Comments on: Montana Fires a Warning Shot Over States’ Rights
Newest First
By By and By on 04-29-09 @ 1:15 pm
This seems like a great thing for all the gun nuts to grab when really it’s a bait and hook for them to get caught on. By including in the bill that there’s no background checks etc…. it’s basically feeding the flames of anti gun supporters. It does little to nothing to help gun rights. It may actually hurt more in the long run then help anything.
“Man is the only kind of varmint who sets his own trap, baits it, then steps on it. “John Steinbeck
By Think Again on 04-29-09 @ 1:53 pm
By By and By, your dislike of “gun nuts” is your problem. The Federal Government has used the “interstate” argument to justify all sorts of unconstitutional junk. Clearly, the States can do a far better job of managing “guns” - like a lot of other things like education. It is time for a new Constitutional Convention. First, every state needs to pass a “10th Amendment” resolution. Just imagine what will happen in DC when 30 states get serious!
By By and By on 04-29-09 @ 2:54 pm
@ThinkAgain - Jumping to conclusions about what I dislike is a bit wrong on your part. I don’t dislike “gun nuts”, I was more repeating what was said as below in the article;
“Guns cross state lines and they do so constantly, and this is a Sagebrush Rebellion-type effort to light some sort of fire and get something going that’s pleasing to the gun nuts and that has very little actual sense,” said Peter Hamm, communications director for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.”
What I do dislike is junk laws that are said to be one thing and really are another. I also don’t think getting rid of background checks is intelligent. None of us want Felons to be able to buy guns legally or not. Why make it easier for them in MT? I’d love to buy a nice semi auto made in MT though without having to be registered. If only we could have an un-recorded method of doing background checks.
I’m all for a Constitutional Convention, if it didn’t include any of the crooks currently in office.
By By and By on 04-29-09 @ 7:03 pm
@tooldie - It only counts if made in MT and non AUTO. Semi is ok though but no burst or full auto. So where do I get these blueprints and what type of machining skills do I need?
By Brian on 04-30-09 @ 7:33 am
does no one study history ? every democratic or republic nation that allowed its federal arm to tax and pass laws with impunity limiting what citizens could do and finally even say have become police states. citizens had no rights other than to provide for the ruling class and thier lives became a living nightmare! the line between police state and free society is invisible but is crossed when segments of its citizens say that something is not right and you cant do it because you are incapable of seeing your own mistakes so we will correct them for you! all this is done with a carefully crafted concern for the welfare of all concerned. when you take away a persons ability to make their own choices good or bad you take away their freedom! all because some one does not want things they dont like to continue, saying it infringes on their rights. what about the rights of the citizens that have had their beliefs, activities or lives curtailed, censored and infringed upon? when you start taking away the rights of others to support only your veiw point even if its just a little bit at atime you have become a tyrant yourself! the founding forefathers of our great country had to fight pledging their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor even making the ultimate sacrifice to win freedom from tyranny. we founded our great nation on the principles of freedom for all not freedom for some and limitations for all the rest. the greatest protector of our freedoms is the states we reside in as they keep the federal branch from legislating our freedoms into oblivion! the individual states allow for the give and take needed for a fluid govenment that freedom requires. to put it in terms we all understand the smaller groups and individuals comprising states are like neighborhoods which in turn form a city. the danger comes when individuals from those neighborhoods join the city government and fail to listen to the groups and individuals they came from and listen only to the persons that share their own way of thinking and then impose it on the rest by making laws one step at a time to restrain the freedoms of others. that is why we as free men and women must encourage our elected state officials to challenge the power of the federal branch in order to sustain our freedoms from those who would take them away. before you say lets pass a law restricting this or that stop and think how you would react to someone restricting you! its in our differences and diversity that we achive our full potential, not in making others behave as we want them to! freedom to engage in useful interaction is what made our country great not the repression of others rights!!! lets behave in a way that would have our founding fathers smile in approval and tell big brother to stick it! God bless Montana where freedom still lives!
By JB on 04-30-09 @ 9:32 am
HB228 was signed into law by the governor on Monday!!! GREAT NEWS!!!!! Now we are talking about a shot across the bow for states rights!!! Be sure to send a thank you to the governor and all concerned for getting this important legislation passed!!!
By Trouble on 04-30-09 @ 6:06 pm
Congratulations Montana!! Your House, Senate, and Governor all stood up for your freedom on this issue!
I hope and pray that other states will soon follow.
As for gun control, that means using both hands. If we were properly exercising our Second Amendment Right, violent crime would be a rare thing indeed. Even crooks sometimes value their own lives enough to avoid robbing an armed citizen.
