Interested to know what some of the reactions are to this recent letter to the editor that was in the Miles City Star......



Dear editor,

If state law grants one elected county official the power to determine if you'll be awarded a concealed weapons permit (CWP) and our city council has decided to grant you the extralegal privilege of carrying a loaded gun into a high school football game, a city park or the public square by revising our city weapons ordinance then the rest of us have every right to know who you are.

The compelling state interest in upholding the public's right to know over against a CWP holder's right to privacy is the public safety of each an armed citizen. Otherwise, the public fills a prescription for a legally armed secret society and the dangerous potential for mayhem at public assemblies.

Sen. Eric Moore (SD20-R) outrageously decided to write that deadly prescription when he introduced Senate Bill 145 (LC 1938), an unconstitutional measure that prohibits the release of any public information concerning CWP holders strongly opposed by the Montana Newspaper Association.

Rep. Bill McChesney (HD 40-D), masquerading as a political progressive, supported Moore's undemocratic bill in a gutless pander to the gun pimps of Montana with his affirmative vote on Wednesday.

Our Montana Constitution seeks to balance the public's right to know with an individual's right to privacy. That's hard to do when your legislators from both parties are standing on one side of the scales.

We don't need to swallow that poison. Urge Gov. Steve Bullock to veto LC 1938 and prevent Montana from losing its constitutional balance over concealed weapons.

Sincerely,

Joe R. Whalen
Miles City, MT

"oooh... look.. this guy has a CCW permit. That's gotta mean he has guns in his home. Just gonna figure out the guys pattern for when he is home or not home, and gonna go in and steal all those guns."

Yeah...

That's just one reason it shouldn't be public.

Countdown to when someone posts "Well, the guns should be in a secure safe or somethin'..."

john.... hall your dam ass back where you came from ..the people of mc sent you packing so get,what a dumd ass

I'm certain Joe is well intentioned with his opinion, but from my experience, there are many people that have a permit that seldom "pack". They maintain it for those times when it is necessary (for example, a woman out walking late at night or similar situations). There is an application and review process to get the permit and I am willing to put trust in the sheriff's judgment whether to grant one. The people I would be far more concerned about are those that don't have a permit! I believe it should be private information when it comes to the general public. Law enforcement, of course, has the information at hand and they are the ones that really need to know.

blake beeler wrote:

john.... hall your dam ass back where you came from ..the people of mc sent you packing so get,what a dumd ass

I am supposing you don't mean me and are pointing your comment to Joe Whalen?

John Morford

john.... hall your dam ass back where you came from ..the people of mc sent you packing so get,what a dumd ass

Blake, if you have a point to debate, debate it, otherwise you are just making yourself look like the "dumd" ass.

Anymore this town is so full of people with the mentality "if you don't agree with me, get the hell out." These people are passing the same mentality on to their children who are treating their classmates the same way.

Just because you think you are right doesn't mean you are. We all need to use our brains and our ears at least twice as much as our mouths.

"john.... hall your dam ass back where you came from ..the people of mc sent you packing so get,what a dumd ass"

Who's John? And if his ass is being used as a dam he must have a serious weight problem.

Joe has brought this issue (publicly searchable list of concealed carry permit holders) up before and I still don't understand the value in such a list. Do you intend to keep a mental list of concealed carry permit holders and not go into a place if you see one of the permit holders in there?

Thanks for posting this John , Cheers

I would argue that if concealed carry permit holders must be identified through a publicly searchable database then so should anyone who has tested positive for HIV.

Colorfull phraseology, "Outrageously" "Unconstitutional Measure" "Gutless pander to the Gun Pimps" "Swallow the Poison"

Consider the scource. Perhaps, one should be more afraid of a rant such as that, than a CC permit holder.

Anyone read George Orwell's 1984 lately?

Ike, that book, was a required read for one of my English classes in high school, back in the very early 70`s .

I would argue that if concealed carry permit holders must be identified through a publicly searchable database then so should anyone who has tested positive for HIV.

I concur, David.

I would argue that if concealed carry permit holders must be identified through a publicly searchable database then so should anyone who has tested positive for HIV.

Right! Because a person with HIV can ejaculate on you from 10 feet away, it is just as deadly as a gun.

Please answer this...

