Montana governor supports AWB

Glenn E. Meyer · August 19, 2018, 11:20 AM

http://thehill.com/homenews/state-wa...lt-weapons-ban

1. Speculation he wants to pass the party litmus test to run for President. Both parties have anti liberty litmus tests if you want to run.

2. Such bans are becoming popular since lower and SCOTUS decisions have opened the door such being constitutional.

3. More rampages and moral panics will produce even more bans unless SCOTUS and Congress take some action (fat chance of that). Even with a 'gun friendly' court, I'd bet they don't take action that eliminates the common state bans. Could be wrong, time will tell.

4. Even guns for self-defense being protected may not cover EBRs and high cap mags. After all, if you can't do it in 5, you ain't doing your job. Now who says that? Don't need those weapons of war for your burglar or mugger. Defense against tyranny - not an issue for many.

DaleA · August 19, 2018, 01:24 PM

I do NOT support gun bans.

In about a 10 minute interview North Dakota Democratic Senator Heidi Heitkamp talked about a LOT of issues and then mentioned she did NOT support gun bans because they would not work and she was raked over the coals by her own party!

Sheesh! As has been stated this gun banning thing is certainly an issue this election cycle.

The intricacies of our legal system confuse me on a semi-regular bases. I sure wasn't for the 1994-2004 assault weapons ban, and I am CERTAINLY APPRECIATIVE that the DOJ said it didn't have any noticeable effect on 'gun violence'

BUT

Since we've ALREADY had a 10 year ban, how do we now say that another ban is unconstitutional? I would TOTALLY like such a ruling but it seems inconsistent---of course if it hasn't already become obvious I admit to not being very legally literate. And I DO appreciate the efforts a lot of folk make right here to dumb down and explain the system.

DaleA · August 19, 2018, 02:12 PM

OK. I was an idiot in my previous post. Somebody set me straight and reminded me of stuff I should have remembered.

Lots of 'laws' in lots of different areas, not just gun control, are 'illegal'. The rulings and appeals can work their way up to the Supreme Court and the SC can say "this law is illegal". The 1994-2004 Assault Weapons Ban was never appealed up to the SC. It might have been 'legal' it might not have been. I should have remembered this.

New gun bans may be enacted. They can be appealed. If they get up to the SC we'll find out if they are legal or not.

I shouldn't say you need legal training to understand this and I should not have forgotten how this works. I still appreciate folk on this site that attempt to explain legal system.

JERRYS. · August 19, 2018, 02:41 PM

Colorado has fallen, why not Montana?

2damnold4this · August 19, 2018, 06:05 PM

Quote:

1. Speculation he wants to pass the party litmus test to run for President.

I'd say that is the likely answer.

zoomie · August 19, 2018, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Colorado has fallen, why not Montana?

Similar shifts in demographics will inevitably lead to similar shifts in culture.

**Aguila Blanca** · August 19, 2018, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JERRYS.

Colorado has fallen, why not Montana?

Because I was considering relocating to Montana, because I thought it was still part of the United States of America.

mehavey · August 19, 2018, 07:32 PM

Quote:

thought it was still part of the United States of America.

...you mean the part that hasn't been "fundamentally transformed" ?

Never underestimate the fundamental damage that (fairly recent) elections
of out-of-control movements can permanently inflict upon this nation.

RETG · August 20, 2018, 05:24 AM

Since I am not a resident of MT, but know a lot of MT residents, I ask is there even a chance an AWB will ever come to his desk for a signature? I believe the makeup is primarily republican and gun friendly; of course this can change. I have been told that some large cities are turning more liberal, but not all.

Also, the gov isn't too smart in my opinion. Even if he is for an AWB, he has zero chance in the day-and-age to become a presidential candidate for the dem party. Even with the idea he likes an AWB, he is way too moderate for the dems.

Bartholomew Roberts · August 20, 2018, 08:11 AM

The big reason outspoken support of gun control is popular is because politics is expensive, runs on donors, and Bloomberg will:

1) Show you extensive polling on how this will help you get reelected.
2) Give you money to adopt gun control planks.

Take away the money and gun control will return to its 2004-2008 status where the Brady Campaign had no money to give and “blue dog” Dems were welcomed by the national party.

As far as SCOTUS goes, they’ve already held the Second Amendment applies to the states in McDonald. So, if it violates the Second Amendment at the federal level, it likely violates it at the state level.

**Aguila Blanca** · August 20, 2018, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts

As far as SCOTUS goes, they’ve already held the Second Amendment applies to the states in McDonald. So, if it violates the Second Amendment at the federal level, it likely violates it at the state level.

To what does "it" in the above refer? Gun control? AWBs? If you mean AWBs, remember that several states enacted AWBs in the wake of the Sandy Hook school shooting. Pro-2A groups in both Connecticut and New York sued to rescind the respective AWBs. Both lost in federal district court, both groups appealed, and the appeals were consolidated. Both pro-2A groups lost on appeal in circuit court, and the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of the circuit court ruling. So, currently, it appears that AWBs are not violations of the Second Amendment, according to the federal courts.

I happen to think this is due to a misreading and misapplication of some of Justice Scalia's language from Heller, but that's neither here nor there. The result is that you can't buy an "assault weapon" in New York or Connecticut.

FITASC · August 20, 2018, 10:08 AM

Quote:

I have been told that some large cities are turning more liberal, but not all.

