http://www.panamalaw.org/montana_gov...w_gun_law.html
Printable View
Good for Montana. Now ... only 49 to go.
-MP
What I find amazing about these laws is that they have to enumerate the rights already enumerated in the Constitution. But I do love the wording used by the enumerations in this law.
This is a good law; the law is good.
Now only if I could find some ammo...
Why are people so emotional about guns?
Originally, it was thought that the populace could rise up and throw off an oppressive govenrment. Does anybody really believe that would happen? No matter what form of government, there is a significant percentage of the population that supports them. A rabble in the late 1700s STILL couldn't have any significant impact on government (see the Whiskey Rebellion). These days, you'd need a cohesive mass movement and even then it would be unlikely. Rifles and handguns just don't win wars anymore. So does anybody think it through and believe that guns make any real difference?
I mostly encounter this issue with hikers. There are a couple segments who carry guns because of fears that they acknowledge. Ok, only one segment: Law enforcement personnel. For the rest, they carry guns because of one irrational fear or another, and most rationalize it away. If they said, "I'm afraid of x, and a gun is the only way I feel safe in the woods.", then I'd agree with them. Whatever it takes. Instead, you just hear rationalizations. All kinds of justifications for a heavy, and largely useless, tool, but never the real one: "I'm afraid."
Ok! So I could buy a gun in Montana, drive across state lines kill someone then drive back across state lines and kill someone in Montana and I'd have to deal with two laws, state plus federal?Quote:
Important Points – If guns and ammunition are manufactured inside the State of Montana for sale and use inside that state then the federal firearms laws have no applicability since the federal government only has the power to control commerce across state lines. Montana has the law on their side. Since when did the USA start following their own laws especially the constitution of the USA, the very document that empowers the USA.
So, which part are you wanting clarification on?Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightwalker83
The fact that you can buy a gun in Montana;
You can take it across state lines;
You can kill someone with it in another state;
You can kill someone in Montana; or
The fact that you'd have to contend with both federal and state law?
;)
It does state 'for use in Montana', indicating that it's likely that only Montana residents would be allowed to purchase the gun that is Made in Montana. But you don't need a Made in Montana gun to kill someone in another state, or even Montana.
I would tend to agree: why are people so emotional about guns?Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
People are so emotional that they want everyone to not be armed;
Those that are get emotional over the issue that so many people want to control what they can do.
I do tend to see a 'projection' of fear from those who are they themselves not armed. Are people so fearful that they need to be armed? Not really. Anyone rational would be fearful of someone who is breaking into their house. This may be the rationale for owning a gun. And why not? Is it fair to take away a gun from a young woman who has the gun because she is fearful of being attacked?
There is another side to the coin regarding this fear: living in a country where you may exhibit both this very fear [of being attacked], in addition to the fear that you are denied the means to defend oneself, as well as the fact that your government deems you fighting back as a crime.
Noted, this incidence of crime/attack is actually extremely very rare (crime against a truly innocent victim), but it's the randomness of the act that tends to make people balance the odds on their side.
Side story: an acquaintance of mine recently came back from a kayaking trip in the far, far north. The local authorities specified the weapons they had to carry - they were not allowed to continue on their trip without certain defenses to protect themselves against a polar bear attack (it included a high powered rifle two shotguns, an electric fence as well as numerous flash-bangs). The chance of a polar bear attack is pretty much nil: there has been only one unprovoked wild polar bear attack ever recorded.
You hedge your bets in your favor: the chance is low, but when the number is up, rolling over is not an option. Similarly, the chance of a serious auto accident is pretty damned small, yet we protect ourselves with airbags and seatbelts against the event that it may happen. We don't do it out of 'fear' so much, but as a precaution against an event that we don't ever want to happen.
With so much of a 'rage' against gun owners, it isn't so surprising that gun owners 'rage' back (I was going to say 'fight' but that, for some inexplicable reason, upsets the anti-gun nuts...).
:lol: It would be the need for two different judicial systems! Like what happens,Quote:
Originally Posted by SJWhiteley
if you are from Montana, buy a gun, go across state lines, kill some then go back again and kill some else. What happens? There would be two bodies one in Montana and one in another state. Which judicial system gets the case and why?
The government took our guns off us, well the people that are not a criminal.
