Wednesday Apr. 16, 2014
Comments on:
Say won't enforce any "unconstitutional" federal gun regulations
Let’s be civil.
The Flathead Beacon encourages vigorous discussion and lively debate, but we will delete comments that attack other readers, make accusations we can’t verify, stray too far off topic, criticize local businesses (call them if you have a problem), accuse someone of a crime, use profanity or are simply judged to be in bad taste. We don’t always have someone moderating comments, so we ask for your help: If you see a comment that violates these ground rules, or you simply deem it offensive, please e-mail webmaster [at]

The views expressed in the comments section do not reflect those of the Beacon.

  Newest First
By fcb on 01-25-13 @ 6:34 pm
21 up | 36 down

Hammers kill eveb more people. Ban Hammers, too ?
By Mark Phillips on 01-25-13 @ 6:50 pm
6 up | 39 down

The simple solution is to revoke the 2nd amendment to US Constitution so that the plenary powers of
the states will rule when making gun rules. Once Federal Constitution no longer mentions guns, states
have right to control them.
By Gabby Johnson on 01-25-13 @ 7:59 pm
37 up | 23 down

Sheriffs have a lot of discretion on how they run their departments, but this raises the
question of what other laws they choose to not enforce.
And since no new federal laws have been enacted by Congress and signed by the president, why are
they talking at all?
I feel bad for their deputies, cause they’re the ones who get shot at by right-wing paranoids
during traffic stops. Seen the videos? Don’t think the patrol officers don’t know it either.
They run concealed weapons permit checks whenever they run a plate. I hear them on the scanner.
Or maybe the deputy is just doing his job serving a warrant and the guy on the other side of the
door thinks it’s Obama there to take his guns, and he starts blasting away.
Disrespect for the law is a bad thing. Especially among sheriffs.
By Mark W. on 01-25-13 @ 8:53 pm
22 up | 43 down

I think the Sheriffs are doing right here to reassure the people that they won’t be left to the mercy of
left wing bomb throwers or shooters that might be inspired by the violent antics of the likes of Bill
Ayers or Bernardine Dohrn, now that their man is in office.  And who knows when atheist anarchists
from Democrat homes like Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold or James Holmes might finally go berserk if
the changes Obama has promised aren’t happening fast enough.  You see some of those clips
from Columbine?  They’re out there!  Not that’s it’s needed.  From Russia’s Bolshevik Revolution to
Castro’s Cuba, we all know what happens when left wing kooks don’t get what they want.  Glad a
few Sheriffs are looking to have our back
By Mark Phillips on 01-25-13 @ 10:12 pm
8 up | 26 down

Three snaps and a wave of the arm for the man in the corner. Pick your oppressor son. Right, Left or
Center. What matters is in between your ears. Good luck.
By Mark W. on 01-26-13 @ 12:19 am
15 up | 24 down

Gabby had raised an interesting point until he decided to infect it with inflammatory rhetoric.  There
are crazies on all sides of the political spectrum.  Maybe we might get further along if we call them
what they are: criminals. 
By JCW on 01-26-13 @ 8:41 am
22 up | 31 down

H.R. 11654 STRICTLY FORBIDS Gun Control within the United States.  It also states that this can
never be amended and the 2nd Amendment cannot be repealed.
By JCW on 01-26-13 @ 8:43 am
22 up | 34 down

It is claimed that 11,000+ deaths occured from “guns” last year.  It is a FACT that 8,500+ were
people being shot by the police.

So we can reduce the number of gun-related deaths in the U.S. BY 60% by disarming the police and
government agents.
By JCW on 01-26-13 @ 8:47 am
22 up | 40 down

The Sheriffs don’t have the right to CHOOSE whether or not to uphold the Constitution.  If they
don’t, they get removed from office and replaced by someone who will.

The federal gubmint doesn’t have the right to “remove arresting powers” from local Sheriffs.
It’s just another ploy to make people believe the feds have more power than they do.