By ZooTown024 on 04-30-09 @ 7:10 pm
Do you people actually think that this bill was about asserting states rights? Umm….Montana is a state where a feeble issue such as guns is an issue of political suicide if you’re on the wrong side. Let me pose this hypothetical. In states with medical marijuana the DEA raids dispensaries and puts those folks in jail. What do you think will happen to people who actually try and take advantage of this legislation. Do you really think the ATF won’t shut these people down. It is the exact same thing with the DEA and the medical marijuana folks. This is symbolic only in its form. This is a piece of legislation that was not vetoed simply because in Montana it would be the difference between being governor and being a lobbyist/rancher. So people can slap high fives and go out fire their rifles in the air but in the end it changes nothing. Federal law trumps state law, as poor as that is it is fact, sorry folks.
By grannysgadgets on 04-30-09 @ 9:10 pm
2nd amendment is a important issue, along with the 1st, and the ones that follow….. What more important to the United States of America then following our Constitution ? It is what this great country was built on ! If we start letting others pick and choose what rights are important, and others they deem not, well what would this country end up being ??By the way Zoo…. Does that mean you wont be out there *high fiving* and shooting rifles with us ???
By ZooTown024 on 04-30-09 @ 9:16 pm
No Granny I will not because if you understood what my comment was about I think you would see that we are fairly close to being right in line with each other on this particular issue. I am 100% for states rights, the sad fact is the states do not have rights. The states have the rights the federal governement deems appropriate.
By grannysgadgets on 04-30-09 @ 9:20 pm
Zoo : The states have rights as protected under the 10th amendment ! Also states have rights within their own constitutions that they wrote, and then by signing the United States agreed to ! There are state rights, just a little cob web covered as with much of the constitution from not being exersized in so long ! However I am sure that not many in DC will be happy to see the various states doing this !
By grannysgadgets on 04-30-09 @ 9:23 pm
Anyhoo Zoo it’s late, and I will have to give up on our little debates for the night ! It’s been interesting, love people that can state their case, and not sink to name calling, even if it can turn to arguing !Good night !
By ZooTown024 on 04-30-09 @ 9:32 pm
So I guess the the government is infringing on the rights of every state that has passed medical marijuana? Well, maybe these states should be suing, oh wait, the supreme court ruled that the feds can indeed intervene on the interstate commerce regarding medical marijuana, unfortunately I assume it will be the same with guns. Yes, you can talk 10th ammendment all you want but have you forgotten it is the supreme court that interprets the meaning of the consitution and the legislation that pertains.
By ZooTown024 on 04-30-09 @ 9:34 pm
Indeed Granny it is late…have a good night, it has indeed been interesting. I figured you would be up all night worrying about the swine flu.
By Cowgirl up on 04-30-09 @ 10:31 pm
Brian..very well said…thank youu!
By ZooTown024 on 04-30-09 @ 10:48 pm
In responding to the last sentence in Brians comment. How is Montana this bastion of individual and civil rights? Am I missing something that sets Montana’s governement apart from others? Seriously, what am I missing? I understand the people here absolutely do have that attitude but how has the government upheld this principal? Please don’t say the new gun issue because every state has had their own issues every now and again that go against the feds.
By Cowgirl up on 04-30-09 @ 11:08 pm
Zoo…your right! Every state does have it’s own issues. Maybe the people are just trying to make a statement to the government that we are tired of the big brother syndrome. Maybe in our small way we feel like we are doing something about it, or trying to. Indeed, it is the supreme court that interprets the meaning of the consitution…but it has to stop somewhere. I don’t have the answer…but there has to be one somewhere…or we will all become nothing in the course of government. Somewhere, someone has to take a stand.
By Trouble on 05-01-09 @ 12:45 am
@ZooTown024Need to read your Constitution guy. The States are NOT, repeat NOT, subject to the Fed. It is the other way around entirely. But that’s what they teach in public school these days so it’s no surprise you got the wool pulled over your eyes.
The State (as in the original 13) created the Federal ( I call it the Lower) to act as their agent. 17 specific powers were delegated to the Federal and NO MORE. Every law passed outside of those 17 Powers is ILLEGAL. Yes, ILLEGAL.
These are the FACTS and no amount of Lib twisting, torquing, or maligning can change that.
Pick up a Constitution and READ IT!!!
By icr on 05-01-09 @ 6:04 am
This measure seems largely symbolic.