Just like NV and CO, CA liberal elites have been buying lots of property in these states and turning them purple with the goal of turning them blue

Bartholomew Roberts · August 22, 2018, 06:55 PM

Quote:

To what does "it" in the above refer? Gun control? AWBs?

It refers to legislation, generically. If it violates the Second Amendment at the federallevel, it applies to the states.

As to the rest of your reasoning, when Heller happened in 2007, an overwhelming majority of Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled the Second only protected a collective right. The Supreme Court denied cert on that for about 80 years. We are fighting a long game. My grandfather was 27 when it started and except for the 1986 FOPA, he saw nothing but defeat his entire 90 years.

I’ve seen more pro-Second advances in the last 20 years than he saw in nine decades.*

*To be fair, a big part of that is equal application of the law. There were a lot of things that were illegal based on the law as written, that were never applied to my grandfather because he wasn’t who those laws were aimed at. I enjoy better rights on paper. Practically, it isn’t the same; but now those laws are applied much more evenly than they were in my grandfather’s day - and I think that’s a positive trait.

August 19, 2018, 11:20 AM	#1
Glenn E. Meyer Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2000 Posts: 20,064	Montana governor supports AWB http://thehill.com/homenews/state-wa...lt-weapons-ban 1. Speculation he wants to pass the party litmus test to run for President. Both parties have anti liberty litmus tests if you want to run. 2. Such bans are becoming popular since lower and SCOTUS decisions have opened the door such being constitutional. 3. More rampages and moral panics will produce even more bans unless SCOTUS and Congress take some action (fat chance of that). Even with a 'gun friendly' court, I'd bet they don't take action that eliminates the common state bans. Could be wrong, time will tell. 4. Even guns for self-defense being protected may not cover EBRs and high cap mags. After all, if you can't do it in 5, you ain't doing your job. Now who says that? Don't need those weapons of war for your burglar or mugger. Defense against tyranny - not an issue for many. __________________ NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens

August 20, 2018, 05:24 AM	#9
RETG Senior Member Join Date: September 22, 2009 Location: Somewhere in Idaho, near WY Posts: 507	Since I am not a resident of MT, but know a lot of MT residents, I ask is there even a chance an AWB will ever come to his desk for a signature? I believe the makeup is primarily republican and gun friendly; of course this can change. I have been told that some large cities are turning more liberal, but not all. Also, the gov isn't too smart in my opinion. Even if he is for an AWB, he has zero chance in the day-and-age to become a presidential candidate for the dem party. Even with the idea he likes an AWB, he is way too moderate for the dems. __________________ I give MY OPINION (not often) based on many years shooting at, other than paper targets. I will not debate my experience vs. your experience based on dreams and "what ifs." I'm 73; I'm too damn old to care.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

August 19, 2018, 01:24 PM	#2
DaleA Senior Member Join Date: September 12, 2002 Location: Twin Cities, MN Posts: 5,312	I do NOT support gun bans. In about a 10 minute interview North Dakota Democratic Senator Heidi Heitkamp talked about a LOT of issues and then mentioned she did NOT support gun bans because they would not work and she was raked over the coals by her own party! Sheesh! As has been stated this gun banning thing is certainly an issue this election cycle. The intricacies of our legal system confuse me on a semi-regular bases. I sure wasn't for the 1994-2004 assault weapons ban, and I am CERTAINLY APPRECIATIVE that the DOJ said it didn't have any noticeable effect on 'gun violence' BUT Since we've ALREADY had a 10 year ban, how do we now say that another ban is unconstitutional? I would TOTALLY like such a ruling but it seems inconsistent---of course if it hasn't already become obvious I admit to not being very legally literate. And I DO appreciate the efforts a lot of folk make right here to dumb down and explain the system.

August 19, 2018, 02:12 PM	#3
DaleA Senior Member Join Date: September 12, 2002 Location: Twin Cities, MN Posts: 5,312	OK. I was an idiot in my previous post. Somebody set me straight and reminded me of stuff I should have remembered. Lots of 'laws' in lots of different areas, not just gun control, are 'illegal'. The rulings and appeals can work their way up to the Supreme Court and the SC can say "this law is illegal". The 1994-2004 Assault Weapons Ban was never appealed up to the SC. It might have been 'legal' it might not have been. I should have remembered this. New gun bans may be enacted. They can be appealed. If they get up to the SC we'll find out if they are legal or not. I shouldn't say you need legal training to understand this and I should not have forgotten how this works. I still appreciate folk on this site that attempt to explain legal system.

August 19, 2018, 02:41 PM	#4
JERRYS. Senior Member Join Date: September 23, 2013 Location: Alabama Posts: 2,968	Colorado has fallen, why not Montana?

August 20, 2018, 08:11 AM	#10
Bartholomew Roberts member Join Date: June 12, 2000 Location: Texas and Oklahoma area Posts: 8,462	The big reason outspoken support of gun control is popular is because politics is expensive, runs on donors, and Bloomberg will: 1) Show you extensive polling on how this will help you get reelected. 2) Give you money to adopt gun control planks. Take away the money and gun control will return to its 2004-2008 status where the Brady Campaign had no money to give and “blue dog” Dems were welcomed by the national party. As far as SCOTUS goes, they’ve already held the Second Amendment applies to the states in McDonald. So, if it violates the Second Amendment at the federal level, it likely violates it at the state level.