October 21, 2019

Oregon Wants Your Guns And To Make You A Criminal

It’s coming! I’ve predicted it in the past. It’s only a matter of time when the blinded totalitarians, under the spell of fascism, will have all your guns rendering you helpless to counter the tyrannical rule and death already planned for you.

The State of Oregon is deciding on a bill, that among a warehouse full of anti-gun measures, includes one that would make the owner of a stolen gun accountable should that gun be used to commit a crime. That’s right. Welcome to the Soviet Union of American Totalitarian States. And not only that, but if you legally sell a gun to someone else and that gun somehow ends up in the hands of a person who commits a crime, you will go to jail.

In my mind there seems to be a catch. However, I’m quite confident that if this is not added to the bill before a final vote, it will be only a matter of a short time when another law will be passed that will require (make mandatory) the registration of ALL guns.

It is impossible to enforce the law proposed to make gun owners liable for crime if a gun is stolen or lost, unless that weapon(s) is registered with the state. How else can they trace the weapon? Unless, of course, you are dumb enough to report it stolen or lost, complete with serial number, etc.

As I understand this proposed bill, gun owners would be given 72 hours to report a lost or stolen gun. This reporting MIGHT release them from liability. However, there are so many complicated scenarios that a person might be brought up on charges for, chances are you will be charged with a crime anyway. The goal here is to criminalize you and/or get you to get rid of all your guns…FEAR!!!

If you have already “registered” your weapon, you really are left with no choices. Registered weapons do not necessarily fall under the formal act of filing a form of gun ownership. If you purchased your gun through a licensed gun dealer, your gun is registered. If you bought your gun with a credit/debit card (Mark of the Beast/Image of the Beast) your gun is registered. If you bought ammunition with a credit/debit card, essentially you have alerted the state that you own a gun of that caliber. It’s nearly impossible to get around it.

My advice to you is that if you own guns that were passed down or you bought in a private sale, do your best to hide that fact from anyone.

The fascists are going to get your guns. It’s only a matter of when.

Charge on oh totalitarian imbeciles!!!

A Bag of Rocks comes to mind.

Share

SAM Claims High Road to Protect Second Amendment

They might claim that high road, but do they actually do what they say they are doing. According to SAM’s Facebook Page, “Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine-Leading through Action!”

On their list of achievements is the passage of LD 9 – “to Ban State of Government Agencies from Creating Gun Owner Registry.”

“An Act to Prohibit the Creation of a Firearm Owner Registry”, sponsored by Rep. Patrick Corey is now law. This quote from the last SAM News accurately sums up this important SAM bill, “The creation of a gun owner registry is the Holy Grail for gun control advocates, because all extreme gun control measures like semi-automatic bans, high capacity magazine bans, and other firearm confiscation schemes, require a database of firearm owners to enforce. Without the government knowing who owns what types of guns and where they are, there is no way to reduce the number of guns in private ownership.” (emphasis added)

Below is the text of LD 9 (also from SAM Facebook page)

Sec. 1. 25 MRSA §2014 is enacted to read:
§2014. Government firearm or firearm owner registry prohibited Notwithstanding and other provision of law to the contrary, a government agency of this State or a political subdivision of this State may not keep or cause to be kept a comprehensive registry of privately owned firearms and the owners of those firearms within its jurisdiction. (emphasis added)

SUMMARY

This amendment, which is the majority report of the committee, replaces the bill and provides that a government agency of the State or a political subdivision of the State may not keep or cause to be kept a comprehensive registry of privately owned firearms and the owners of those firearms within its jurisdiction.” (emphasis added)

We are programmed to automatically accept any effort by those claiming to be in support of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, passage of any law that claims to protect gun owners or ease the restrictions on gun ownership, we blindly accept as a good thing. It might be better…or the equivalent of being hung with a new rope, than continued chopping to bits our Second Amendment rights, but even if you keep cutting off pieces of a plank, a little here and a little there, eventually there’s no more plank and you free fall.

LD 9 is being hailed as a victory for the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine and gun owners because they say, as I highlighted above, The creation of a gun owner registry is the Holy Grail for gun control advocates, because all extreme gun control measures like semi-automatic bans, high capacity magazine bans, and other firearm confiscation schemes, require a database of firearm owners to enforce. Without the government knowing who owns what types of guns and where they are, there is no way to reduce the number of guns in private ownership.”

This Bill, LD 9, is being flaunted as a bill that will prohibit the “comprehensive registry” of all firearms, and that without such a registry, governments and non governmental agencies cannot confiscate guns because they won’t know where to find them.

The first question I might ask is this: What will be the state of things in this country WHEN the U.S. Government goes about confiscating our firearms? Will following the rule of law any longer exist?

I thought so.

