July 1, 2015

Moonbattery » Silver Lining to SCOTUS Homosexual Marriage Outrage

*Editor’s Note* – There’s a couple of issues to touch on lightly for a moment concerning information presented in the article linked to below.

The first is that the idea that the SCOTUS used the 14th Amendment as as the justification for granting Same Sex marriages in all states, and thus should apply to the Second Amendment and make concealed carry equal across all states, is rational thinking – of which cannot be applied to any governmental agency, which includes the SCOTUS. This would imply that rule of law exists, which it does not.

The second issue is that perhaps we are seeing a hint of what’s to come – a warning if you will. I have contended for years that the only element in existence today preventing complete dictatorial rule is that too many Americans own too many guns for the Fascist to operate freely. They will, eventually, win out and try to take our guns away. Eek what a mess that will be.

The mention in the article that perhaps SCOTUS will use the Fourteenth Amendment to repeal the Second Amendment is something to consider. Understand, these fascist pigs will stop at nothing. The law BE DAMNED!

For those lacking understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment, it is time to learn. The Fourteenth Amendment made us all slaves to the Corporation.

Source: Moonbattery » Silver Lining to SCOTUS Homosexual Marriage Outrage

FacebookTwitterGoogle+PinterestLinkedInEmailShare

Preventing Fascist Rule

FascismThere exists at least two intellectual concepts about the United States Constitution. One is that the charter was crafted for the Rulers, the Posterity, in order to protect themselves and their Interests for the future. The more popular approach, as it was taught us, has always been, right or wrong, that the Constitution was written for the people (small “p”), a government of the people and by the people.

Regardless of which way one opts to regard this document, history tells us that for more than two centuries, man has been taught that the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, was their guarantee against tyrannical rule, assurance for small government and in support of a man’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Since the beginning, powers have been systematically dismantling those teachings and bringing about a form of fascist rule, the end result showing deliberate signs of totalitarian socialism.

We live in and attempt to operate our day to day within a rigged system. Power brokers are operating at frantic speed to steal from you and me our rights, or as the case may be, our perceived rights – what we have been taught from birth.

What should be obvious to most, is how issues discussed and presented for discussion, have changed. This is not happenstance, but deliberate manipulation of the citizenry to achieve necessary (to the Global Power Structure) rule, and thus control, mostly by regulation.

It begins with “Change Agents,” those trained by totalitarian socialists, who devise new ways in which long-standing culture, heritage and rights, even self-evident, God-given rights, are viewed and discussed. Void of any honest scientific research, and/or Biblical Truth, the new paradigms are often referred to as “post-normal” or “post scientific.” The talking points driving this form of fascist rule are based upon the belief that you and I are incapable of making the best decisions for ourselves, and that of what is known as “precautionary principle” – the act of regulation based on the belief that some act might cause public harm. This tactic has worked well over the years. One such instance is by invoking the Commerce Clause. Witness the destruction of the intent of the Endangered Species Act by implementation of the Commerce Clause. This act, as that of precautionary principle, paves the way for illegal “takings” by regulation. The Environmental Protection Agency practices the same fascist rule.

A great example of illegal takings by regulation is the gray wolf, where landowners and livestock growers, among others, are hamstrung by regulation, driven by both a hijacked Endangered Species Act and the precautionary principle, which is propped up through fake, or post-normal, science – outcome based within a rigged system. The effort results in loss of private property rights and illegal takings by the state and federal governments. Note here that all of this would be most difficult to achieve if not for the “useful idiots” who, blindly, seek their own slavery and ultimate destruction.

A late example is now being played out in the form of a Water Compact in Montana between the parties of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (CSKT), the State of Montana and the U.S. Federal Government. If the U.S. Congress passes this compact, it effectively places the power and control of water in the lap of the federal government. Not only does this action cause an ever increasing government overreach of power, but also results in loss of property rights along with illegal takings, among other events.

The Fifth Amendment states that: “…private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Because we operate within a rigged system, this compensation clause has little definitive meaning. We think President Ronald Reagan helped us out with Executive Order 12630 by better defining and placing guidelines on decisions concerning private property takings. Reagan stated that: “Responsible fiscal management and fundamental principles of good government require that government decision-makers evaluate carefully the effect of their administrative, regulatory, and legislative actions on constitutionally protected property rights.” Upon further examination of EO 12630, we discover so much legalese and gray areas, how can a citizen rely upon the compensation clause of the Fifth Amendment as some means of protecting their private property? Power brokers, i.e. politicians and government agencies, controlled by higher powers, use this method to gain control over people and their property. This is their well-designed goal.