Montana needs to NULLIFY any form of gun control.  There is no need for it.  There is no
“plague” of gun violence in the U.S.  That is just a lie spread by the government to try to
disarm innocent, law-abiding people.
By ride4fun on 01-26-13 @ 10:53 am
42 up | 21 down

There seem to be a lot of crazy people in Montana…..and they are NOT democrats.  I’ve not
heard anyone say the government would be confiscating guns.  And Federal Law ALWAYS wins over
state law.  I’m just saying…..
By Craig moore on 01-26-13 @ 10:57 am
13 up | 38 down

rid4fun,  you must live in a bubble.  Ever read DailyKos?

  The only way we can truly be safe and prevent further gun violence is to ban civilian
ownership of all guns. That means everything. No pistols, no revolvers, no semiautomatic or
automatic rifles. No bolt action. No breaking actions or falling blocks. Nothing. This is the
only thing that we can possibly do to keep our children safe from both mass murder and common
street violence.
===end quote===
By LogicalOne on 01-26-13 @ 11:59 am
14 up | 23 down

Governments tend to migrate to socialism over time, a factoid for ya.

However, my impression is that the Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Amendment
erosion and collapse under the self imposed “executive powers doctrine” would not have gone very far
if those citizens investigated under those orders were the majority of the population.

Only a few fall into scrutiny under a “terror” investigation or indictment where as a confiscation of
firearms would give rise to another civil war. Why? Because that is one the principle reasons why
people own firearms in the first place.

If those supporting the Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Amendments started shooting
at those approaching them to arrest them without probable cause…. there might be a different attitude
in the executive branch. But since that does not happen, they get away with these executive orders.

Obviously most of us know NO ONE who has been illegally detained for terror. So there goes the
mass histeria that would follow if it were to happen to everyone.

They won’t get away with it with the 2nd Amendment for that is the peoples’ “well armed” right.
By bocephusj57 on 01-26-13 @ 12:18 pm
30 up | 10 down

Craig:  Did you read the discussions that followed that piece?  The author got a LOT of pushback
from pro-2nd Amend. Democrats.  The author of that piece was not speaking for all Democrats,
just for him/her.
By Craig moore on 01-26-13 @ 1:08 pm
12 up | 27 down

bocephus, “all” and “anyone” are not synonyms.
By HRH Prince Michael on 01-26-13 @ 1:12 pm
43 up | 26 down

Firstly, “Pro-Second Amendment Democrats?”  Can you say “Gun Lobby”?
KNEW, you couldn’t.  Again, while I have defended the Second Amendment Right
of all Americans, for far too-long a cunning, careless, greedy, and self-glorifying
Industry organization (Read:  NRA) has been allowed to translate their sales-agenda,
to U.S. Policy (Read:  Lobbyists).  All the while, shrouded under MY U.S. Flag.
Our Divinely-inspired U.S. Constitution gives it’s citizens The Right to Bear Arms.
A large, personal armory? NOT.
Meanwhile, the brave Sheriffs bring-up an important issue, regarding over-reaching
Fed-Christian-Child-Burning-Traitor-Coward-########:  The Right to Redress, ANYONE?

The House of David 2 Chronicles Victory, is HERE:
NOW, The Most Holy Christ King Yeshua reigns!
By Fast on 01-26-13 @ 4:10 pm
13 up | 23 down

Nothing like priming the Sheepoeple for the next election. Yee Haw
By bocephusj57 on 01-26-13 @ 8:21 pm
24 up | 8 down

Thesaurus begs to differ.

“Synonyms:  a person, all, any of, any person, anybody, anybody at all, each and every one,
everybody, everyone, masses, one, public, whole world “
By montanaeasy56 on 01-27-13 @ 9:44 am
27 up | 14 down

These macho sheriffs have amusingly phrased their opposition as those that
are “unconstitutional”. What the public doesnt know or refused to research is that in Heller V.
DC, while the United States Supreme Court (a conservative court, I might add) ruled that no
local, county, state, or federal entity can take away the right for individuals to have a firearm,
the decision does appear to allow for these entities to restrict certain types of firearms. It is
already illegal for individuals to own a fully automatic weapon. To put this is perspective. In a
crowded theater it is perfectly “legal” to scream PLEASE PASS THE POPCORN, but totally
illegal to scream FIRE!.
I find it amusing that all these “constitutional” scholars are screaming bloody murder in this
instance but when Bush took away rights following 9/11 under the guise of the Patriot Act, their
silence was deafening. I guess it matter what party does the takings. But don’t get your panties
all in a bundle, all this hoopla will disappear just like it did in ‘08. The gun manufacturers will
make tons of money, the NRA will increase their memberships and it will die down again in
about 6 months.
By mooseberryinn on 01-27-13 @ 10:47 am
17 up | 34 down