Let's say my gun is laying on my desk, it is loaded... just me present at my desk... no one else around... when I leave my desk.. I will pick the gun up and put it in my holster... the gun is now holstered... it still isn't doing anything... just sitting in the holster... there is no chance no one else can get it or use it.... my finger is OFF the trigger...

how is the gun dangerous?

Edit... countdown to when someone responds to this post out of context... 3...2....1...

[This message has been edited by SeptyTwo (3/27/2013)]

What I think Joe should consider if he is so worried about being in the vicinity of a ccw holder is this. If he goes into a Grocery store, Theater, Clothing store, Gas station, Restaurant, or just about any other public populated area there WILL be some one there with a ccw and probably packing.

I base this on my own observation of experiences just knowing the handful of people I know who have a ccw and how often I run into them in these kind of places.

I think it is time to jump into this thread with a reminder....

http://www.youtube.com/wa...MMp_llzBT4

Miss the point much, Mufasa?

Hey, Joe.

Since every citizen in "shall issue" States excluding those with criminal records or those with a history of mental illness is qualified to apply for a concealed carry permit, what fantasy Constitutional "right to know" is it that you think you have to CWP records? Do you have a "right" to access citizen's tax records? Do you have a "right" to know the names and addresses of everybody with a driver's license? Cars don't kill people. People driving cars kill people.

Did you protest vociferously when California pulled the access to driver's license records? As I remember, they did it to protect individuals from nutcases who might want to do some people harm. Who would benefit from a list of CWP holders other than nutcases that want to single out a certain class of law abiding citizens, to do them some form of harm?

The only thing you need to know is that everybody you cross paths with in any given day, could be a suspect CWP holder. If nothing else, that should motivate one to be more polite. I know that, in my case, the proliferation of CWP permits has motivated me to quit flipping people off.

My Constitutional "right to carry" is the 2nd Amendment and it is my opinion that the whole process of having to be "granted" a CWP by any public official, violates my rights under 2nd and 4th Amendments to the Constitution.

As soon as we get the privacy issues in the 4th Amendment clarified, maybe we can work on what it is you think you have a "right to know".

If Joe is this worried, he should really be interested in House Bill 304 which would allow people to carry concealed firearms without a permit in cities. This legislation has been proposed by Rep. Krayton Kerns, R-of Laurel. He called his "permit-less conceal carry" proposal, House Bill 304, a logical addition to state law that gives city dwellers the same privileges as rural residents who already can carry a concealed weapon without a permit.

"Right now, I can walk down Main Street Laurel, and I can carry a gun in my hand. I can carry it in my briefcase. I can carry it in my holster," Kerns told the Senate Judiciary Committee March 18. "The only thing I can't do is put my coat over my holster when I am walking downtown."

At least then Joe will have his dream of a list! Because it will be EVERYONE!

Opening up a completly and perhaps larger can of worms.

Would Mr. Whalen support the publics right to know over a persons right to privacy, should the topic be Gay-Lesbian rights? Both topics have made the news,legislatures,public opinion, as well as the courts. Maybe, as he avows the information needs to be public for the rest of us to know,the same as the concealed carry argument.

He goes on to say, "If state law grants one elected county official the power to grant or deny the privilege of a concealed carry permit." Should that same law be included to grant the same to an elected mayor of a muncipality?

Joe, could you please provide me with a documented incident of a CWP holder committing a crime with their CCW? Not some propaganda BS story from anti-gun people like yourself. Don't throw out "the innocent bystander got hurt by one" either, because the police have that happen more than CWP holders do. Just look at the latest events in California.

The type of person that is prone to pursue a permit, is cut of the true grit cloth of those that obtained and safeguarded the very rights that you so freely fling about, they're not criminals. Driving repeatedly on a suspended driver's license and threatening a local business with your position of mayor, simply because they wouldn't let you pawn something, makes you more of a criminal than most people that get turned down for a CWP.
Blake inadvertently typed the wrong name, but we know who he was talking about. He's absolutely right, Miles City would be a better place if you got the h**l out. I will help you pack.

[This message has been edited by Phil Shifley (3/27/2013)]

Why do people who do not like or agree with our lifestyle and beliefs move to our areas?

If you do not like Guns, best to stay out of Montana, Wyoming, the Dakota's Idaho and the like.

Well, Mr, Nielsen, are you saying that these areas are only for one group of like minded peoples?...a bit narrow minded don't ya think?? Kinda destroys the idea of democracy if ya believe that...