A more meaningful action would be for the state to dump the absurd AA regime and hire and promote state employees by old-fashioned(and scientifically-validated) cognitive testing. For elaboration on this topic:
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/090419_ricci.htm
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/090426_ricci.htm
By icr on 05-01-09 @ 6:17 am
Since Montana is one of the few states that allows constitutional amendment through initiative and amendment it could also lead the way in the nation by breaking up the absurd, failed “two party” duopoly by switching to Proportional Representation(say for one house of the state legislature) and/or Range Voting..
For info on proportional representation:
http://www.proportional-representation.org/
On Range Voting:
http://www.rangevote.net/
http://rangevoting.org/
http://leastevil.blogspot.com/2009/03/honesty-is-best-policy-but.html
By grannysgadgets on 05-01-09 @ 9:07 am
@ Zoo : HA, yeah good one “Up all night worrying about the swine flu”. Just had to get the final kicker in did’nt ya ! No I do not loose sleep over the numerous things that have a possibility of going wrong. I have my ducks in a row, and will do the best I can regardless of what is thrown at me…......
As I said before I enjoy gathering information, I am a proactive person rather then a reactive person. Being raised by a Native American grandmother who lived through the great depression, who had family die of smallpox, who at one point in her young life had to eat horse or starve….. Well they dont disillusion you that life can, and will cuff you up along side the head now and then ( I did not grow up with pretty little stories to dance in my head, I was taught reality right off !!) Just pay a little attention to what is going on around you, being aware is much better then being caught unaware, you dont have to react, you dont have to believe, just have to know !
Remember when the going gets tough, the tough get going !!!
By ZooTown024 on 05-01-09 @ 9:41 am
Lets start with Trouble….It is not the 17 and 1800’s anymore. Yes you can interpret things that way but to say that federal law doesn’t trump state law is absurd and just plain ignorant sir or maam, whichever pertains. You must be a south will rise again kind of guy eh. It has nothing to do with what was taught in school. It has everything to do with REALITY. You sir are apparently living in your own REALITY. Moving on, Cowgirl, I couldn’t agree more with you this time. It is a slap in the face to the federal government and as I said before I am all for states rights and when this passed I was indeed impressed with Montana to stand up for itself and what they believe. However, it really will not change anything. Anybody who actually thinks that the ATF won’t step in and put a stop to this if people try to take advantage are completely kidding themselves. It may have been a different story with the Bush administration. They probably would have opted not to step in. It will undoubtedly end up in the supreme court but based on the medical marijuana decision back in 05 I don’t see how they could justify stepping in on that and not the gun issue. They would look completely hyprocritcal, which I am sure would not be the first time unfortunately. Granny the clarification on your upbringing does help me to understand why you feel you have to be prepared for everything but the fact is medical advancements and industrialization have made those types of scenarios very unlikely. I will concede that doomsday things could happen, however, in our lifetimes, probably unlikely. I guess my whole point on this whole swine flu thing was that the media is being completely hysterical about a threat that is so miniscule. How many people die from smoking every year, how many die from second hand smoke? I mean lets put things into context a little bit. Even if you contracted the swine flu the likelihood is that would get sick and get better. Very unlikely it would actually kill you unless you have a weakened immune system. Just remember to follow the lead of the brilliant people of Concrete, WA and run into the woods if you see blackhawks coming. Anyone who does not know what I am talking about just look up Orson Welles War of the Worlds.
By icr on 05-01-09 @ 9:44 am
The two parties differ mainly in rhetoric: http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2008/09/how_dems_and_re.html
(...)
The first big misconception is the parties’ key differences are substantive. They aren’t. Reps don’t want to get rid of the welfare state. Almost all Reps support spending a big chunk of GDP on America’s poor and old. And Dems don’t want anything like socialism. Almost all Dems want America to remain a country where markets are the default and people can get rich if they play their cards right.
So what is the “key difference” between the parties? Rhetoric. When Republicans advocate a small contraction of the welfare state, Democrats claim that Republicans totally oppose the welfare state. And many Republicans oblige them by standing up for “liberty” and “responsibility.” Similarly, when Democrats advocate a small expansion in the welfare state, Republican claim that Democrats oppose free markets. And many Democrats oblige them by saying things like “markets only benefit the rich.”
This rhetorical illusion is so powerful that when a Democrat like Clinton adopts many pro-market reforms, Republicans still hate him as a 60s radical. And when Bush II sharply expands the welfare state, Democrats still hate him as a billionaire’s lackey.
(...)