In an article published by the Institute for Trade, Standards and Sustainable Development, of which attorney Lawrence Kogan is heavily involved, says that American citizens’, “…exclusive tangible and intangible private property, and by extension, their guaranteed constitutional rights, are slowly being eroded, controlled, diminished in value, restricted in use and converted into public property.”

We can debate the actual ownership of property, but as taxpayers we should be entitled to certain rights, one of which is a reasonable guarantee that any government cannot simply run roughshod over a property tax payer for something that government deems in the best interest of all. The educating of Americans has told us that government cannot “take” our property without just compensation and yet only the courts can decide when it is proper to do that. What kind of right is that?

Whether we are discussing the forcing of large predator wolves into human-occupied landscapes, including gray wolves of the Northern Rockies, red wolves of the Southeast, Mexican wolves of the southwest, Delta smelts, Canada lynx, desert turtles, climate change, sustainable development and more, the only real hope citizens have is to loudly push back against this kind of tyrannical, fascist rule.

While Americans sit idly by, Policy rules the day. The Constitution is but a moment in history. Executive action, combined with Court-recognized implementation of Policy, has led us into slavery. If by only the threat to a politician or a group of such crooked lawmakers, the loss of your vote for their future gravy train and golden parachute, appears the only presage to a cushy future, the active opposition to continued fascist rule must be undertaken.

For our future, we cannot allow government to control every aspect of our lives.

Black Conservatives React to U.S. Supreme Court Decision

Press Release from the National Center for Public Policy Research:

Black Conservatives React to U.S. Supreme Court Decision for Use of “Disparate Impact” in Administration of Fair Housing Act

WASHINGTON, DC — Legal and policy experts with the Project 21 black leadership network are available for comment on today’s U.S. Supreme Court decision that allows perceived group racial disparities to be used as a trigger for enforcement of the Fair Housing Act.

“When those statistical differences alone are used as proof of discrimination, freedom and liberty are lost; but worse the constitutional protections provided to every American as an individual are lost too,” said Project 21 co-chairman Horace Cooper, a legal commentator who taught constitutional law at George Mason University and is a former leadership staff member for the U.S. House of Representatives.

“It’s a shame that the majority of justices are willing to allow allegations of discrimination in housing to be painted using a broad brush — sometimes by those who may not even be among the aggrieved — rather than finding and cutting out true instances of abuse with scalpel-like precision,” said Archbishop Council Nedd II, Ph.D., author of multiple books and rector of St. Alban’s Anglican Church in Pine Grove Mills, PA. “The Fair Housing Act was meant to be a scalpel, but the Court has now decided otherwise to our peril. Society is served better by a system that removes specific problems rather than pitting groups against each other.”

On appeal from the federal Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, the case of Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs, et al. v. The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc, addressed a festering legal problem regarding the Fair Housing Act’s use to address accusations of disparate racial impact instead of enforcing the law on a case-by-case, as-needed basis as was argued by its supporters when it was debated in Congress.

Specific to this case, the Inclusive Communities Project (ICP) claimed the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs, a state agency, violated the federal Fair Housing Act by allocating housing tax credits to developers in a manner that they alleged broadly kept minorities in low-income minority-majority neighborhoods rather than allowing access to housing opportunities in wealthier majority-white communities in the Dallas metropolitan area. ICP charged the department’s tax credit distribution policy creates a disparate impact on black recipients of such credits as a class rather than addressing individual instances of alleged abuse.

Project 21 joined a legal brief submitted to the Court that asked the justices to specifically define the legal scope of the Fair Housing Act. In the brief, it was argued that the Act was written “to apply solely to disparate treatment, not acts having disparate impact on protected classes” and that the U.S. Supreme Court must “consider the threshold question of whether disparate impact claims are even cognizable under the Fair Housing Act” since “disparate impact claims do not depend on the intent of the action or policy.”

This legal brief joined by Project 21 was written and submitted to the Court by the Pacific Legal Foundation and was also joined by the Center for Equal Opportunity, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Cato Institute, Individual Rights Foundation and Reason Foundation.