[This message has been edited by howdy (4/1/2013)]

Nothing can get me on board with supporting Joe's anti-CWP campaign like a bunch of rednecks hollering, "Yer not like us, git out of our town."

Joe Whalen was one of the more competent mayors the city has had in years and he represented Miles City in a dignified manner. I admire him for his courage to say what is on his mind and to sign his name to it.

Joe, while I don't understand the value of making the CWP database public as you propose, I hope you know how much I appreciate the job you did as mayor of Miles City. As far as I am concerned, you're always welcome in "my hometown".

Amen David!!!!!!! Joe, you were a terrific mayor and are deeply appreciated by many citizens in Miles City...

No doubt, the publication of last Monday's letter was confusing or offensive to our legislators, several of you posting here, and many fuming silently at home. My response to your offense is that it's good that you're offended. The freedom to offend with speech, press, and peaceable assembly is essential to Liberty.

In contrast, the gun pimps will tell you that "an armed society is a polite society" and they won't be happy until it's acceptable in American culture for firearms to be carried, openly or concealed, to any forum at anytime by anyone. If and when that day ever arrives, we are no longer a free society.

Civic engagement as free citizens is the highest virtue of self-government and we meet one another in public through speech, both oral and written. Those meetings presume both the freedom of expression and an equal standing between us as citizens. Violence, on the other hand, is the language of master/slave societies.

Aside from the usual hazards of loss, theft, or accidental discharge, the act of carrying a weapon into the public square, openly or covertly, both presupposes and threatens violence. It immediately suppresses speech and creates a freedom-killing power dynamic. The toxic brew of weapons and offensive speech, as we've learned all too well in this culture and our own community, can spontaneously combust with little or no warning. The American experiment is at its best when it favors our freedoms of expression over violence and I pray that it always will.

If you've found yourself seduced by Second Amendment arguments and easily whipped up into a jealous rage over the "protection of your inalienable right" to carry the weapon of your choice whenever and wherever you wish, understand that it's not freedom that you advocate. It's power.

Don't mistake power for freedom. Leave the gun, take the cannoli.

...ohh well

[This message has been edited by Bill Bloom (4/2/2013)]

If you changed the word "weapon" to "homosexual" or "Muslim", I'd think it was a Sean Hannity op-ed.

Joe:

No one would question your right to freedom of expression, no matter how asinine, is protected.

Why then, would my right to keep and bear arms be any less protected?

I think human history would support the premise that speech can be as dangerous as any weapon ever invented by man.

For whatever reason, my mind continues circling back to this stupid thread. Why, at a time when America is at it's most progressive, have the liberals decided to become the new assholes? Marginalizing a population with terms like "extremist cracker" and "gun pimp" is no better than calling someone a raghead. We've gone from religious fear-mongering to whatever you call this new garbage. I can only conclude that people on both sides of the aisle are procreateing assholes that don't know how to win or lose with grace.

Have we forgotten that we only have these rights because our fore fathers were armed citizens. I don't believe a criminal would legally carry a firearm to commit a crime, they would have a gun not registered to them and carry it whenever and wherever they please without a permit. That is what should make people worry not someone who's a law abiding citizen who registers him/herself with the sheriff.

"Oddjob" last Wednesday:

If nothing else, that should motivate one to be more polite. I know that, in my case, the proliferation of CWP permits has motivated me to quit flipping people off.

"Oddjob" today:

No one would question your right to freedom of expression, no matter how asinine, is protected.

Pardon me, Oddjob, but do you even know who you are?

Oh, and Ike, this one's for you, sweetheart...

http://www.funnyordie.com...jim-carrey

In my opinion, the basic problem some people are having with this letter is the idea of having the list at all but maybe Mr. Whalen could further explain his position by expounding on just what he would envision happening if there was such a list?

David Schott asked in a previous post:

Joe has brought this issue (publicly searchable list of concealed carry permit holders) up before and I still don't understand the value in such a list. Do you intend to keep a mental list of concealed carry permit holders and not go into a place if you see one of the permit holders in there?

Marty Scheid also asked:

What I think Joe should consider if he is so worried about being in the vicinity of a ccw holder is this. If he goes into a Grocery store, Theater, Clothing store, Gas station, Restaurant, or just about any other public populated area there WILL be some one there with a ccw and probably packing.