By Cowgirl up on 05-01-09 @ 10:59 am
Zoo…how can they step in on the medical marijiuna issue when in order to be able to use/get it has to come from a phyicians order? Does that not legalize it’s use? I am completely ignorant on this subject but….isn’t a doctors order law binding?
By grannysgadgets on 05-01-09 @ 11:25 am
Woody : It is in my understanding that within the bigger picture is the threat that this is what could basically be called a practice run by the H1N1 virus ( Not allowed to call it swine flu, the pigs are insulted !!) Much like the flu that struck in 1918, it too hit in the spring of the year, and then as summer came in it dissapeared ( It too crept in appearing to be a weak strain). By that fall it came back with a vengence, causing many deaths, and illnesses…. It’s not really that the meida is causing hype, it is actually they are reporting what the world health organizations and the likes releasing their information, and I would assume it should hold some hype worthyness. At this point correct ? I highly doubt I would die ( least hope), but that does not mean my grandbabies would not, that also does not mean that I would not take steps to avoid catching the dirty animal bug !!!(Note: a Health specialist was qouted as saying that he thought this virus was planted. No I’m not a conspiricy freak, but sometimes you might have to think out of the box !)
I think the medical marijiuna issue would be easier to tread on, as it is not specifically protected in the Constitution ( Plus hate having my guns in the same catagory as drugs !!!)
Also by stating that laws that were written up in the 17-1800’s are old, therefore unapplicable well shoot, that just threw our whole constitution, liberty’s and all right out the window…. We dont want that !
Let the various states flex their muscles, let “We the people start to have a say again”, at the very least it may start to wake those up in DC, that have become to comfortable treading all over our rights !!
BLACKHAWKS ? Oh no ZOO are they ah coming too ????
*giggle*
(How bout the Patriot, Steven Seagal ?? )
By littlehawk12 on 05-01-09 @ 12:55 pm
@zoozoo Whats all this eh crap?Are you a freakin kanook or something?If that is the case you should keep your opinion in Canada where they belong along with your importations of dogs and cats for the fur trade…..
By mitch on 05-01-09 @ 1:43 pm
zootown, I sure agree with the premature panic on the flu. Truth be known there will probably be more people die from the worry, or the stuff they take to prevent it that will ever die from this flu. If someone feels like getting a mask…......get it! Doesn’t make much difference to the rest of us if you get a mask. Little Hawk, what is wrong with you?? Now you’re making nasty reference to the Canadians? Your post makes no sense. As usual. If you don’t understand a post, feel free to sit that one out. Not necessary for you to throw your nonsense in there everywhere.
By Trouble on 05-01-09 @ 2:44 pm
ZooTown024The principles remain the same no matter what Century you are in. You can argue that all you want but it will not change facts.
If you want to live as slave following Governement instructions on how to think, live, eat, breathe, and breed, by all means do so, but get out of my country. Cuba or Venezuela will enjoy your attitude. Freedom loving Americans will reject your approach out of hand and rightly so.
By Trouble on 05-01-09 @ 2:51 pm
By ZooTown024 on 04-30-09So I guess the the government is infringing on the rights of every state that has passed medical marijuana? Well, maybe these states should be suing, oh wait, the supreme court ruled that the feds can indeed intervene on the interstate commerce regarding medical marijuana, unfortunately I assume it will be the same with guns. Yes, you can talk 10th ammendment all you want but have you forgotten it is the supreme court that interprets the meaning of the consitution and the legislation that pertains.
—————————————————————————-
Incorrect. The Supreme Court was set up to judge a law as measured against the Constitution to determine whether it was Constitutional or not. Today the Supreme Court seems to think it has the power to “Legislate from the Bench”. It does not, no matter what the Leftistsmay say.
By Cowgirl up on 05-01-09 @ 2:55 pm
To be sure the vacc. they gave in last flu go around killed more people than the flu did…I doubt if anyone will expire from worry over the flu. I don’t see any particular panic going on…just concerned people wanting to protect themselves and their families. There is always a chance you might die from the flu…plenty of people do every year so I can’t really blame anybody for taking all the precautions they feel necessary…it’s not for me to tell them that they are in a panic mode…we not aware if they have talked to a family doctor, or not, and what he/she advised them to do.
By ZooTown024 on 05-01-09 @ 4:49 pm
Trouble…Ummm….Your ingonrance is….lets say….Troublesome.