In 2014 and 2015, Project 21 members have already been interviewed or cited by the media over 2,600 times — including TVOne, the Philadelphia Inquirer, Fox News Channel, Westwood One, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, SiriusXM satellite radio and 50,000-watt talk radio stations such as KOA-Denver, WHO-Des Moines, WJR-Detroit, WBZ-Boston and KDKA-Pittsburgh — on issues that include civil rights, entitlement programs, the economy, race preferences, education and corporate social responsibility. Project 21 has participated in cases before the U.S. Supreme Court regarding race preferences and voting rights and defended voter ID laws at the United Nations. Its volunteer members come from all walks of life and are not salaried political professionals.

Project 21, a leading voice of black conservatives for over two decades, is sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research (http://www.nationalcenter.org).

EDITORIAL Archives – The American Report

This is what we were taught. Is America really losing its sovereignty or is the perception of brainwashed Americans being systematically stripped away?

On July 4, 1776, the Founding Fathers declared their independence from the tyrannical rule of Great Britain. In doing so, they dedicated the newly-founded United States of America to the ideal of Liberty.

Every school child learns these words from the Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights

Source: EDITORIAL Archives – The American Report

Ronald Reagan: Executive Order 12630

Executive Order 12630–Governmental actions and interference with constitutionally protected property rights

Source: The provisions of Executive Order 12630 of Mar. 15, 1988, appear at 53 FR 8859, 3 CFR, 1988 Comp., p. 554, unless otherwise noted.

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, and in order to ensure that government actions are undertaken on a well-reasoned basis with due regard for fiscal accountability, for the financial impact of the obligations imposed on the Federal government by the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and for the Constitution, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Purpose. (a) The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. Government historically has used the formal exercise of the power of eminent domain, which provides orderly processes for paying just compensation, to acquire private property for public use. Recent Supreme Court decisions, however, in reaffirming the fundamental protection of private property rights provided by the Fifth Amendment and in assessing the nature of governmental actions that have an impact on constitutionally protected property rights, have also reaffirmed that governmental actions that do not formally invoke the condemnation power, including regulations, may result in a taking for which just compensation is required.

(b) Responsible fiscal management and fundamental principles of good government require that government decision-makers evaluate carefully the effect of their administrative, regulatory, and legislative actions on constitutionally protected property rights. Executive departments and agencies should review their actions carefully to prevent unnecessary takings and should account in decision-making for those takings that are necessitated by statutory mandate.

(c) The purpose of this Order is to assist Federal departments and agencies in undertaking such reviews and in proposing, planning, and implementing actions with due regard for the constitutional protections provided by the Fifth Amendment and to reduce the risk of undue or inadvertent burdens on the public fisc resulting from lawful governmental action. In furtherance of the purpose of this Order, the Attorney General shall, consistent with the principles stated herein and in consultation with the Executive departments and agencies, promulgate Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings to which each Executive department or agency shall refer in making the evaluations required by this Order or in otherwise taking any action that is the subject of this Order. The Guidelines shall be promulgated no later than May 1, 1988, and shall be disseminated to all units of each Executive department and agency no later than July 1, 1988. The Attorney General shall, as necessary, update these guidelines to reflect fundamental changes in takings law occurring as a result of Supreme Court decisions.

Sec. 2. Definitions. For the purpose of this Order: (a) “Policies that have takings implications” refers to Federal regulations, proposed Federal regulations, proposed Federal legislation, comments on proposed Federal legislation, or other Federal policy statements that, if implemented or enacted, could effect a taking, such as rules and regulations that propose or implement licensing, permitting, or other condition requirements or limitations on private property use, or that require dedications or exactions from owners of private property. “Policies that have takings implications” does not include:

(1) Actions abolishing regulations, discontinuing governmental programs, or modifying regulations in a manner that lessens interference with the use of private property;
(2) Actions taken with respect to properties held in trust by the United States or in preparation for or during treaty negotiations with foreign nations;
(3) Law enforcement actions involving seizure, for violations of law, of property for forfeiture or as evidence in criminal proceedings;
(4) Studies or similar efforts or planning activities;
(5) Communications between Federal agencies or departments and State or local land-use planning agencies regarding planned or proposed State or local actions regulating private property regardless of whether such communications are initiated by a Federal agency or department or are undertaken in response to an invitation by the State or local authority;
(6) The placement of military facilities or military activities involving the use of Federal property alone; or
(7) Any military or foreign affairs functions (including procurement functions thereunder) but not including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers civil works program.