I would really be interested in Mr. Whalen's views on what such a list would be good for?

[This message has been edited by John Morford (4/3/2013)]

Joe Whalen wants a list because he knows his Saul Alinsky tactics.

"Rules for Radicals"

RULE 12:

"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

He wants gun owners to be branded with a Scarlet Letter. His issue isn't public safety. Whalen's issue is gun control.

Oh, by the way Joe, I believe I said I was "motivated" to be more polite, not transformed. I do still make exceptions, when warranted.

I have a question that might be not in keeping with this topic but since we have drifted into gun control in general I will risk asking it...People that believe in the 2nd amendment and want to buy and own all the guns they wish as well as ammunition, magazines, etc. also say they own these to guard against tyranny from a government that might stage some sort of coup de ta...(sp?)...anyway, why then do those self same people wish to spend tons of unlimited funds for not only a strong military but more money than 5 of the next developed nations combined spend on their military budgets?? Isn't this an oxymoran?? If one is so worried about being taken over by their government why then do you wish to make your governments military stronger...always wondered that...I asked my husband that question (he is life member of the NRA) and he said he never thought of it in those terms and really didn't have an answer...

Another post in the same theme as his letter to the editor. More colorful phraseology, "Gun Pimps","Freedom Killing","Toxic Brew", "Offensive Speech", "Seduced", "Whipped Up Into A Jealous Rage","Spontaneously Combust".

Same type of rant,but from a different perceptive,and more dignified than some whom are no longer posters.

At first one may suspect there is a little of,"Here Kitty Kitty" in his letter and post,unless you recall his asking the local newspaper in a letter to the editor to discontinue the Bill O'Reilley column as being to far right,and not being in the mainstream of Miles City thought. Going back further, prior to the first election of BHO a poster compared kinship with BHO and J Mc. Mr. Whalen suggested the poster should be held legally responsible for the post. Censorship seems to be OK as long as it meets your position. Mr. Whalen shows his true colors in print as well as in social media. We knew he reads the newspaper now we know he monitors this site.

No reply to my question of 3-27 on this board. Ideology may be dangerous, left or right leaning. BEWARE, Don't drink the Kool-Aid!!

Howdy get on whatever side you want, but if you move to Iran then attempt to talk people out of the swords they use to behead others with, don't be surprised when you find you head on the block. You are in a gun culture filled area, and you must realise that you will not break the resolve of these good people.
Hey David, you say that Mayor Whalen was "one of the more competent Mayors in Miles City history" I remember the current Mayor having to alert the crowd as to Whalens PLAGERISM, at the last debate. He attempted to take credit for makeing the water tower project happen, when the truth was that Butch Grenz had done all of the work to ensure that project way before Whalen got in office. So get off your knees when whalen is around!
Joe you are insane, and this is why you lost by a large margin in your re-election bid. "The gun pimps wont quit untill we can all carry openly or concealed". If this were true, there would be no NRA, because we can already carry openly or concealed, check the second amendment.
If you do not like guns, then leave, and yes, like minded people should seek to live around people whom share their ideals, this is how you ensure that your cultural ideals will survive, check history!!!!

For those unaware, this discussion turned academic last Thursday after the legislature passed LC1938 and the governor signed it into law. I don't like it but we'll all need to live with this mistake unless it's reversed in court. I'm optimistic that a successful challenge will be initiated, most likely by an employee of a school district, local government, state government, or an organization with a strong workplace violence policy that prohibits the concealed carry or flashing of weapons in the workplace.

When challenged, the court will be required to find the missing compelling state interest in denying the public's review of county CWP databases. That active justification was never delivered during the debate on LC1938, most notably by the bill's author.

That last point is key, John. You've asked why anyone would want access to a database of permitted CWP holders. I can think of several reasons for the request, mentioned two in the initial letter, and outline two more in an OpEd that may appear as soon as tomorrow a.m. in the Billings Gazette. However, the burden fundamentally lies with the state to explain why the new claim of privacy over the issue of a CWP by an elected official overrides the public's existing right to review a CWP database.

So that there's no misunderstanding, I highly regard our current sheriff as a man of sound judgment and high integrity but he can't remain in office indefinitely. By contrast, we had a sheriff in my home county who issued CWPs like candy, purely for ideological reasons. It didn't matter to him what kind of criminal record you had or your state of mental health. You got your CWP, regardless. If you want insane, "coffeedrunk", that's insane.