By Cowgirl up on 05-01-09 @ 11:24 pm
It seems to me that the Surpreme Court has no business getting involved in medical issues. I don’t believe any of them have a medical degree or have practiced medicine. If a doctor proscribes any type of medication for his/her patient then it should be legal! I would think a doctor know what is best…not a Surpreme Court! I am at a total loss at how they set themselves up above a doctors orders! I don’t care if the drug is legal or not as far as state law goes…it’s a medical issue…not a matter for some stupid Supreme Court! Chemo. is a horrible treatment to have to go through and anything that can make it easier for a patient should be legal! Cancer is an awful desease to suffer through and anything that can make it easier should be accepted. I really am having a difficult time with this issue.
By Trouble on 05-01-09 @ 11:47 pm
By ZooTown024 on 05-01-09
Trouble…Ummm….Your ingonrance is….lets say….Troublesome.
————————————————————————-
Most disappointed in you. Although I suppose I should not be given some of you other posts.
Take note, good people, the comment by ZooTown is typical of a Lib that has lost his argument. I will give him credit for not using foul language, which is fairly typical as well, but otherwise, this is the “I can’t answer you!” Lib cry for mercy. It is the usual Lib response to belittle and demean when the argument has them beaten. Classic. Pathetic. Liberal.
Defend your freedoms folks! May we come to the day when Liberals are reduced to a distant grumble because even they have found that the Conservatives protected their right to be Liberals.
By woody on 05-02-09 @ 9:41 am
the fringe rightwingers will only allow free speech when you agree w/ them… and they will only admit the power of the Supreme Court when it suits them.
Whenever they don’t like the ruling they yell - illegal - illegal - illegal BUT if a liberal says they don’t like a ruling they are told Leave you communist - talk about showing your hand when you know you don’t have one -
IT is exactly the likes of the fringe rightwingnuts here that have driven the republicans to the extreme minority of this country!
Thanks guys - keep up the good work of making my job proving you all as dangerous extremists easier and easier every day!
Oh yea - Great Job PRESIDENT OBAMA - the country has a higher Confidence level than it has had for years!!!!!
AND hip hip hurrah for the new Supreme Court Choice Obama Gets! THE 1ST OF MANY - just enough to remake this Country!!!!!!!!!
By JB on 05-02-09 @ 10:17 am
@woody: Showing your colors there…big surprise that.
Yeah, that’s right, the Obamanation and his ilk will tell you exactly what you need to do to live so that you don’t have to worry about anything…including your freedom. Just like a Dummycrat to show off their laurels when all they done is spend more taxpayer money in the first 100 days of office than any presidential administration in the the history of the United States - and have absolutely ZIP to show for it. Yeah, that really shows how stupid we are…and you’re right - I should be thankful that my kids get to pay for our politicians’ spending sprees - and their kids as well. Won’t be long before the Chinese come over to collect. And that’s just scratching the surface. May all politicians burn in hell.
By Cowgirl up on 05-02-09 @ 8:48 pm
Zoo…FYI…The ACLU, the Alliance and ASA maintain that state medical marijuana laws are not preempted by the federal ban on medical marijuana. While the federal government is free to enforce its prohibition on medical marijuana, even in states such as California that permit its use, all states remain free to adopt and implement policies of their own design – an opinion shared by the California Attorney General’s office and the attorneys general of several other states, including Colorado, Hawaii and Oregon, that permit medical use of marijuana.
By Cowgirl up on 05-02-09 @ 11:31 pm
Zoo..I don’t know why the DEA continues to raid these people.. or why they are prosected fin federal court. That’s way I asked you for more information. You are attcking me and all I asked for was information from you.? Why? I’m trying to understand what your saying and you are attcking me! Again…why? I am not stupid..far from that…federal low does not alway superceed state law. Please…give somethig I research. Your so angry…can’t you see when someone is asking for nothing more than help and information? Pleeeze…give me a brake!!!!! Quit being so angry!
By littlehawk12 on 05-02-09 @ 11:37 pm
@ Cowgirlup You should not even waste you time with that dude after the way IT spoke too you…
By Cowgirl up on 05-02-09 @ 11:43 pm
I know…your right…as uasual!
By ZooTown024 on 05-03-09 @ 10:04 am
I feel as though you people have attacked me quite a bit more than I have you. For instance I have been being attacked by two or three of you consistently since I started blogging here. So who is attacking who? Check out all the posts of every article I have commented on. It is pretty clear who is being attacked. Hey I could go with troubles feeble comment about, oh golly typical lib he lost the argument and just gives up and starts name calling, it would appear that based on Troubles analysis you guys clearly lost this one. It would appear littlehawk has lost its mind, not that he or she had much of one to begin with. The other day it became painfully clear what kind of folks most of you are. I am referring to the article about obamas first 100 days. their was a guy sitting here talking about barack obama being an arab and furthering the darkie agenda. I suspect a lot of you agreed with that complete idiot. You guys should turn off Savage and Limbaugh and make a feeble attempt to think for yourself. I listen to both and agree with about 30% of what they say and form my own opinions on the rest of their bull. Can the rest of you say the same, I doubt it.
