If his second quarter fundraising is strong, it’ll attract much more, as success breeds success.
Good for Bullock, who the Hell do these damned CITIZENS think they are, Citizens? Rights? The liberals already give the damed Peasants all the rights they need,
What a filthy piece of crap excuse for a human being…
Should read EX-Gov of MT.
He’s a democratic governor. The people elected him. I wouldn’t expect anything less. Both are surprising however – coming out of the (used to be) free state of Montana.
As a side note, I was talking to a co-worker some time ago about handguns, and he was telling me he was CCing the other day at the local mall and didn’t give a rat’s ass what people thought about him carrying. I nodded my head and said, “Well good thing Arizona is a Constitutional Carry state.” and he looked at me and said “Wait, what does that mean?” I responded, “That means you are legally allowed to do that without a permit, with a few exceptions, in the state of AZ.” He honestly didn’t know that.
Note: I know “legally allowed” is not the proper overall political mindset, but in the context of the conversation I said that.
Montana citizens, you know what to do. I don’t even have to tell you!
I lied, I am gonna tell you, VOTE HIM OUT!!!!!
Hate to sound like a single issue voter but I am having an increasingly difficult time justifying a vote for anyone who is not staunchly pro-2A. Here’s the issue…the 2A is an inalienable right, NOT granted to the people by the government. If someone is willing to try to limit said right, why would anyone believe said individual won’t do the same to any other inalienable right? This guy needs to lose, and big, in 2016. Whatever else he may pretend to be, he’s not willing to uphold Constitutional principles for fear of upsetting some progressive master.
Amen Brother. Call me a single issue voter when it comes to individual rights if you choose. If you believe that individual rights are up for barter or trade you will not get my vote.
Well this is a perfect time and place for a recall…….get rid of this nit wit……liberals really suck.
I hope the Legislature can override his veto. What the hell was Montana thinking electing this punk in the first place.
“Bullock called the bill an “absurd concept that threatens the safety of our communities”
Funny, I say the same thing about progressive liberals…
I guess the oath of office in Montana doesn’t have the part that reads “I solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States”….
Pity all politicians that violate their oath aren’t kicked out of office. Granted that would probably mean empty offices.
It’s become clear over the years that our elected politicians no longer represent us. Their constituents overwhelmingly ask for it, the state house and senate both vote for it and the governor ignores the wishes of the people he is SUPPOSED to represent. It’s sickening what politics in this country has become.
Always amazing how little the left believes in freedom and basic human rights.
More proof that Libertarians are enemies of liberty.
Your bias is showing.
Looks like there are two Democrat Governors who need to be voted out of office!
It’s been disheartening to see the bills put before Bullock go down in vetoes. I think nearly 110 since he took office. Several fine patriotic carry bills included. In Montana you can’t carry a concealed in any restaurant that serves alcohol, schools, public building etc. This was all set to change until vetoed.
I haven’t a clue how long it will take to have the bills brought back to life if Bullock can be ousted. He gets strong support from both Soros and Bloomberg.