Montana to feds: we dona t want your gun control

Good old Not Relevant Anymore posted a warning in their magazines last month that they are running like frightened dogs over this legislation and any NRA member who attempts to follow state law will be totally alone, swinging in the wind while the good dogs at the temple of Wayne in Fairfax, VA are up to DC to lick their master's hand and beg forgiveness.

I wish I could get a refund on my Life Membership.

GPM wrote:

Good old Not Relevant Anymore posted a warning in their magazines last month that they are running like frightened dogs over this legislation and any NRA member who attempts to follow state law will be totally alone, swinging in the wind while the good dogs at the temple of Wayne in Fairfax, VA are up to DC to lick their master's hand and beg forgiveness.
I wish I could get a refund on my Life Membership.

I expect that idiot in the White House will send NorthCom in to takeover the state and arrest anyone who doesn't fawningly comply with the His Assholiness's proclamations.
.
As for the NRA? You're spot-on with that one!

"The Montana Firearms Freedom Act specifies that machine guns or guns that shoot explosive projectiles aren’t allowed in the state"

Why ban machine guns?

Alex wrote:

"The Montana Firearms Freedom Act specifies that machine guns or guns that shoot explosive projectiles aren’t allowed in the state"
Why ban machine guns?

Indeed: WHY? Or even 'explosive projectiles'?
.
Not having read the 'act,' nor the legislative debates, I cannot say.
.
Maybe it was that the people who wrote the act, didn't have ~their~'act' together?
.

I wish a decision would be made. My friends and I are waiting to see how this all plays out so hopefully we can start producing our own.

We've got blueprints that just need a greenlight.

Alex wrote:

"The Montana Firearms Freedom Act specifies that machine guns or guns that shoot explosive projectiles aren’t allowed in the state"
Why ban machine guns?

Small steps perhaps.

Alex wrote:

"The Montana Firearms Freedom Act specifies that machine guns or guns that shoot explosive projectiles aren’t allowed in the state"
Why ban machine guns?

Even in the most gun friendly environment machine guns are thrown under the bus in an attempt to appear reasonable. It is an illness that unfortunately even many Second Amendment supporters suffer from. We will never attain the total RIGHTS guaranteed by the Second Amendment until all types of firearms are recognized as viable. Machine guns in the untrained hand are in my mind less dangerous than shotguns. Few realize that they do not operate like the movies portray them. They are not "bullet hoses" that never run out of ammo. Sub guns and (true) assault riffles are not the super powerful cannons as portrayed. Most first time shooters get very few rounds on target if any at all.

GPM wrote:

Good old Not Relevant Anymore posted a warning in their magazines last month that they are running like frightened dogs over this legislation and any NRA member who attempts to follow state law will be totally alone, swinging in the wind while the good dogs at the temple of Wayne in Fairfax, VA are up to DC to lick their master's hand and beg forgiveness.
I wish I could get a refund on my Life Membership.

The Ninnies not so Relevant Anymore have been after me for several years to become a lifetime member. Now I am glad I chose to drop out and not renew my membership. If I am paying for someone to fight for gun rights for all law abiding American citizens then I expect them to do just that. Not tuck their tails and run at the first sign of trouble or kowtow to the current powers that be.

Whisky River Crabb wrote:

<quoted text>
The Ninnies not so Relevant Anymore have been after me for several years to become a lifetime member. Now I am glad I chose to drop out and not renew my membership. If I am paying for someone to fight for gun rights for all law abiding American citizens then I expect them to do just that. Not tuck their tails and run at the first sign of trouble or kowtow to the current powers that be.

It is time for gun RIGHTS people to come to grips with the FACT that there can be NO COMPROMISE when it comes to Second Amendment issues. An attack on any type of firearm is an attack on all firearms. Just because a proposed piece of legislation doesn't affect your particular firearm RIGHT doesn't let you off the hook. At some point in time your firearm will be next. The true goal of these people is total civilian disarmament.

So long as those expensive Over&Under and Upland shotguns are left alone, the Idiots who have installed themselves as Executive VP for Life and other permanent positions are all too happy to compromise away Evil, ugly black rifles. When Heston held the rifle over his head and said "from my cold dead hands" he was always holding a flintlock, never a modern military pattern rifle.

Take it from an NRA Lifer who now knows better, support GOA.

GPM wrote:

So long as those expensive Over&Under and Upland shotguns are left alone, the Idiots who have installed themselves as Executive VP for Life and other permanent positions are all too happy to compromise away Evil, ugly black rifles. When Heston held the rifle over his head and said "from my cold dead hands" he was always holding a flintlock, never a modern military pattern rifle.
Take it from an NRA Lifer who now knows better, support GOA.

When the NRA keeps it's promise and has a successful repeal of 922 I will rejoin.

Its good to see some states standing up to our current treasonous terrorist regime.

