Montana Governor Signs New Gun Law

**HILLBILLY** · 05-08-2009, 02:20 AM

Executive Summary – The USA state of Montana has signed into power a revolutionary gun law. I mean REVOLUTIONARY.

The State of Montana has defied the federal government and their gun laws. This will prompt a showdown between the federal government and the State of Montana. The federal government fears citizens owning guns. They try to curtail what types of guns they can own. The gun control laws all have one common goal – confiscation of privately owned firearms.

Read More-->http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Featu...m?Info=0056132

-JJ-

**spywizard** · 05-08-2009, 05:38 AM

wow, And the people have spoken

**IM708** · 05-08-2009, 06:16 AM

lets start a riot!

**HILLBILLY** · 05-08-2009, 10:31 AM

Originally Posted by spywizard

wow, And the people have spoken

It's about time.

-JJ-

**Tesla** · 05-08-2009, 10:32 AM

Excellent! I saw you the news yesterday that other states are considering similar legislation.

**scerpico22** · 05-08-2009, 11:46 AM

the right to bare arms bioitch!

**HILLBILLY** · 05-08-2009, 05:46 PM

Utah and Texas are joining the bandwagon, Judge Napolitano and State reps discuss it on Glenn Beck.

Part 1---> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_Lv0Nfvkvo

Part 2---> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPOkVFzR_zs

-JJ-

**jfalco** · 05-08-2009, 05:53 PM

Am I reading it right that the only real change in the law is to allow silencers?

If so I don't think the feds will give a shit.

But I do see a battle coming in the near future on gun control because of the current situation in Mexico.

**Tesla** · 05-08-2009, 06:17 PM

**CptAmericaX** · 05-08-2009, 06:45 PM

Obama obama obama obama

**Hoggage_54** · 05-08-2009, 06:50 PM

**HILLBILLY** · 05-08-2009, 10:28 PM

Originally Posted by jfalco

Am I reading it right that the only real change in the law is to allow silencers?

If so I don't think the feds will give a shit.

But I do see a battle coming in the near future on gun control because of the current situation in Mexico.

Section 4 of the bill states ANY gun, accessory or ammo made and manufactured in montana is legal.

-JJ-

**thegodfather** · 05-08-2009, 11:51 PM

Originally Posted by JIMMYJAMES

Section 4 of the bill states ANY gun, accessory or ammo made and manufactured in montana is legal.

-JJ-

You need to read the entire bill. Guns which fire more than 1 bullet per pull of the trigger will not be made legal under this law. And weapons with a barrel diameter larger than 1 1/2 inches can only fire black powder, not smokeless powder, meaning you will not be able to purchase artillery, lol..

**firmechicano831** · 05-09-2009, 12:12 AM

CA should join the wagon.

**quarry206** · 05-09-2009, 12:29 AM

for some reason i don't see this law being able to with stand a federal court..

but i also think that with states pushing this it will make the federal government step in to make an actual gun bill to stop it which might **** everybody in the end..

**thegodfather** · 05-09-2009, 12:39 AM

Originally Posted by quarry206

for some reason i don't see this law being able to with stand a federal court..

but i also think that with states pushing this it will make the federal government step in to make an actual gun bill to stop it which might **** everybody in the end..

I doubt this very much. Utah and Texas are drafting similar bills in their legislatures as we speak. Constitutionally, the Federal government doesn't have a very compelling case in this situation.

P.S.- This is not a personal attack by any means...But it speaks volumes that citizens have been so thoroughly conditioned (no thanks to our department of education for this one) to think that the Federal government has such unending power over the states...its unfortunate to say the least..

**MuscleScience** · 05-09-2009, 12:47 AM

Originally Posted by thegodfather

I doubt this very much. Utah and Texas are drafting similar bills in their legislatures as we speak. Constitutionally, the Federal government doesn't have a very compelling case in this situation.

P.S.- This is not a personal attack by any means...But it speaks volumes that citizens have been so thoroughly conditioned (no thanks to our department of education for this one) to think that the Federal government has such unending power over the states...its unfortunate to say the least..

Its sad isnt it!