(b) Private property refers to all property protected by the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

(c) “Actions” refers to proposed Federal regulations, proposed Federal legislation, comments on proposed Federal legislation, applications of Federal regulations to specific property, or Federal governmental actions physically invading or occupying private property, or other policy statements or actions related to Federal regulation or direct physical invasion or occupancy, but does not include:

(1) Actions in which the power of eminent domain is formally exercised;
(2) Actions taken with respect to properties held in trust by the United States or in preparation for or during treaty negotiations with foreign nations;
(3) Law enforcement actions involving seizure, for violations of law, of property for forfeiture or as evidence in criminal proceedings;
(4) Studies or similar efforts or planning activities;
(5) Communications between Federal agencies or departments and State or local land-use planning agencies regarding planned or proposed State or local actions regulating private property regardless of whether such communications are initiated by a Federal agency or department or are undertaken in response to an invitation by the State or local authority;
(6) The placement of military facilities or military activities involving the use of Federal property alone; or
(7) Any military or foreign affairs functions (including procurement functions thereunder), but not including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers civil works program.
Sec. 3. General Principles. In formulating or implementing policies that have takings implications, each Executive department and agency shall be guided by the following general principles:

(a) Governmental officials should be sensitive to, anticipate, and account for, the obligations imposed by the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment in planning and carrying out governmental actions so that they do not result in the imposition of unanticipated or undue additional burdens on the public fisc.

(b) Actions undertaken by governmental officials that result in a physical invasion or occupancy of private property, and regulations imposed on private property that substantially affect its value or use, may constitute a taking of property. Further, governmental action may amount to a taking even though the action results in less than a complete deprivation of all use or value, or of all separate and distinct interests in the same private property and even if the action constituting a taking is temporary in nature.

(c) Government officials whose actions are taken specifically for purposes of protecting public health and safety are ordinarily given broader latitude by courts before their actions are considered to be takings. However, the mere assertion of a public health and safety purpose is insufficient to avoid a taking. Actions to which this Order applies asserted to be for the protection of public health and safety, therefore, should be undertaken only in response to real and substantial threats to public health and safety, be designed to advance significantly the health and safety purpose, and be no greater than is necessary to achieve the health and safety purpose.

(d) While normal governmental processes do not ordinarily effect takings, undue delays in decision-making during which private property use if interfered with carry a risk of being held to be takings. Additionally, a delay in processing may increase significantly the size of compensation due if a taking is later found to have occurred.

(e) The Just Compensation Clause is self-actuating, requiring that compensation be paid whenever governmental action results in a taking of private property regardless of whether the underlying authority for the action contemplated a taking or authorized the payment of compensation. Accordingly, governmental actions that may have a significant impact on the use or value of private property should be scrutinized to avoid undue or unplanned burdens on the public fisc.

Sec. 4. Department and Agency Action. In addition to the fundamental principles set forth in Section 3, Executive departments and agencies shall adhere, to the extent permitted by law, to the following criteria when implementing policies that have takings implications:
(a) When an Executive department or agency requires a private party to obtain a permit in order to undertake a specific use of, or action with respect to, private property, any conditions imposed on the granting of a permit shall:
(1) Serve the same purpose that would have been served by a prohibition of the use or action; and
(2) Substantially advance that purpose.

(b) When a proposed action would place a restriction on a use of private property, the restriction imposed on the use shall not be disproportionate to the extent to which the use contributes to the overall problem that the restriction is imposed to redress.

(c) When a proposed action involves a permitting process or any other decision-making process that will interfere with, or otherwise prohibit, the use of private property pending the completion of the process, the duration of the process shall be kept to the minimum necessary.

(d) Before undertaking any proposed action regulating private property use for the protection of public health or safety, the Executive department or agency involved shall, in internal deliberative documents and any submissions to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget that are required:
(1) Identify clearly, with as much specificity as possible, the public health or safety risk created by the private property use that is the subject of the proposed action;
(2) Establish that such proposed action substantially advances the purpose of protecting public health and safety against the specifically identified risk;
(3) Establish to the extent possible that the restrictions imposed on the private property are not disproportionate to the extent to which the use contributes to the overall risk; and
(4) Estimate, to the extent possible, the potential cost to the government in the event that a court later determines that the action constituted a taking.

In instances in which there is an immediate threat to health and safety that constitutes an emergency requiring immediate response, this analysis may be done upon completion of the emergency action.