Finally, before I'm asked to endure another lecture about history and culture, let me share with you some of your own. Montana state law completely prohibited the concealed carry of firearms from 1919 until 1991(!), when the legislature first provided for concealed weapons permits. By that time, the "right to know" provision of the Montana Constitution had been in place nearly 20 years. Your history, your culture.

And here's a film depiction of our fairly recent cultural history that I'd just as soon not see repeated because too many get drunk on gun-fueled power...

I would just like to say that I feel so much safer knowing that "carriers" with cwp are apparently incapable of breaking the law in any way and that pretty much any citizen, no matter how stupid, incompetant, paranoid, reckless, etc, etc, can probably obtain a cwp because that is apparently what the NRA wants.

I would also hope that limits on magazine size and automatic weapons can be dove tailed with the cwp laws so we can all be EVEN SAFER.

Your Welcome.

I am curious if this new set of overlapping conditions would allow for someone like Rob Shipley to obtain his CWP if he was friendly enough with whoever was Sheriff at the time?

He once threatened the life of my children via email. While that alone didn't worry me, I would like the right to research if he was a CWP holder if the only thing stopping him from obtaining one, was the critical thinking of an official who is put in place by a popularity contest.

[This message has been edited by J. Dyba (4/4/2013)]

Concealed Wepon Permit? I wonder if criminals apply for one... I would think not. Law abiding citizens should have the right to carry concealed al long as they pass the background check. I for one will not be a victim of crime. There is to much evil in this world. Evil people who want to hurt, steal, rape etc... Honest people dont usually commit crime. Work in a prison, deploy to the Middle East a few times. It will change your opinion on mankind. So many evil people want to harm others. They may think different if the law abiding person was trained and carried.

Oh for procreate sake, Bobby. You won't be the victim of a crime, but people in the Middle East are "evil" because they didn't offer you a hug when you pointed a gun at them? What the procreate?

Bobby we don't need a CWP, we already have one (the 2nd amendment). By changing the conversation to anything that sounds official like "permit, permission, priveledge" they are drawing the line in the sand, not us. If they (liberals) want the line to be further left than the constitution, we can only win by drawing it further right than the constitution. This would then get us to meet in the middle, which is at the constitutional doorstep once again.

So our (conservative capitalist) line should be at mandatory gun ownership, although we as well as they don't really want that.

We do need to settle on the grounds of no infringment or restrictions to our RIGHT to own guns.So a data base is completely out of the picture, because there would be no personal information to place into it.

My wife ownes several guns, and none were purchased from a dealer because you are giving the government the go ahead to database you when purchasing from them.

Furthermore we need to have access to the same fire power as those whom seek to rule or legislate us since tyranny usually comes from a nations own government.

And Joe I dont care what our sheriffs preferences are, since he is subject to the same constitution as the plumbers and labors of the world. He can not infring on our RIGHT to bear arms. Courts have already labeled the PEOPLE as the well regulated militia, the military is government run, which is the opposite of a militia.

Furthermore we need to have access to the same fire power as those whom seek to rule or legislate us since tyranny usually comes from a nations own government.

So you are all for cutting the military budget?

Showwalter, so you are an expert on the Middle East? Procreate no I wouldn't want them to offer me a hug. After what a saw what they did to women and children. Your right procreatehead, I wont be a victim of a crime. I will and do carry. Unless you want to fight it out. let me know, loudmouth.

Oh, Bobby, I have a pretty good idea who you are. You'd better carry that gun. Good luck shooting Karma.

Yeah.. you two... that's it...

Provoke each other...

(Emperor Palpatines voice) "Good.... Good!"

You ain't making a good case for EITHER side of this debate

If you know who I am why don't we meet up? Are you threatening me? I know who are.

Maybe we should have a list of people who don't have a cwp. Then you can single yourself out. Let the criminals know your a safe mark. Or just mind our own business , so if you choose to or not to carry a firearm legaly it's nobody else's business. If you don't agree with carrying then don't carry simple as that. but then we'd have to find a new subject to argue about, this is just as productive as staying home and beating my head on a rock.

Here's a simple question.

Why do so many of you feel the need to carry while I do not?