And about the NRA.... I supported them 100% until out of the blue they threatened to sue me for something unrelated. Of course I let my support drop and found other ways to contribute. The NRA needs gun control to survive or they have nothing to do and don't need your money. They only fight just hard enough to stay in business. No thanks. I don't see the word "compromise" in the Second Amendment.

You drop such an interesting tidbit in front of us then don't elaborate. You are a Sadist, foo!:p

Highlander wrote:

<quoted text>
Indeed: WHY? Or even 'explosive projectiles'?
.
Not having read the 'act,' nor the legislative debates, I cannot say.
.
Maybe it was that the people who wrote the act, didn't have ~their~'act' together?
.

I just don't know. It's a disappointment. If Montana succeeds maybe it will pave the way for Alaska and other states to include all firearms in their firearm freedom laws.

Alex wrote:

"The Montana Firearms Freedom Act specifies that machine guns or guns that shoot explosive projectiles aren’t allowed in the state"
Why ban machine guns?

Don't look now, but I believe Vermont HAS NO STATE LAWS regarding "machine guns". Howard Dean, former Governor, was once very supportive of the NRA/Gun Rights, and I liked the guy until he endorsed Mayor for Life Marty Chavez.

Bruce V wrote:

<quoted text>
Even in the most gun friendly environment machine guns are thrown under the bus in an attempt to appear reasonable. It is an illness that unfortunately even many Second Amendment supporters suffer from. We will never attain the total RIGHTS guaranteed by the Second Amendment until all types of firearms are recognized as viable. Machine guns in the untrained hand are in my mind less dangerous than shotguns. Few realize that they do not operate like the movies portray them. They are not "bullet hoses" that never run out of ammo. Sub guns and (true) assault riffles are not the super powerful cannons as portrayed. Most first time shooters get very few rounds on target if any at all.

Article II of the Bill of Rights was never meant to mean that the People should NOT have weapons of the type and genre equal to that of the standing Army any more than it limits the right of religion to organized religions, or of free speech only to writers, journalists, and newspapers. Modern day people should remember that the current "sporting" bolt-action rifles were in their day STATE OF THE ART MILITARY WEAPONS.

Bruce V wrote:

<quoted text>
Even in the most gun friendly environment machine guns are thrown under the bus in an attempt to appear reasonable. It is an illness that unfortunately even many Second Amendment supporters suffer from. We will never attain the total RIGHTS guaranteed by the Second Amendment until all types of firearms are recognized as viable. Machine guns in the untrained hand are in my mind less dangerous than shotguns. Few realize that they do not operate like the movies portray them. They are not "bullet hoses" that never run out of ammo. Sub guns and (true) assault riffles are not the super powerful cannons as portrayed. Most first time shooters get very few rounds on target if any at all.

I agree. I don't know how all the hysteria about machine guns came to be. Even if one of these nuts doing a school shooting had a machine gun he would just shoot more and hit less. The shooting spree would end quicker after he runs out of ammo. If machine guns were regulated the same as semi-automatic firearms I don't believe there would be any difference in the crime or murder rates.

Boomer215 wrote:

<quoted text>
Small steps perhaps.

It is referred to as turning up the heat slowly. So you'll fall asleep before you are poached in the boiling water.

Alex wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree. I don't know how all the hysteria about machine guns came to be. Even if one of these nuts doing a school shooting had a machine gun he would just shoot more and hit less. The shooting spree would end quicker after he runs out of ammo. If machine guns were regulated the same as semi-automatic firearms I don't believe there would be any difference in the crime or murder rates.

You question "I don't know how all the hysteria about machine guns came to be."

It came about in the late 20's and early 30's with the public being fooled by the politicians of the time, aided by the media, promising them safety from the thugs of the day just as they do today. And, like today's view of so called assault rifles, very few people saw a "need" for machine guns so the public let the politicians have their way.

It was and is the old idea that "I don't own a machine gun (or today substitute assault rifle)and I don't see why anyone would "need" one, so as long as it doesn't affect me...go ahead and regulate them.

The NFA act of 1934 HAS NOT prevented any criminals from obtaining machine guns. Unregistered machine guns have been used by criminals since it's passage. The most recent highly publicized incident being the CA Bank robbery several years ago.

The relativity few citizens that are willing to jump through the hoops to own a "legal" machine gun have only been responsible for one criminal act, which was committed by a policeman since the inception of the NFA act 75 years ago.

Because of the small (but growing) number of voters with an interest in machine guns, the heavy INFRINGEMENTS that government foist on machine gun owners will continue.

Bruce V wrote:

<quoted text>
Even in the most gun friendly environment machine guns are thrown under the bus in an attempt to appear reasonable. It is an illness that unfortunately even many Second Amendment supporters suffer from.

Ohio, correctly, allows for machine gun and suppressors. You still have to follow Fed law and pay the $200 to the ATF for each gun or suppressor but legal in Ohio. So, your assertion is not true, and I don't know if any other state allows for this.