Sec. 5. Executive Department and Agency Implementation. (a) The head of each Executive department and agency shall designate an official to be responsible for ensuring compliance with this Order with respect to the actions of that department or agency
.
(b) Executive departments and agencies shall, to the extent permitted by law, identify the takings implications of proposed regulatory actions and address the merits of those actions in light of the identified takings implications, if any, in all required submissions made to the Office of Management and Budget. Significant takings implications should also be identified and discussed in notices of proposed rule-making and messages transmitting legislative proposals to the Congress, stating the departments’ and agencies’ conclusions on the takings issues.

(c) Executive departments and agencies shall identify each existing Federal rule and regulation against which a takings award has been made or against which a takings claim is pending including the amount of each claim or award. A “takings” award has been made or a “takings” claim pending if the award was made, or the pending claim brought, pursuant to the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment. An itemized compilation of all such awards made in Fiscal Years 1985, 1986, and 1987 and all such pending claims shall be submitted to the Director, Office of Management and Budget, on or before May 16, 1988.

(d) Each Executive department and agency shall submit annually to the Director, Office of Management and Budget, and to the Attorney General an itemized compilation of all awards of just compensation entered against the United States for takings, including awards of interest as well as monies paid pursuant to the provisions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, 42 U.S.C. 4601.

(e)(1) The Director, Office of Management and Budget, and the Attorney General shall each, to the extent permitted by law, take action to ensure that the policies of the Executive departments and agencies are consistent with the principles, criteria, and requirements stated in Sections 1 through 5 of this Order, and the Office of Management and Budget shall take action to ensure that all takings awards levied against agencies are properly accounted for in agency budget submissions.

(2) In addition to the guidelines required by Section 1 of this Order, the Attorney General shall, in consultation with each Executive department and agency to which this Order applies, promulgate such supplemental guidelines as may be appropriate to the specific obligations of that department or agency.

Sec. 6. Judicial Review. This Order is intended only to improve the internal management of the Executive branch and is not intended to create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by a party against the United States, its agencies, its officers, or any person.

HR 1555 Forest Access in Rural Communities Act of 2015

*Editor’s Note* – I was asked to post the following statement:

HR 1555 Forest Access in Rural Communities Act of 2015…. introduced 3/23/15 by Greg Walden with over 40 co-sponsors is on the move…. call or contact your congressman requesting their support sign on to the bill and support OPENING ALL RDS in the USFS, statewide and why not nationally. (If contacting Federal Reps also request open all roads in USFS & BLM….)

Okay folks here is YOUR opportunity to make a difference when it comes to access of our federal lands…. The BLM, USDA, Representatives and House members and USFS’s original mandates are to manage the lands for the benefit of our local communities. Somehow over the years the mission of those administrator’s has been reversed by excluding the local public needs; the lack of concerns on impacts of economy, socially and historically.

The USFS & BLM administrations have worked diligently towards road closures on federal lands denying the citizens motorized access, including handicapped, disabled, aging citizens, young children unable to walk long distances, visitors to local communities, recreation, livestock and wildlife management, other multi users and purposes, in addition to handicapping our way of life, abilities to provide public safety, access to valuable resources and the ability to efficiently effectively protect both.

Many road closures are with and without our local county commissioners, yes the local public representatives that we elect with intentions they have our greatest concerns directly under consideration and notify the public PRIOR to taking further political actions… The federal administration has bargained trading projects with the agreement of roads to be closed upon completion of project…. closed roads without authorization from the your county reps, claimed they want the public’s participation and concerns, however when the majority speaks against those decisions our participation and concerns are ignored, resulting in the federal administration taking YET another detour or uses the ESA or other bargaining chips… Well folks we are out of chips, take a stand, make contacts with county commissioners, state and federal representatives and ask them to support HR 1555 and your rights to access ALL of your federal lands.

I heard a comment the other day that this bill ties the USFS’s hands, this depends on which side of the fence you are actually standing on and do not care about protecting the rights of others. If the USFS (or BLM) does not wish to implement policies and procedure for your protection then this bill is YOUR FAMILY’s, FRIEND’s and HERITAGE PROTECTION FOR OUR FUTURE GENERATIONS. Get active UNITE and FIGHT, together this can be accomplished….

“This approach could allow a level of local participation that has not been experienced in decades. It should be noted, however, that many national environmental groups oppose this approach. Shifting power to the local community implies reducing the influence of national groups on local situations.”