Nicely said Craig.  most likely correct, montananeasy56.  I suppose the ill-informed, and/or
uneducated, non-owners of guns may well continue their screaming hysterical protests etc.  while
they are so engaged, they might want to ask themselves why their demo-dummy politicos want to
keep their own weapons, but get rid of, or limit ours?  Ya see, the Obama followers don’t know what
an assault rifle is, but it must be bad because Joe D’Buffoon said so.  at least Old Joe said one
good thing - get a shotgun.  a good pump action would do OK.  But not a Mossberg - they look like
‘assault” shot guns. Might scare the idiot demo-dummies.  Note - several stores are nearly out of
ammo - keep checking and stock up asap.
By waterman on 01-27-13 @ 3:11 pm
27 up | 35 down

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million
dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. 
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to
defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. 
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and
others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated. 
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents,
unable to defend themselves,  were rounded up and exterminated.
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable
to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to
defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people,
unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control:
56 million.

You can hit the thumbs down all you want. Still will not change the facts.
By Herc Driver on 01-28-13 @ 7:10 am
31 up | 11 down

Waterman:  If the gov’t wants to round you up and exterminate you, all the assualt rifles in the world won’t stop them. 
You’ll neither hear hear nor see the drone that fires the hellfire missile that turns you into red mist.
By waterman on 01-28-13 @ 9:15 am
11 up | 27 down

I was not claiming to be immune to U.S. military firepower. The above comment is just a
statement of fact. The history and signs are out there for everyone to see that gun control is one of
the first steps the gov,t uses to manipulate the masses.
This is the time for the people to stand up and be counted as being against any gun control.. To
be silent is to be complacent.
By LogicalOne on 01-28-13 @ 10:53 am
18 up | 12 down

Herc Driver you are escalating it a bit too far.

Even in the middle east, soldiers have refused orders to disarm and disable its citizens.

I would wager a huge bet that our military would refuse to shoot a missile into Ferndale for ANY
reason much less to collecta few AR15s or a hand full of clips when there are 300 million of them out

Your proposal is borderline preposterous that the same folks in the military would follow orders to kill
friends, neighbors or family over anything!

We could not get half the Viet Nam military to kill anyone the last half of that war.  When it becomes
against our morals and principles of the Constitution, you are wrong about the escalation possibilites.
By shillbot on 01-28-13 @ 2:29 pm
21 up | 7 down

Good point LogicalOne - it gets a bit draining to live in such a naturally protected part of the country
and have to read/listen to the amount of fear mongering that goes on here.  It may just be me but
the conspiracy theories on all kinds of government issues seem to be so much more prevalent in
this great state.  Sheriff Curry states, “I understand where [the other sheriffs] are coming from and
why they’re taking a hard line, but I think it’s important to not fall into any extremist attitude” - ya
think?  I am grateful for the freedoms this country has allowed me but the big U.S. government and
the fear escalating citizens who live under it will never dictate my freedoms through their legislature
or conspiracy theory backwoods rhetoric.  I will fear God alone.
By Herc Driver on 01-28-13 @ 7:59 pm
28 up | 10 down

LogicalOne:  My point exactly - there is no chance that our gov’t is going to turn on it’s citizens.  Nor is our gov’t
going to take away anyone’s guns.  They are merely proposing reasonable controls to reverse the current trend of
increasing gun violence.
By Brik on 01-29-13 @ 11:02 am
6 up | 23 down

Senator Feinstien’s gun limiting bill is exactly that - An attempt by our gov’t to limit 2nd
Amendment Rights.