By littlehawk12 on 05-03-09 @ 10:11 am
Knock the name calling of and I bet youll find others will do as well.
By littlehawk12 on 05-03-09 @ 11:17 am
After all your name calling you whine about being wrongfully attacked.GET REAL…
By TheWalkingQuad on 05-03-09 @ 3:31 pm
Interesting people out the Montaneeeway
By John on 05-04-09 @ 12:02 am
@By and By — on background checks and felons and all that… read: ‘federal’ in the story
By helllloooooo on 05-04-09 @ 12:15 am
guns are already being nabbed by the piggys in Flathead without warants!!!!
By littlehawk12 on 05-04-09 @ 12:22 am
YAH and they do it secretly and silently early in the morning while you are sleeping…I am so glad i do not live there no more!!!!
By John on 05-04-09 @ 12:28 am
@helllloooooo — tell us more. Unfortunately, some of this was to be taken care of — legally, at least — by legislation this session, but was crossed out before it could pass.
By helllloooooo on 05-04-09 @ 12:48 am
Well supposedly there excuse is that the people the piggys are “confiscating guns from are supposed too be felons"Probably and most likely “non violent felons"that have had their guns peacefully in the flathead for alot of years now.All of a sudden their is a move by the police state too pull up the “technicalities” and remove these peoples personal protection.What else do you expect from these “deputies who claim to be your Buddy?“They are robots.Understand?Good night all…..
By littlehawk12 on 05-04-09 @ 12:54 am
And these house bills are nothing but a smokescreen.PLEASE dont be fooled folks!!
By ZooTown024 on 05-04-09 @ 9:13 am
Am I reading this correctly. You guys have a beef with law enforcement taking guns from felons? Really? Even if they are non violent felons the law is the law. When they were committing their crimes I am sure they knew the consequences in regards to their guns. If guns are that important to them they should not be committing felonies. As absurd as it may be it is the law. Personally I think that a person who committs a non violent felony should be able to have guns again after jail and probation but there are legal avenues you can take to have your record sealed and expunged and get your rights restored. If you fail to do so it is your own fault.
By littlehawk12 on 05-04-09 @ 9:31 am
No that’s not what i meant.The fact that they are doing it WITHOUT WARANTS or due process is my concern!!!
By ahzi on 05-04-09 @ 9:50 am
littlehawk, helllooo - please cite specific, I repeat, specific examples of gun confiscation without legal authorization here in the Flathead. If you can cite specific examples - not some rumor you heard on the radio, you might gain a little credibility. Thanks.
By heeeeelllooooo on 05-04-09 @ 9:58 am
A person i know personally had his confiscated.Thats why brought it up.And i could care less about your opinion of my credibility.1 rifle and about 500 rounds of ammo were taken from this person WITHOUT a warrant…Like I said that is what concerns me most.No due process
By ZooTown024 on 05-04-09 @ 10:12 am
If they have probably cause they don’t need a warrant sir.
By littlehawk12 on 05-04-09 @ 10:17 am
That is just utterly rediculous zoo..
By ahzi on 05-04-09 @ 10:18 am
By specific I meant when and where did this alleged incident take place? Who (name names) confiscated the gun and ammo from whom? If what you say is true, and your law-abiding friend was wronged, there are countless attorneys who could help him or her out.
By ZooTown024 on 05-04-09 @ 10:24 am
Really Littlehawk…so if a cop pulls you over and your car stinks of grass or you are a felon with a gun in plain view he has to get a warrant? Oh my god man. Do you know what probable cause is and how it works? Once again, please enlighten me.
By ZooTown024 on 05-04-09 @ 10:28 am
I have never been so baffled in all of my life. The sheer stupidity on this website is bizarre and no I am not directing that at anyone in particular but feel free to attack me anyway.
By littlehawk12 on 05-04-09 @ 10:31 am
@zoo You are making up scenarios that have nothing too do with this case.@ahzi Sorry.But it would be morally wrong of me too disclose this persons personal info.Would it not?And he already has an Attorney.Thanks though…..
By littlehawk12 on 05-04-09 @ 10:34 am
And i will tell you zoozoo that utter stupidity is when someone makes a judgement about a situation they know absolutely nothing about.Now thats stupid….