I am not a lawyer but I believe the fact that you killed the first person after crossing a state line (assuming you are from Montana) makes it an interstate case and the second killing being done with the same weapon makes the two cases related. Any other crimes that you commit within each state that do not involve the gun such as breaking and entering, raping chickens, or exposing yourself in public but not on an interstate or within a federal building or park could be tried by the individual states courts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightwalker83
But who has jurisdiction if you buy a gun in Montana and kill someone on a federal wildlife preserve in Montana?
or any other federal place in Montana for that matter! Or what if you use a knife? :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by KTech
I don't think you have that quite right. I'm pretty sure that I have heard about more than one unprovoked polar bear attack. Could your data be just for that area?Quote:
Originally Posted by SJWhiteley
There are places in Alaska and other areas where I would want to have a gun with me, but there's nowhere in the lower 48 where it makes rational sense in the back country (unless you're hunting). Even up there, a gun has to be thought through. Brown bears can move so much faster than we can, and dense vegetation can make encounters so sudden, that guns may not be effective, and are never sufficient. I'd say that being fundamentally alien and unappetizing is a better defense for us.
I have always favored a gun license much like you get to operate a car. In Idaho, to go hunting, even with a bow, you have to pass a hunter safety course. The course focuses more on ethics, perhaps, but gun safety is still part of it. Hunting accidents are quite rare in this state, which may be partially due to the hunter safety courses.
Edit: In case anybody misses the irony here, it is this: If you have a gun to shoot anything other than humans, then you have to take a gun safety course. If the gun is for shooting people (after all, you aren't defending your house against elk), then no safety course is required.
When I think about home defense, I realize that, while most of my friends are hunters, they aren't so much keeping guns to defend their houses, but keeping houses to defend their guns. There may be no more popular target of theft, so everybody I know keeps guns stowed in such a way that they are quite useless for defense of anything.
Some people see guns as tools, others as talismans. It's the latter group that disturbs me. You shouldn't carry a hammer into the woods on the off hand chance that you might encounter a nail. You simply can't carry all of the possible tools that are out there. Instead, you have to identify the situations that you might encounter, and carry the items you need to deal with them. There are situations where a gun would be useful, but any casual contemplation will lead to the conclusion that those situations will arise VERY fast and without warning. Therefore, the gun itself is not useful unless it is in your hand when the need arises.
I would expect that if people thought through the non-hunting scenarios that they are carrying a gun to prevent, and honestly evaluated their possible responses to them, they'd realize that, just as guns don't kill people, guns don't protect people, either.
Shag, That's like me asking why gays are so emotional about wanting the right to wed. For some people that's part of their lives whether it be for fun, sport, protection, or collecting. In some cases guns are passed down through generations and so they have non-instrumental value. So when a liberal whos never touched a gun aggressively pushes their agenda to get rid of them, how do you expect a gun owner react?Quote:
Why are people so emotional about guns?
I wouldn't give hunter safety courses any credit. I went through one and you do nothing besides take a test to prove you can properly handle a gun. The reason hunting accidents are so rare is that hunters are usually trained by a relative from a young age and allowed gradual responsibility.Quote:
Hunting accidents are quite rare in this state, which may be partially due to the hunter safety courses.
Interesting thought, Shag. A gun gives an extensive amount of authority to a person in a lot of situations. A police officer must go through a lot of training to be allowed this authority, so why shouldn't anyone else who wants it?Quote:
Edit: In case anybody misses the irony here, it is this: If you have a gun to shoot anything other than humans, then you have to take a gun safety course. If the gun is for shooting people (after all, you aren't defending your house against elk), then no safety course is required.
Do they keep them in an underground vault they don't know the combination to?Quote:
everybody I know keeps guns stowed in such a way that they are quite useless for defense of anything.
Very true; however, in those situations what do people want? They either want a gun or they want to see a good guy with a gun (police).Quote:
those situations will arise VERY fast and without warning
That's quite true, but I wasn't actually talking about gun confiscation. In general, I don't take a position on guns, other than feeling that people should be minimally licensed, as we are for driving. The one place that really bothers me is the debate in hiking circles. For a guy who weighs his spoons, and took a scale to all the sporting goods stores to buy a fishing reel, the debate about guns in the backcountry bugs the heck out of me because I feel that people are not thinking through the situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by System_Error
On the other hand, I really shouldn't vent that ire here.