Perhaps you are braver?? That's what I told my hubby when he had a concealed carry permit...I said "all these years, I didn't know how brave I truly must be" LOL...made him mad and he stopped carrying...

It has nothing to do with bravery.

I is merely a self defense device. Most times the mere fact that you have a weapon is enough to diffuse a situation that could have gotten very bad. I personally have had two instances in which this very thing happened when I was with my WIFE and FAMILY.

Once in a crowded parking lot at a large mall three thugs would have carjacked us! Just displaying the handgun was enough and they left with only a few ugly words.

Once leaving a fancy restaurant two men began following us I stopped turned to get a look at them, one pulled a knife and demanded my wallet! I said ok reached for my wallet and produced my pistol instead. They both ran like scared dogs.

Bravery has nothing to do with it.

"Once in a crowded parking lot at a large mall three thugs would have carjacked us!"

If they had been packing you or one or more of your family members could be dead. But, hey, I wouldn't blame you for being willing to lose your wife to save your pickup.

So... even if someone is armed for self defense... it is better to TAKE A CHANCE that the bad guy WONT hurt you... because "odds are you wont get hurt if the bad guy demands something and you agree"...

Yeah... carry a gun, but don't use ammo.. just use it as a hammer...

The old saying why bring a knife to a gun fight comes to mind!!!

Bob II asked

Why do so many of you feel the need to carry while I do not?

Obviously, your choice not to carry is your personal choice.

Here is a practical example for one of the reasons I chose to obtain a CCW.

Nevada law is silent on carrying a handgun (loaded or unloaded) in an automobile. I do a great deal of traveling in the middle of nowhere for work and I choose to have a handgun in my possession, while on the road.

I attended a forum with the Nevada State Police Information Officer several years ago and this question came up. "When is a handgun in a car considered to be a "concealed weapon?" After much hemming and hawing, the Officer stated that one of the criteria an NHP Trooper would use to determine that is "accessibility". When asked to clarify, he said: "I assume you are alone in the car and the gun is not immediately visible. If the gun is in the door pocket or under the driver's seat, it's accessible. If it's under the passenger seat or in the jockey box, the Patrolman may determine that it's not accessible and therefore is not "technically" concealed." He went on to say if a woman had a gun in the jockey box, it "might not" be a problem. If it was in her purse, she's busted. The general response from those in attendance was, "so it's really up to the Officers judgment call, whether or not a handgun in a car is a concealed weapon?

Pretty much, and I think in Montana you're in the same boat.

How ambiguous is that? I could be stopped for a tail light and possibly be charged with a Class C felony because an NHP Officer made a judgment call on how long my arms are. A CCW renders the point moot, so it's a no-brainer just to CYA.

http://www.handgunlaw.us/...rCarry.pdf

I'm also fairly certain there are laws protecting transport of a gun through a state where the laws differ from the state in which you reside, unfortunately I forget the name of those laws.

David

If you can unequivocally guarantee that they would only have taken my vehicle and not harmed my wife or my self, even if I had tossed them the keys MAYBE it would have been better not to.

However after I got their plate number and called police they were apprehended and the camera in the parking lot confirmed my story. One of them was carrying a handgun illegally and charged with a felony! One of the others was a convicted rapist!

So you can believe whatever you want but giving in and turning the other cheek and avoiding any confrontation will not guarantee your safety!

Believe in faith, good luck or karma, its up to you. I however believe in situational awareness, and good training and preparedness.

Buck

With or without a CCW, you better know the State Laws or have a lawyer in your pocket.

From your link

"Montana law is quiet on carrying a firearm in a vehicle. There is no mention of it being illegal to carry a loaded or unloaded firearm in a vehicle."

It the same in Nevada. All I'm saying is if there is nothing defined, there is no protection from prosecution extended either. I'd rather be more than "fairly certain" I'm not going to get charged with a Class C felony.

(Now Ex) NHPIO Rocky Barker made it abundantly clear that NHP considered it discretionary to the Patrolman.

Screw that.

This sight lays out the rules and regulations on handguns. Some people should read this.......Just Sayin'.
http://www.handgunlaw.us/...ontana.pdf

*OOPS. I missed the link posted above. Both links have great info. Mine is Montana based.