In addition to that, we’ve got a Flathead County Sheriff that can’t recognize gun limiting legislation
when it comes across his desk. Thank God, we don’t have all 56 Counties in Montana or across
the USA with a Chuck Curry for Sheriff, whose anti-resistant attitude towards limiting gun measures
is a singular reason to: Vote Chuck Curry out of office in 2014.
By Herc Driver on 01-30-13 @ 6:35 am
17 up | 5 down

You are all so concerned about your guns, the Fed Gov’t, wolves, etc.  Meanwhile, however, education and job skills
continue to fall further behind the rest of the developed world, high personal debt and lack of savings are abysmal,
and our national infrastructure is crumbling.  Those are the things that should concern you, as they are causing our
nation to stumble, not a ban on assault weapons, limiting magazine capacity, or stronger background checks. 

Thank you Sheriff Curry for having common sense and standing up for what is right.
By JosephineDoody on 01-30-13 @ 8:20 am
5 up | 24 down


Please refrain from telling us “the things that should concern us.” 

Brik is right to be concerned about a Sheriff who seems all to quick to dismiss citizens concerns
regarding the limiting of gun rights and the government’s assault on the 2nd Amendment.

As the County’s top law enforcement official, Chuck Curry should be trained in recognizing and
defining an assault when he sees one. Obama and Feinstien’s assault on our 2nd Amendment
rights is real whether you choose to see it or not. Chuck Curry should consider spending less time
belittling citizens who take this threat for what it is more time to perhaps re-visit the Oath Of Office
he took to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
By waterman on 01-30-13 @ 9:06 am
7 up | 19 down

Herc- I am aginst tighter gun restrictions not because I am afraid of losing my assault rife and
magazines. I am against it because it is nothing more than the first steps to ban all guns and
rewrite our constitution. When the gov’t does that, I will have nothing les than a butter knife to
defend myself and family with.
If the anti gun groups were truely concerned about violence in schools than why are they opposed
to self defense in schools ? Cannot even have a pocket knife in school. Their answer is to take
away all guns and put up more ‘no-guns allowed’ signs. ‘No-guns allowed’ signs are the perfect
sign for criminals know where the most victims are unarmed and defenseless.
A persons right to self-defense is even beyond our constitution to take away. It is god given and
man or gov’t cannot regulate it.
By LogicalOne on 01-30-13 @ 11:18 am
22 up | 1 down

Doody…  other mini doodies…..

The Sheriff DID Not dismiss anyone’s concerns about their rights,  all he said was, he KNEW about
the POTENTIAL of an assault and said it was too early to get all jiggy about it and soap box about the
this wave of worry about it. 

Curry said, It’s “premature to puff up our chests and start talking about things that will never come to

Obviously he is smart enough to know when he sees an assault weapon… but he is just as smart to
recognize the improbability of an assault weapon ban from passing congress as well. Smart is smart.

Therefore he need to say nothing more because eg. kids are shooting at the cops in the Flathead for
one thing so this “imaginary threat” so far is a just a VERY premature exercise in time consumption
for this busy top law enforcement leader.

I am sure if it looks like if Congress ever got serious about passing unconstitutional laws, the Sheriff
would stand on his oath. 

Even if you are in court…. you are only sworn once!  The judge never makes witnesses that the oath
again.  And the Sheriff should not have to either to just to please you.
By JosephineDoody on 01-30-13 @ 5:56 pm
2 up | 19 down

@ IllogicalOne
You said, “I am sure if it looks like if Congress ever got serious about passing unconstitutional
laws, the Sheriff would stand on his oath.”

Really? You’re 100% certain about that? Because based upon Curry’s statements in the Interlake,
that’s a pretty big leap. We need a Sheriff that recognizes an assault when one presents itself.
Evidently, Obama & Feinstien move to limit our gun rights isn’t enough to trouble King Curry.

BTW…wouldn’t your time be better served trying to defend a City Airport Exansion we neither want,
need or can afford? You remember that, Illogical One. The citizen referendum that was NEVER
supposed to amount to anything…Oh, that’s right - it’s on the ballot this year after a successful
petition drive - something else that was NEVER going to happen according to you.
By LogicalOne on 01-30-13 @ 6:02 pm
21 up | 2 down


They call the people you want “puppets”. 

Good luck finding one at the Sheriff’s office or the airport.