Some are better than others. The course in this state seems to be pretty lengthy and comprehensive. Of course, like any other class, the students can forget most everything the moment they walk out the door.Quote:
I wouldn't give hunter safety courses any credit. I went through one and you do nothing besides take a test to prove you can properly handle a gun.
This can probably be studied empirically. It is my understanding that the incidence of hunting accidents has declined considerably since hunting safety classes became common, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything, nor do I spend any time dwelling on the actual studies.Quote:
The reason hunting accidents are so rare is that hunters are usually trained by a relative from a young age and allowed gradual responsibility.
Yeah.Quote:
Interesting thought, Shag. A gun gives an extensive amount of authority to a person in a lot of situations. A police officer must go through a lot of training to be allowed this authority, so why shouldn't anyone else who wants it?
Pretty nearly. Not underground, though, as the humidity would be sub optimal. In any case, they are not readily accessible.Quote:
Do they keep them in an underground vault they don't know the combination to?
I tend to agree. I'm rarely around people who engage in such conversations, but when I am it's quite annoying. However, since most are uneducated I don't expect anything less.Quote:
the debate about guns in the backcountry bugs the heck out of me because I feel that people are not thinking through the situation.
Could be true for some, I guess. I took mine a long time ago in early middle school. We had a few classes and then took an exam on questions like "If you are carrying a gun and want to cross a fence, what do you do?" I thought it was worthless, but then again I have only heard of one accident (which was deadly) and it happened this past year.Quote:
Some are better than others. The course in this state seems to be pretty lengthy and comprehensive. Of course, like any other class, the students can forget most everything the moment they walk out the door.
Shaggy, I may have mis-quoted the stats; I believe it was something like 'fatalities in alaska', or something like that...even so, it's a small number compared to the precautions taken.
Additionally, if you can't vent your ire here, you'll just end up bottling it inside and...going postal?
Are you certain you mean uneducated? That may come across as snobbery: a rocket scientist as a brain surgeon conference could be considered uneducated...:pQuote:
Originally Posted by System_Error
A firearm is a simple tool. Not as simple as a ladder, and neither require a lot of education to operate. I have a strong inkling that the number of deaths from falling off a ladder are probably disproportionately high...even so, a basic dose of common sense is probably in order for both.
Most states do have a firearm licensing if you wish to carry that firearm outside your home (I hear bear attacks at the 7-11 are on the rise again...). Concealable weapons, anyway.
I believe the main cause of the 'not thinking' aspect (as opposed to ignorance or a lack of education) is down to one of the natures of man: if you push me, I will push back. In this case, individuals and groups adamantly opposing personal firearm ownership, with no better argument than 'as seen on TV', causes a significant backlash. True, the stereotypical 'gun fanatic' is less than tacit in their response.
When you also consider the supreme law of the land, many are very vocal with regards to the freedom of speech; would one not expect those who follow such laws, when others seek to deny them their rights under this law, to be just as vocal and forthright?
That's true. I suspect that if I lived there I'd quickly become complacent.Quote:
Originally Posted by SJWhiteley
That's good. The post office takes a couple days. E-mail is instantaneous;)Quote:
Additionally, if you can't vent your ire here, you'll just end up bottling it inside and...going postal?
I try to avoid that mistake, but I don't always catch it. Ignorant is a better word, though it technically leaves an open question.Quote:
Are you certain you mean uneducated? That may come across as snobbery: a rocket scientist as a brain surgeon conference could be considered uneducated...:p
By the way, I have several funny hunting accident stories, which is not always the case. There was a guy approaching a game check station who was slowing down well ahead of time. The guys at the station assumed that he had forgotten to properly tag his deer, and was frantically attempting to do so as he was driving. The truck kept slowing more and more, then there was a loud report, and it stopped completely. The guys ran up to the truck and found that the driver had been carrying his loaded rifle beside him, but pointed down. As he was working on the tag, he had managed to fire off a round...right through his transmission. The truck ran fine, it just wouldn't go anywhere anymore. That was a $1000 deer.
We also had a hunters education instructor who shot his own truck, which caused a few comments.
Funny hunting accidents are the exception, though.
Alcohol and Ammo
most of u have probably seen this but its a cracker :)