[This message has been edited by JMinow (4/5/2013)]

Bob maybe you do not feel the need to carry a weapon, because you work in an office somewhere. I spent plenty of time ranching, as well as fishing around bozeman, and have seen many rattlers and bear.

I don't know, maybe you are just plain scared of loud noises. Maybe you are the guy that says to an opponent "you don't have to yell", or "lower your voice", because it makes you feel threatned.

Truth is, we dont know why you choose to dislike guns, maybe you beleive that the popular culture is finally spinning your way, so this is your opprutunity to disarm your foes. I think this is it.

Remember things are not always what they seem, and your ally can, and usually does, turn on after your usefullness has expired.

Rattlesnakes? It's okay for your horse to be scared, but not for you. Stupid Hollywood or bed time stories or whatever have left the world so ignorant. Spiders and snakes are good guys. And bears... it better have been a grizzly bear, because black bears are about as scary as the neighbor's cat.

Coffeedrunk - I like loud noises and in fact have probably damaged my ears due to listening to too many of them. I own a gun, and am not afraid of them. I'm also not afraid the government will try to take it.

Yes I work in an office situation. And i can see the practicality of a rancher "carrying" because of rattlesnakes, coyotes or whatever. I'd hope you see the difference between keeping a handgun in your pick-up vs feeling the need to carry one downtown, into the bar(a genius of an idea) or elsewhere in public. I'm completely convinced your chances of accidentally shooting yourself or a loved one is far greater than any chance you'll be a hero with your handy sidearm.

Oddjob's answer to my question made sense without him feeling the need to challenge my manhood. He posed some actual practical information. I also appreciate that oddjob knew I was referring to concealed carry laws vs owning guns in general.

Besides hunting and other shooting sports, there are practical reasons to own weapons. I fault no one for that. But if your reasoning for needing to carry is to make you feel more like a man.....then you have a real problem.

I also wonder a little if the cwp issue is an attempt to change the subject from laws regarding magazine sizes and automatic weapons.

And a little side story...Many years ago, a coworker approached me asking if I would sign a petition allowing concealed carry. I was immediately put off because he was the last person in the world I or anyone should entrust with carrying a concealed weapon.

Are there any standards or conditions under which a cwp will not be issued. Are these conditions "strong" enough to prevent an incompetent person from acquiring one?

And finally...I see no reason a list of cwp holders should be made public.

That is all.

[This message has been edited by Bob Netherton II (4/5/2013)]

[This message has been edited by Bob Netherton II (4/5/2013)]

Bob says "...Many years ago, a coworker approached me asking if I would sign a petition allowing concealed carry. I was immediately put off because he was the last person in the world I or anyone should entrust with carrying a concealed weapon."

I am sure he felt the same way about you, but he needed signatures. So maybe you should not be allowed to carry a gun, because of your temperment. Docile people dont need to defend themselves anyways, since the are so keen on the rest of us opening our doors to the bad guys.

We have a perverbial impassay with which lifestyles each of us beleive should have rights to gun ownership. In times like these we should all refer back to the constitution and the second amendment we can all have a firearm and can carry it whenever and whereever we want.

The law or politicians can not regulate or infringe on that RIGHT !! Now along with this, if you are convicted of a violent crime where you used a gun, then your ownership should be restricted. If you were convicted for some pot charge or juevenile BS, then the double jeopardy law should apply, and after your sentence you should be a free citizen with all the rights afforded to one. The constitution is our middle ground.

"I am sure he felt the same way about you, but he needed signatures".

No. I think he assumed I felt as he did.

And you're quite mistaken if you equate one being "docile" with someone who thinks there is a need for more restrictions on firearm ownership and capacity. I've asked before on miles city.com about what people feel are fair limits on gun ownership, etc, but I've never received a straight answer.

coffeedrunk wrote:

Now along with this, if you are convicted of a violent crime where you used a gun, then your ownership should be restricted. If you were convicted for some pot charge or juevenile BS, then the double jeopardy law should apply, and after your sentence you should be a free citizen with all the rights afforded to one.

I can think of 26 precious little "reasons" why you are wrong. The whole point of the national conversation is the prevention of guns being used to commit violent crimes in the first place. Innocent people shouldn't have to die before the right of an individual's gun ownership is restricted.

If we would all focus more on "love your neighbor" and less on our individual sense of importance, power, and self-gratification, CWP's wouldn't be needed.