Love Logi
By JosephineDoody on 01-30-13 @ 7:53 pm
3 up | 16 down

Poor IllogicalOne. You couldn’t recognize a puppet if it sat in your lap and called you “Kermie.”

Whose puppet are you in the whole City Airport Expansion scam?
By RIGHTOFCENTER on 01-30-13 @ 8:41 pm
5 up | 19 down

I am posting the statement from Sanders County Sheriff Tom Rummel, who is a real patriot at the
bottom. The citizens of Sanders County are lucky to have him for Sheriff. He makes it crystal
clear where he stands with regards to the 2nd Amendment. I wonder what he thinks of Curry’s
statements as reported in the Daily Interlake:

“I think it’s perhaps premature to puff up our chests and start talking about things that will
never come to pass,” Curry said.


“I understand where [the other sheriffs] are coming from and why they’re taking a hard line, but
I think it’s important to not fall into any extremist attitude,” Curry said.

Is Curry saying that Sheriff Rummel is “puffing up his chest” and has an “extremist attitude?.

What do you think? Following is the statement Sheriff Rummel wrote:

January 22, 2013

Ladies and Gentlemen of Sanders County

By now you are all well aware of the grievous criminal event that took place at Sandy Hook
Elementary. I am sure you are also aware of the proposed gun control rules and regulations the
President is considering in the wake of this tragedy.

The intent of this letter is to clear up any doubts you, the law abiding citizens, may have on
my stance on gun control and the Constitution. I have taken an oath to protect and defend the
Constitution of United States and the state of Montana. Myself and my deputies take that
responsibility very seriously. Our right to self defense is first and foremost God given. This
right is then protected in both the United States and Montana State Constitutions.

My duty as Sheriff is to make sure you, the citizens, are protected from the criminal, whether
that criminal come with a weapon, or a pen.

There is also a broader spectrum that needs to be considered. Once this line is crossed and the
integrity of the Constitution has been compromised, where does this stop. Are our freedoms of
speech, religion, press and assembly next to fall by the mere stroke of a pen.

I do believe history is replete with the consequences unarmed citizens have suffered at the
hands of a despot. Heaven forbid that we as citizens of the greatest nation the world has ever
known would suffer the same.

I, therefore want you to know that myself and my deputies will not enforce any federal
regulations enacted by congress, or executive orders of the President circumventing the
constitutional rights of the citizens of Sanders County. So help me God.

In your service,

Tom Rummel

Sanders County Sheriff

By mooseberryinn on 01-30-13 @ 9:46 pm
2 up | 22 down

I am more ready to trust our local sheriffs, than King Obama, his regime, and his puppet master. 
While living in West Germany in the 70’s, I spoke with several members of the WWII surviving
generation.  They never took Hitler seriously, not until his SS, Gestapo, and the Brown Shirts
confiscated any weapons they could find.  Even then, there were those willing to trust in Hitler’s
grand speeches.  They looked forward to prosperity, and more comfortable lives as Hitler promised. 
At present, in the U.S., there are many scary similarities.  Be wary of King Obama’s brand of
promises and “good news”.
By bopho on 01-30-13 @ 9:47 pm
19 up | 1 down

Notice how Sheriff Rummel failed to mention 4th Amendment freedoms worth protecting.

We the people have already given those up without a whimper. 

Think Patriot Act.  Think forfeiture.
By LogicalOne on 01-31-13 @ 8:05 am
12 up | 2 down

Hahaha Doody…. YOU and all the mini doodis out there are my puppets.

You played right into my hand.

Remember the #1 Issue with your Quiet Skies group was to close or move the airport.

My whole strategy was to divide that movement.

By pulling your strings, and having other puppets get all bent out of shape over sappy non-issues like
“pilots are special”,, the citizens are pay a LOT for a few, and all the rest of the hype that came up
and it worked.

Instead of closing it.  It stays.  I won .... you loose.

Now when the vote comes, we shall see if your grumpy “Kalispell is hostile to business” attitude
shuns 25 million dollars injected into the community by the FAA funding (not a loan.. a gift)  to
improve the airport.

I win either way, and you ARE the puppet.

