Skip to main content
Help Center Community Shop

Montana proposes to exempt in-state guns

Comments

36 comments

  • Rack Ops
    Go Montana!
    0
  • Dak To 68
    Great idea, it would be nice if Missouri followed suit. The "enemy" here in Saint Louis and in Kansas City would shoot this down.
    0
  • RunForest
    RIGHT ON MONTANA !!!!! Finally a state is showing some balls.
    0
  • CA sucks
    More states need to do this.

    Despite my differing views on who "won" the civil war, and who started the civil war, I am 100% behind states rights.
    0
  • RunForest
    the only thing that concerns me is the part about giving drivers licenses to illegal aliens. did i read that correctly ?
    0
  • ScharfSchutze
    I'M MOVEING TO MONTANA!! GOOO SHOW THE FEDS!



    and no he said it would then be ILLEGAL to give licenses to illegal immigrants which as of right now is not a law.
    0
  • Kodiakk
    Good thing to see. I'm surprised with Texas history and the overall love of guns here they haven't decided to do the same.
    0
  • acdodd
    quote:Originally posted by RunForest
    the only thing that concerns me is the part about giving drivers licenses to illegal aliens. did i read that correctly ?

    No
    It also makes it illegal to issue driver's licenses to illegal aliens, which currently isn't prohibited under state law.
    0
  • RunForest
    quote:Originally posted by acdodd
    quote:Originally posted by RunForest
    the only thing that concerns me is the part about giving drivers licenses to illegal aliens. did i read that correctly ?

    No
    It also makes it illegal to issue driver's licenses to illegal aliens, which currently isn't prohibited under state law.


    in that case i support them 100%
    0
  • sothere
    That's pretty cool, maybe we should say we aren't subject to the income tax," he said.

    I love it when an idiot get's it right.Especially when they don't have a clue[8D].GO MT
    0
  • pickenup
    [:D][:D][:D]
    0
  • Rack Ops
    I have to imagine the feds are going to counter this somehow...

    Montana can't evict federal law enforcement officers from the state, can they? These guns will still be be subject to federal firearms laws.

    CA has "legal" medical pot.....but the feds have raided places that sell it
    0
  • spryor
    quote:Originally posted by Dak To 68
    Great idea, it would be nice if Missouri followed suit. The "enemy" here in Saint Louis and in Kansas City would shoot this down.
    Yep, wish MO. had the balls MT does.
    0
  • ScharfSchutze
    I hope PA will follow suit as well... thats if they haven't already made their decision, haven't heard anything about it.

    But PA is a pretty gun friendly state, we shall have to see.
    0
  • PC800
    quote:Originally posted by HighVolumeOfFire

    Montana can't evict federal law enforcement officers from the state, can they? These guns will still be be subject to federal firearms laws.



    I seem to remember about 10 years, a western state Sheriff threw all federal agents out of his county. IIRC, he could do it because an elected sheriff is the CLEO (Chief Law Enforcement Officer) of the county, so constitutionally he trumps all other law enforcement, including feds. Anyone remember the details?
    0
  • Permanently deleted user
    I might have to move a few miles down the road...across the state line. WTG MT!!!
    0
  • ElMuertoMonkey
    If the hippies in San Fran can say yes to pot, I don't see why the folks in Montana can say the same to firearms.
    0
  • 65gto389
    Maybe I should move to montana. [^]
    0
  • Permanently deleted user
    If only this type action would take hold in more states, the Fed would be put back into its proper place. Amen Montana!
    0
  • Henry0Reilly
    Section 5(4) would seem to exclude shotguns since they fire multiple projectiles with one pull of the trigger (firing device)

    Other than that, way cool. I've been saying for ages that the 10th amendment has been overlooked in the battle for preserving the 2nd.
    0
  • ScharfSchutze
    quote:Originally posted by Henry0Reilly
    Section 5(4) would seem to exclude shotguns since they fire multiple projectiles with one pull of the trigger (firing device)

    Other than that, way cool. I've been saying for ages that the 10th amendment has been overlooked in the battle for preserving the 2nd.





    maybe they should re-state it as a weapon that fires off more than one cartridge at a time.
    0
  • theboogeyman
    *PACKS HIS BAGS FOR MONTANA*
    0
  • sarge_3ad
    Way to go Montana! I sure hope this sets the precedence for more states to follow.
    0
  • FEENIX
    G[:p]TTA L[^]VE IT! ....................... from Great Falls, MT.
    0
  • CA sucks
    I would join the rebels, Montana is entirely within its constitutional rights to do this, assuming the feds tried to take issue with it.

    FIring on the feds first, is a diff story in my opinion, I am inherently biased towards the side that does not fire the first shots, but rather, under fire, decides to defend itself (the iraw war being a grey area where I tend to think we cant consider them to be sthe same group that "fired the first shots", I remain unconvicned the Iraqi govet had anything to do with 9-11, and Have seen no hard evidence but only jinogisitic rumor to the contrary)

    If the feds tried to take command through martial practices against montanta, I would back montana, no If ands or Buts. My loyalty lies in the reason for fighting, not the organization doing the fighting.
    0
  • Sperry
    Ahh ... for a minute I thought full-auto was included ...

    quote:(4) a firearm that discharges two or more projectiles with one activation of the trigger or other firing device.
    0
  • fastcarsgofast
    quote:Originally posted by HighVolumeOfFire
    I have to imagine the feds are going to counter this somehow...

    Montana can't evict federal law enforcement officers from the state, can they? These guns will still be be subject to federal firearms laws.

    CA has "legal" medical pot.....but the feds have raided places that sell it
    I'm sure they will. Remember the last time a State or group of States tried to buck the system in the name of State's rights they got invaded.
    0
  • dakotashooter2
    One warning on the drivers license. I believe it is the feds that require the states to honor each others drivers licenses. If Montana chooses not to participate in a standardized DL it is possible their DL could be invalid outside Montana.

    A for firearms, while I see some merit, I could forsee some residents migrating out of the state getting in some pretty serious trouble with the feds. I also question the viability of a home grown gun making businesses because of the limited market.Due to low volume guns would likely be "hand made" and expensive.
    0
  • warriorsfan
    quote:Originally posted by ElMuertoMonkey
    If the hippies in San Fran can say yes to pot, I don't see why the folks in Montana can say the same to firearms.


    San Fran said yes to pot, and the feds said "no." Same with Oregon and assisted suicide. This current Administration seems to care nothing for state's rights or the will of the people, it will be no different in Montana.
    0
  • codenamepaul
    Who makes guns in Montana?

    It only applies to guns made and kept in the state. Paper tiger?
    0

Please sign in to leave a comment.

Recent Activity

Didn’t find what you’re looking for?