By littlehawk12 on 05-04-09 @ 10:36 am
And no i am not calling you stupid i am saying dont be so quick too judge when you dont know the circumstances.OK dude.
By ZooTown024 on 05-04-09 @ 10:37 am
I find it highly unlikely and hard to believe an officer would just walk into a persons house without any probable cause whatsoever. It would be thrown out. So it just doesn’t make sense. Could you give us more details surrounding the incident that took place? That is why I made those assumptions because you haven’t given any details as to what happened.
By ZooTown024 on 05-04-09 @ 10:39 am
I said they don’t need a warrant if they have probable cause and your response was that is just utterly rediculous (ridiculous) zoo. So going back to that are you indeed saying a law enforcement officer has to get a warrant if they clearly have probable cause, because if you are that actually is utterly ridiculous.
By ZooTown024 on 05-04-09 @ 10:41 am
I meant probable cause quite a few posts up, not probably cause, lol. By the way hows Alaska, i’ve always wanted to check it out but never had the time.
By ahzi on 05-04-09 @ 10:45 am
I really want to know what law enforcement agency “confiscated” this guy’s gun, and under what circumstances. No need to identify the gun owner littlehawk - just fill in the rest of the story for us. Was it the County Sheriff? KPD? CFPD? WPD? FBI? DEA? MHP? Was it at his home? Was he hunting at the time? Just driving around town? Please fill in the story so we can all better understand the situation.
By littlehawk on 05-04-09 @ 10:47 am
I will ask this person for permission too talk more about it.But i dont think it would be wise too talk about it until the matter is resolved.And Alaska is awesome!I am trying to get on with a company that will pay me about 30 an hr if hired.For now i have found a job on a charter vessel making 18 an hr…..A 48 ft schooner named nikki nik.I start tomorrow.
By ZooTown024 on 05-04-09 @ 10:53 am
Nice man, congrats, but why bring that up at all if you can’t give any details?
By ZooTown024 on 05-04-09 @ 10:55 am
It just doesn’t make sense to bash on law enforcement and then not back up your reasons for doing so. I mean if a cop just walked into this guys house with no probable cause whatsoever that is indeed an outrage.
By littlehawk12 on 05-04-09 @ 10:57 am
It was flathead sheriff.And this guy was a felon. But the gun was taken from his landlords house .The gun was not even registered in his name.One of the neighbors seen the gun and told the cops it belonged too this person and they came and took it…..without a warant ...Simple as that…So we will see what comes of the situation Whether the gun was really his is a big question..Sorry but that is all i feel i should disclose…maybe i should not even of said this much…
By grannysgadgets on 05-04-09 @ 10:57 am
LittleHawk : I will make it too Alaska one day !!! There and the Grand Canyon is all I have left on my bucket list of places that I want to go too !Hope you have your sea legs ready ! I remember my first ship ride, whoa, talk about equilibrium being messed up !
Anyways back to topic : Does anyone know when they are going to have this person notify that they are building the firearms ?? I held my breath and prayed for this bill to pass, now I have my fingers crossed that it can carry through without a hitch ( I know most likely unlikely !!!)
By ahzi on 05-04-09 @ 11:03 am
Zoo - I knew littlehawk wouldn’t give a straight answer to a straight question. This whole “my friend had a gun taken from him by the big bad gov’t” is all hyperbole. Probably never happened, and if it did, I’m sure there are extenuating circumstances which would paint said friend in an unflattering light. And of course you’re right - probable cause can negate the need for a warrant, as your examples clearly illustrate.
By littlehawk12 on 05-04-09 @ 11:08 am
@ahzi If you had a serious case in court would you want everyone going around discussing every detail????I think not.And form whatever opnion you want too.I could care less…Im going sailing and it really isnt MY problem anyway….
By littlehawk12 on 05-04-09 @ 11:12 am
I will have better thigs to do tomorrow like get paid to sail around on a luxury schooner…Have fun folks….
By ZooTown024 on 05-04-09 @ 11:18 am
If he didn’t live at the residence in question and was not present, that does seem a bit odd. However, if he was sitting in his landlords residence with a gun that could clearly be in his control than he is indeed in posession of that firearm whether his or not. In addition a neighbor calling the police saying a firearm is in the possession of a felon would most definately be probable cause. If they have a good faith belief that by taking the time to get a warrant it would jeopordize the evidence in question than they most definately can come in based on the probable cause the nieghbor just gave them.