Call the sheriff and ask him to safe you from the master!
By mooseberryinn on 01-31-13 @ 9:13 am
3 up | 12 down

Logical One - There are no such things as ‘gifts” from the Federal gov’t.  The money is our tax dollars
being spent as the regime decrees.  Long Live the Anointed One, his Imperial majesty, King for life,
Chairman Obama.  And - If you should fail to support all that King Obama and the regime say you
should?  Well, you must be an extremist, a racist, a fanatic, and/or maybe a gun toting, bible reading
“little People” out there in the wilds of uneducated Montana.
By LogicalOne on 01-31-13 @ 10:16 am
11 up | 1 down


for 20 years now… when Prince Obama (verbiage so you will understand) was a teenager,
the FAA collected users fees from the airlines, jet fuel sales etc. earmarked only for Airport
Improvement.  So you ought to educate yourself before you call all critters predators for your twisted
emotional pleas against socialism, facism and Godism.

FAA Airport funding is indeed a gift… not a general fund or debt ceiling line item… so you can’t lump it
into the killing of your grandkids chances of survival.  A better airport will serve your grandkids better
when they need.

Don’t listen to the sheriff bashing, airport hating OLD farts who be be long gone in a few years as they
try to convince everyone it is scheme to take your hard earned money.

No one has noticed any money flying out of their wallets for Kalispell City Airport for 83 years now. 
But there is 25 MILLION dollars of free money waiting for the smart citizens of Kalispell to make a
better airport.

Thumbs up!
By mooseberryinn on 01-31-13 @ 11:26 am
3 up | 13 down

Ah, I am enlightened.  “user’s fees” are not “taxes”.  “jet fuel sales” (taxes) are not taxes.  The federal
funds are not derived from “Taxes”.  Must be they’re just “fees”.  Well, then that’s just OK and/or
peachy.  The moneys collected are just kind of like say, Social Security taxes, or Medicare Taxes, or
federal gas Taxes.  It’s OK, because all those moneys are “earmarked”.  I feel much better now.  thank
you for your infinite wisdom and clarity.
By LogicalOne on 01-31-13 @ 11:34 am
13 up | 3 down

ANd mooseberryinn…..  thats the way most of the world pays for airports…. user fees.

But heck,  you are not old enough to remember when Caesar Augustus was consider by many to be
the most brilliant tax strategist of the Roman Empire.

During his reign as “First Citizen” the publicani were virtually eliminated as tax collectors for the
central government.  During this period cities were given the responsibility for collecting taxes. 
Caesar Augustus instituted an inheritance tax to provide retirement funds for the military. 

The tax was 5 percent on all inheritances except gifts to children and spouses.  The English and
Dutch referred to the inheritance tax of Augustus in developing their own inheritance taxes.

But heck you might as well blame everyone but yourself for taxes being collected!

The trick is to figure out how to get some of them for your pet projects….. since the beginning of

So moosey,  don’t be so bitter!  Enjoy your ride on planet Earth and try to make things work to please
By RIGHTOFCENTER on 01-31-13 @ 12:55 pm
5 up | 14 down

After the voters of the City of Kalispell reject your scam to get them to pay for your recreation at
that airport nobody uses.  The next step will be to get rid of the airport and put the land into its
highest and best use.  This scheme of yours needs to be defeated one step at a time.
By JosephineDoody on 01-31-13 @ 6:58 pm
4 up | 10 down

Poor IllogicalOne.
I’m perfectly comfortable with you being wrong. I’m just sorry I won’t be in the room to see your face
when you discover you’ve been had.
Kellyn Brown
Kellyn Brown15h
Detroit Selling Foreclosed Homes For $1,000 In City's Latest Attempt To Rebuild via @consumerist
Dillon Tabish
Dillon Tabish8h
EPA official: "We're ready to designate this site as a Superfund site." #CFAC #mtnews
Molly Priddy
Molly Priddy11h
@ilikemints Same.
Tristan Scott
Tristan Scott18h
Developers Pitch Scaled-Down Version of Whitefish Subdivision New proposal emerges for 62-lot subdivision
Flathead Beacon
FB Headlines9h
Public meeting to get public reaction to having CFAC added to Nat Priorities list; won't add it without community support #mtnews