**BgMc31** · 05-09-2009, 01:01 AM

I applaud this decision...even though I am in favor on some types of gun control. So is it the stance of the majority here that we should have no restrictions on firearms? None whatsoever? So anybody should be able to own any type of gun? Because any restrictions on anything would be gun control, right? I'm all for responsible gun ownership, but I also agree that certain people shouldn't own guns. Is there a happy medium?

**MuscleScience** · 05-09-2009, 01:16 AM

Originally Posted by BgMc31

I applaud this decision...even though I am in favor on some types of gun control. So is it the stance of the majority here that we should have no restrictions on firearms? None whatsoever? So anybody should be able to own any type of gun? Because any restrictions on anything would be gun control, right? I'm all for responsible gun ownership, but I also agree that certain people shouldn't own guns. Is there a happy medium?

I think most would agree with you. But is sure would be fun to pump a umm ahhh..... a deer with with lead with a gun that shoots 1000 rounds a minute...

**BgMc31** · 05-09-2009, 01:35 AM

Originally Posted by MuscleScience

I think most would agree with you. But is sure would be fun to pump a umm ahhh..... a deer with with lead with a gun that shoots 1000 rounds a minute...

For sure!!! The Gun Store here in Vegas has full autos you can shoot and have pig and cow carcasses to shoot it!! It's a fvckin blast. I can only imagine doing that out in the open!!!

**jbm** · 05-09-2009, 01:52 AM

**jbm** · 05-09-2009, 01:53 AM

**quarry206** · 05-09-2009, 02:07 AM

Originally Posted by thegodfather

I doubt this very much. Utah and Texas are drafting similar bills in their legislatures as we speak. Constitutionally, the Federal government doesn't have a very compelling case in this situation.

P.S.- This is not a personal attack by any means...But it speaks volumes that citizens have been so thoroughly conditioned (no thanks to our department of education for this one) to think that the Federal government has such unending power over the states...its unfortunate to say the least..

i agree with you... i think i didn't word what i meant correctly.. i just meant that usually the feds like to go over board in attempts to control the uncontrollable or to put fear into the masses.... and i do think you will agree with me that our federal court system at times do not see the bill of rights as it should be seen.

there is not right or wrong, only popular opinion...lol... think about how many things are not really legal or maybe even law but the federal government makes us fallow it anyways.. i agree we are conditioned to think we have to do what they say but because so many are conditioned to think that it becomes fact. i'm sure we could make a list a mile long of laws, taxes, things in federal buildings. but are not actually fully legal...

**thegodfather** · 05-09-2009, 02:35 AM

Originally Posted by BgMc31

I applaud this decision...even though I am in favor on some types of gun control. So is it the stance of the majority here that we should have no restrictions on firearms? None whatsoever? So anybody should be able to own any type of gun? Because any restrictions on anything would be gun control, right? I'm all for responsible gun ownership, but I also agree that certain people shouldn't own guns. Is there a happy medium?

I dont see why we cant restrict people with mental illnesses from purchasing/owning firearms and at the same time not require registration of firearms? You would need to have a purchasing card and pass a background check, but would not need to register any of your guns. In addition, I do not see why ex-criminals cannot own guns. It sends a very bad message that after a person has served their debt to society, we put them into 2nd class citizen status for the rest of their lives and still do not allow them to do things like vote. I believe if we release them from prison for a crime, no matter what the crime, we are saying that they are fit to return to society and their debt has been paid. They should have ALL of their rights fully restored at that point, otherwise we should keep them in jail. A person who has a criminal record should not be forbidden from protecting themselves, and in fact those who have criminal pasts and have turned their lives around MAY need that means of protection MORE than the average person. I have gotten severely off topic, but its something that needs to be said.