Local Wolf Pack Takes Sheep Herd – USFWS Says Wolves Are Doing Just Fine

Sometimes it is quite easy to figure out the real agenda. Below is a link to a story of some people who attempted to set up a sheep ranch in Wyoming – like that’s some sort of terrible thing (maybe killing a few cops in Baltimore would be better?) – and wolves are systematically destroying the owner’s sheep herd.

In response, according to the article, Mike Jimenez, Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, says, “The wolf population is doing just fine…” Obviously! And here reveals the perverted priorities our blinded society abides by; save the damned wolf and to hell with anyone looking to live in peace and make a living. We protect idiots who want to kill humans and to hell with decent, productive persons.

Sick! Absolutely sick behavior…and our tax dollars pay this guy to cherish wolves and allow people to suffer, while at the same time our tax dollars pay government heads to protect killers while innocents suffer.

Yup, that’s about the way it is. I’m looking for an out of planet experience. Anyone want to go?

In the evenings, Janet and Buol Heslin can sit on their back porch in Alta and watch wolves emerge from the nearby national forest. The couple has raised sheep for the last 10 years and the last seven on their farm in Wyoming, and they’ve had a few problems with wolves.

Source: Local wolf pack takes sheep herd – Teton Valley News: News

Local Sustainability Movement Rides Wave of Evolving Federalism to ‘Axe’ Private Property Rights

Lawrence A. Kogan, Esq.*

I. INTERNATIONAL SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND PosTMODERNISM

The concept of sustainable development (“SD”), originally articulated in 1987 by the United Nations (“UN”) World Commission on Environment and Development,2 has long been recognized as being simultaneously global and local in political scope and ambition. It embodies an ostensibly universally applicable (and, until recently, legally unenforceable) set of twenty-seven intergenerational principles integrating environmental, economic, and social concerns enumerated in the 1992 UN Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. 3 This includes the scien tifically progressive yet economically h armful Principle 15, known as the “precautionary principle.” Additionally, it incorporates a comprehensive road map for nation al and subnational governmental implementation of those principles, known as Agenda 21.4<<<Read More>>>

Washington State to Make Wolf Plans – You’re Not Invited

The next meeting of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife’s wolf advisory group will be closed to the public at the recommendation of a private consultant.
Source: Washington state plans closed-door meeting on wolves – Capital Press

About Bullock’s veto of HB 298 – Permitless Carry

News Release from Montana Shooting Sports Association:

I wrote this right after Bullock vetoed HB 298, but didn’t want to release it until MSSA no longer had any bills potentially hostage to the Governor:

The people of Kansas are more law-abiding and trustworthy than the people of Montana, at least that’s what the respective governors of those states believe.

Sam Brownback, Governor of Kansas, just signed into law a bill that would allow adults in Kansas to carry firearms discreetly without advanced government permission.

Meanwhile, Steve Bullock, Governor of Montana, just vetoed HB 298, a bill that would have allowed non-criminal adults in 6/10ths of 1% of Montana to carry discreetly without advanced government permission. The rest of Montana, 99.4% of Montana, has been that way for 24 years now, entirely without the negative consequences now predicted if HB 298 had been signed by the Governor.

In order to justify his distrust of Montana people, Governor Bullock had to lie about the consequences of HB 298, unless you wish to be more generous and simply suppose that former Attorney General Bullock is dangerously incompetent in misunderstanding Montana law on the subject.

Just two of the several lies the Governor told to justify his veto from his veto letter are, “HB 298 would void our state’s reciprocity agreements with more than 40 states that recognize concealed weapon permits and it would void our laws allowing Montana permit holders to bypass the federal background check required for a firearm purchase.”

The first truth is that Montana has zero reciprocity agreements with any other states – none -, so there is nothing to be voided. Plus, HB 298 had no effect whatsoever on the existing Montana law recognizing permits of other states for use in Montana.

The second truth is that there is no way at all to bypass the federally-required background checks for Montana people to buy firearms from licensed dealers. All that Montana law does is to allow a permit to clarify that the buyer is not some other prohibited person who the federal computers may confuse the buyer with. Plus, HB 298 had no effect whatsoever on that existing Montana statute.

Really, the Governor knows this stuff, or at least he should unless he’s dangerously incompetent.

Or, Governor Bullock simply lied to the people of Montana in attempt to justify his rank distrust of Montana people, unlike Kansas Governor Brownback who appears to believe the people of Kansas more trustworthy than Bullock believes the people of Montana to be.
Gary Marbut, President
Montana Shooting Sports Association