By ZooTown024 on 05-04-09 @ 11:27 am
Earlier I mentioned that I thought non violent felons should be able to have firearms after completing their sentence. I am conflicted about that statement as now that I think about it perhaps somebody who shows poor enough judgement to committ a felony doesn’t have the capacity for good enough judgement to have a firearm. I just don’t know. Anybody else have any thoughts on that?
By littlehawk on 05-04-09 @ 11:27 am
@zoo Again you are grabbing at straws and making up your own scenarios..STOP!!!!!
By littlehawk on 05-04-09 @ 11:32 am
BTW zoo DID you know that up until about 1910 almost all prisoners were given a rifle ,a box of ammo,and a gold piece when released.
By ZooTown024 on 05-04-09 @ 11:35 am
All I was trying to do was briefly explain how probable cause works in a situation similar to the one you explained above sir. I wasn’t really meaning it to be about your friends situation in particular. Sorry for the misunderstanding sir.
By ZooTown024 on 05-04-09 @ 11:38 am
Am I really supposed to respond to that….1910, need I say more sir. Are you insinuating that you would like the deparmtent of correction to provide guns to felons violent or otherwise when they are released sir?
By ahzi on 05-04-09 @ 11:39 am
Wait a minute - earlier LH stated that a friend of his (a felon, according to littlehawk) had a gun taken away by law enforcement. Then in a later post he said “Whether the gun was really his is a big question.” You really need to get your story straight. Emphasis on “story.” Enjoy your boating lh, and don’t forget to pay your taxes, or you’ll be bunking with Stokes.
By ZooTown024 on 05-04-09 @ 11:42 am
Ahzi I noticed that as well but didn’t want to mention anything due to the imminent back peddling that will now ensue.
By littlehawk12 on 05-04-09 @ 11:50 am
@ zoo Nope.Alittle history lesson thats alll.I wasnt there ahzi.So give it a rest will ya?And John is not in jail OK.The gun was not in his posession and not registered to this person.This person was no where around when the gun was taken from a whole differant house hold.Like i said dream up whatever you want ahzi i really dont care….
By ZooTown024 on 05-04-09 @ 12:01 pm
A history lesson? Thanks man, that was very useful information. LH if that is indeed the case than that is a bit bizarro and troubling, however, the other issue at hand would be if the landlord consented to them taking the firearm and his fingerprints were on it. That would prove possession. By the way why do you hang out with felons?
By littlehawk12 on 05-04-09 @ 2:31 pm
BTW Why are you such an almighty judge…So what if someone made a mistake.Who are you ?Mister perfect or something?I will hang out with whoever in the hell i want to.This guy got busted in florida with 2 oz. of pot.OOOOOhhhh.Big crime huh?What a great reason too steal someones gun,eh?
By ZooTown024 on 05-04-09 @ 2:43 pm
If his right to bear arms was so important to him maybe he should have shown good enough judgment to not have enough grass to trigger a felony conviction. And, if he isn’t a medical marijuana patient why would he need two ounces of pot, my assumption would be he sells it. Unless he just really likes to horde it in case of a doomsday scenario such as this swine flu. By the way I guess I was just kind of referring to you calling me a dirtbag and such the other day. I have never knowingly been in the company of a felon my entire life. But it is like my mom used to tell us, birds of a feather flock together sir.
By littlehawk12 on 05-04-09 @ 7:36 pm
No need to be rude zoo.I see your point.I still do not think it is just to take ANYONES personal property without a warant.And you are also right that us pot users do tend to flock together…PEACE DUDE!!!
By JB on 05-04-09 @ 8:20 pm
Its not the beat cops you need to worry about, it’s the administrative types. Almost all regular police officers support LAW ABIDING citizens who legally carry firearms. I’ve been doing so myself for a long time now - and I have never had problems from law enforcement. As long as the weapon is declared, you generally don’t have problems. Of course, having a concealed permit doesn’t hurt either. 
By Rob Donica on 02-09-10 @ 7:13 am
You go Montana…I’m way out here in NC and I can tell you, that I for one am proud of you and behind you. I wish our state would tell the U.S. to go pound sand regarding transportation money, education several other issues that belong to the states. And go back to where they belong, within the bounds of the constitution. God Bless You for taking a stand! Every little skirmish counts.
By mooseberryinn on 06-03-12 @ 6:40 pm
The constitution was written by men with a healthy suspicion of governing power be it Kings or self-proclaimed dictators. Their suspicion would still be alive and well today. We have a “president” who
picks and chooses which parts (or no parts) of our constitution to obey. And it’s downhill from there.
The views expressed in the comments section do not reflect those of the Beacon.