A federal firearms dealer is required to “register” every gun he sells and keep a record. As I understand LD 9, now a licensed firearms dealer will have to make a second copy of that registration, mark it “State Copy” and make it available to any government, law enforcement or prosecuting attorney upon demand. That’s some protection of a gun owner from that registry created at the point of sale. (Note: It was brought to my attention, and correctly so, that current law requires the “State Copy” to be kept on file. LD 9 eliminates the “State Copy” and thus the only “registration” of the purchase of your gun is the one created by the federally licensed gun dealer. Also understand that this registration is still a registration and can and will be accessed when the governments so desire.)

LD 9 prohibits the creation of a “comprehensive registry” (whatever lawyer wants to define that one for us). Comprehensive, in the context used (I’m guessing), means complete. Please define “complete.” Who gets to decide? We are not told that and this is the kind of crap sandwich we are fed by lawyers. They craft laws for themselves not for you and I.

So, if it is now unlawful for the Government to “keep or cause to be kept” a “comprehensive” gun registry, does that mean if they leave off the registration, say your sexual preference, does that now make the registry “uncomprehensive” and thus can be used by governments and law enforcement when it comes time to confiscate your REGISTERED guns that you REGISTERED when you purchased your guns from a licensed dealer.

Stop kidding yourselves! The Second Amendment is the only item in the Bill of Rights that we, not only give away, but do so gladly and all the while believing we are doing the “reasonable” thing.

Share

Piling On Gun Laws When The Same Laws Already Exist

“…it is a felony under existing law, punishable by 10 years’ imprisonment, for “prohibited persons,” including felons, domestic abusers, illegal aliens, those determined to be mentally incapacitated, and drug addicts to possess a firearm.

Likewise, existing law makes it a felony, punishable by 10 years’ imprisonment, to transfer a firearm to someone you know or have reasonable cause to believe is a prohibited person.

Furthermore, the background-check requirement under Question 3 is so broad and the exceptions under Question 3 are so narrow, that Question 3 would criminalize innocent conduct by otherwise law-abiding, competent adults.”<<<Read More>>>

Share

Bullock Lied to Montana Voters and the Media

Press Release from Gary Marbut:

Bullock’s Statement about Second Amendment Support is Flat Wrong
MISSOULA – In the Billings debate between challenger Greg Gianforte and Governor Steve Bullock, the candidates were asked a question about their support for the right to keep and bear arms.  In his response, Governor Bullock claimed, “I’ve worked with the Legislature to make sure that you can protect your home and your property by passing the castle doctrine.”
Gary Marbut, author of Gun Laws of Montana commented, “Bullock’s statement is flat wrong.  Montana’s castle doctrine law, ‘Defense of an occupied structure,’ has been on the Montana law books since the Bannack Statutes of Montana territorial days, about 1865.  That existing law was most recently clarified in 2009 in a bill signed by Governor Schweitzer, before Bullock was Governor.”
“It’s pretty sleazy,” Marbut continued, “for Bullock to claim credit for a law that was enacted just after the Civil War, long before he was born.  That sure makes a person wonder about his answers to other questions posed by panelists during the debate, such as the one ‘Have you ever been involved in an extra-marital affair?’ “
When introducing his position on the right to keep and bear arms, Bullock said, “In Montana we use our guns for both self protection and for our public lands.”
About this comment, Marbut asked, “Just how do Montanans use guns for public lands?  How much further could Bullock be out of touch with the tens of thousands of Montana gun owners who use firearms for recreation, competitive shooting, collecting, predator control, and other legitimate uses?”
Marbut noted a Democrat from Bozeman running for Congress who pointed out that every political aspirant in Montana must claim to support the Second Amendment.  To do otherwise would be political suicide.  “Bullock’s multiple vetoes of pro-gun bills passed by the Legislature and his false claim of credit for a law enacted before his parents were born paint an accurate picture of Bullock’s true disrespect for the right to keep and bear arms,” Marbut said.
Marbut is also President of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, the primary political advocate for Montana gun owners.  MSSA has endorsed challenger Greg Gianforte in his bid to replace Bullock as Governor, because Gianforte has pledged to sign the bills that Bullock has vetoed.  The National Rifle Association and Gun Owners of America have also endorsed Gianforte.
Share

Gun Statistics Prove that Gun Statistics Can Prove Anything

There’s been much talk recently — including from President Obama — about there being a substantial correlation between state-level gun death rates and state gun laws. Now correlation obviously doesn’t equal causation; there may be lots of other factors that are the true causes of both of the things that are being measured. But if we do look for now at correlation, it seems to me that the key question should focus on state total homicide rates, or perhaps (for reasons I describe below) total intentional homi

Source: Zero correlation between state homicide rate and state gun laws – The Washington Post

Share

Handgun sales spike in advance of Maine permit change 

AUBURN — An upcoming change in Maine law that allows adults to carry a concealed handgun without a permit is triggering a spike in gun sales at some local shops.

Source: Handgun sales spike in advance of Maine permit change | Sun Journal

Share

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

Share

If You Threaten Me I’ll Whine for More Laws

GunControlWhine
Share

In Texas, Legislation to Void Federal Gun Laws

State Representative Tim Kleinschmidt has introduced legislation in Texas that would void any federal gun laws that: specifically taxes a gun or accessory, requires registration or tracking, prohibits buying or selling, or tries to confiscate guns from lawful citizens.