**quarry206** · 05-09-2009, 02:48 AM

Originally Posted by thegodfather

I dont see why we cant restrict people with mental illnesses from purchasing/owning firearms and at the same time not require registration of firearms? You would need to have a purchasing card and pass a background check, but would not need to register any of your guns. In addition, I do not see why ex-criminals cannot own guns. It sends a very bad message that after a person has served their debt to society, we put them into 2nd class citizen status for the rest of their lives and still do not allow them to do things like vote. I believe if we release them from prison for a crime, no matter what the crime, we are saying that they are fit to return to society and their debt has been paid. They should have ALL of their rights fully restored at that point, otherwise we should keep them in jail. A person who has a criminal record should not be forbidden from protecting themselves, and in fact those who have criminal pasts and have turned their lives around MAY need that means of protection MORE than the average person. I have gotten severely off topic, but its something that needs to be said.

not to thread jack, but i will say as somebody that put myself through school working for the prison system and local law enforcement. i really believe they are not given rights because its the governments way of admitting they did nothing at all to make an inmate a better person. no school, don't teach any trades, don't allow them to buy there own accredited schooling... so in turn the state realizes we did nothing for them, they will probably stay criminals.. not saying that is right, but secretly i think its true. i met lots of good hearted guys while working at the prison but they went back to crime not because they wanted to fully but its all they knew. because after ten years in prison for drugs there was nothing they could do on the streets since they were never taught anything...

**mho** · 05-09-2009, 10:44 AM

Originally Posted by ironmaiden708

lets start a riot!

**HILLBILLY** · 05-09-2009, 02:13 PM

Originally Posted by quarry206

not to thread jack, but i will say as somebody that put myself through school working for the prison system and local law enforcement. i really believe they are not given rights because its the governments way of admitting they did nothing at all to make an inmate a better person. no school, don't teach any trades, don't allow them to buy there own accredited schooling... so in turn the state realizes we did nothing for them, they will probably stay criminals.. not saying that is right, but secretly i think its true. i met lots of good hearted guys while working at the prison but they went back to crime not because they wanted to fully but its all they knew. because after ten years in prison for drugs there was nothing they could do on the streets since they were never taught anything...

I disagree, alot of them go back to being criminals because no one will hire them because of their record. They do a background check just to be a greeter at wal-mart, now you mean to tell me a guy that has been in prison for 10yrs. would not be able to do this? or cut grass for a landscaping company. It's just what they resort back to to survive because society labels them as trash. But i do agree some of them are just down right criminals and always will be, but that doesn't mean that they all are like society labels them to be.

-JJ-

**SMCengineer** · 05-09-2009, 03:02 PM

Originally Posted by thegodfather

P.S.- This is not a personal attack by any means...But it speaks volumes that citizens have been so thoroughly conditioned (no thanks to our department of education for this one) to think that the Federal government has such unending power over the states...its unfortunate to say the least..

That people don't even realize why we have a Federal and not National government is even more unfortunate.

**MuscleScience** · 05-09-2009, 04:20 PM

Originally Posted by JIMMYJAMES

I disagree, alot of them go back to being criminals because no one will hire them because of their record. They do a background check just to be a greeter at wal-mart, now you mean to tell me a guy that has been in prison for 10yrs. would not be able to do this? or cut grass for a landscaping company. It's just what they resort back to to survive because society labels them as trash. But i do agree some of them are just down right criminals and always will be, but that doesn't mean that they all are like society labels them to be.

-JJ-

I will be honesty with you, I sure a shit do not want a person convicted of a violent crime to have a gun or even a job that brings them close to my family or residence say if they did mow lawns or whatever. They have shown a pattern of behavior, which people tend not to deviate much from their established pattern of behavior.

**oneshot** · 05-09-2009, 04:56 PM

I love it!!! federal government can KISS MY ASS!!!

**Lightsout2184** · 05-09-2009, 05:48 PM

Originally Posted by firmechicano831

CA should join the wagon.

like our pvssy state ever would

**HILLBILLY** · 05-09-2009, 05:52 PM

Originally Posted by MuscleScience

I will be honesty with you, I sure a shit do not want a person convicted of a violent crime to have a gun or even a job that brings them close to my family or residence say if they did mow lawns or whatever. They have shown a pattern of behavior, which people tend not to deviate much from their established pattern of behavior.

I agree with ya on the violent crime, but people get felonies for non-violent crimes also. I can't label someone that has been caught with pot or writing bad checks in the same category as a child molester nor should anybody else. People make mistakes but they shouldn't be held accountable for a ONE time non-violent crime for the rest of their lives. Now if they are a habitual offender that's a different story.

-JJ-