I have heard some argue that because some states are writing their own marijuana laws, with seemingly no opposition from the Feds, then states should be able to do the same with other laws, including gun laws. But there is a difference that few understand.

The federal government, i.e. the connected insiders, the ruling establishment, want Americans to be stoned. It renders them a drugged-up non threat community/society, mostly incapable of caring enough about anything which provides an easier means in which a tyrannical government can continue to enslave the people.

Guns? Not so much. As a matter of fact, I have claimed for some time that gun ownership by Americans is the last great deterrent to the complete servitude of U.S. Citizens. Don’t look for the Feds to roll over and play dead to state legislation that would usurp the strong arm of fascist government control over the people.

Drug and murder them; that’s okay but don’t allow them more freedom.

Share

Missoula Shooting Media Circus

You won’t be surprised to hear that there’s been a high demand by news/entertainment media for comment, spurred by the recent shooting incident in Missoula.

I have not been able to comment about that incident, but I have tried to make myself available to the media for comment concerning Montana gun laws and our Montana gun culture. I hope to inject some more rational thought into this media fest to avoid all the media misinformation that came out surrounding the Treyvon Martin/George Zimmerman incident in Florida (e.g., “stand your ground” was never involved there).

I’ve just finished an hour-long interview with CNN this afternoon. They say their segment should air Tuesday (5/13). Since I don’t a TV set, I’ll depend on you folks to tell me if CNN treated me fairly, and if I was lucid talking to the camera (I never know when I’m talking if I’m coming across well).

In addition, I have done a half-hour segment with an international radio network. I did an interview with and was mentioned in the New York Times. I was interviewed for several hours by the German magazine Stern, which has a circulation of nine million in Europe. I did a two hour interview with a newspaper chain headquartered in Frankfurt, Germany. I did a two-day interview with a German TV network from Berlin that reaches all of Germany and Austria and Switzerland. I was requested to write an OpEd for the Great Falls Tribune and I had a letter published in the Missoulian. I should be on Missoula’s TalkBack on KGVO radio on next Tuesday (5/20) for an hour talking about Montana gun laws. And, I’m probably forgetting some.

My general themes have been:

1) Montana and Montana people have a long tradition, culture and heritage of owning and using firearms for legitimate purposes. Our culture is suitable for Montana people. We don’t ask people in other places to change their culture to please us and we’d appreciate the same consideration from them.

2) Before any rush to judgement about the propriety of Montana gun laws, and concerns arising our of the recent Missoula incident, we need to let the justice system do its job. Until the justice system has completed its job, it is not possible to say responsibly that something is broken and needs to be fixed.

3) Finally, I’ve found it very difficult to get the media to correct the misunderstanding and assertion that MSSA and I created the “castle doctrine” in Montana with HB 228 in 2009.

Because of item #3, I’ve done a bunch of research into the castle doctrine concept. You will be interested in what I’ve learned. The earliest reported legal case I’ve found that was decided according to the castle doctrine was in 1330, AD. So, the castle doctrine concept is AT LEAST seven centuries old. The first mention of the concept I can find in Montana law was in the Revised Montana Statutes of 1879, during Montana’s territorial days – before statehood. So, the castle doctrine was not something MSSA and I created in 2009 with our HB 228, which we called our “Self Defense bill,” although we did tweak it just a bit.

If you want to know about that tweak, the 1879 language, still in the law in 2008 (“Defense of an occupied structure.” at 45-3-105, M.C.A.) said that a person could not avail themselves of the benefit of the castle doctrine unless the intruder entered in a “riotous or tumultuous manner.” There were two problems with that language:

First, if an assailant snuck quietly into your home and woke you in the night with a knife held quietly at your throat, you couldn’t utilize any castle doctrine in self defense – no entry in a “riotous or tumultuous manner.”

Second, the words “riotous” and “tumultuous” are not words of legal art. That is, they are not specifically defined anywhere in the law, so what they mean is in the eye of the beholder. They could mean a wide variety of things. Laws that a common, ordinary person cannot understand and rely on are simply bad laws. You and I need to be able to know what conduct is permissible, and what conduct is prohibited.

So, with HB 228 we struck these words from the law so you and other citizens could have a reasonable grasp of what the law requires and allows.

Of course, HB 228 was a large bill with lots of moving parts. People who know little about the bill and little about Montana gun laws have been spouting off that the laws need to be changed – maybe that HB 228 needs to be repealed. That they would make these broad statements generically without knowing what specifically they want to change demonstrates their ignorance of current law. Therefore, they’re just grandstanding or attempting political theatre, or as we say in the gun culture, they’re dancing joyously in the blood of the victim.

Enough of my near rant. Let me know how the CNN story looks.

Best wishes,

Gary Marbut, President
Montana Shooting Sports Association
http://www.mtssa.org
Author, Gun Laws of Montana
http://www.MTPublish.com

Share