search
top

Constitutional Carry Veto in Montana

Very disappointing. I don’t see what the big deal is, since in the majority of Montana, I believe carry without a license is already the law, and it’s only incorporated areas that require a permit to carry.

UPDATE from Bitter: You don’t need a permit in most of the state, and it’s an issue that NRA’s guy made last night with Cam when discussing the mystery of this veto.

12 Responses to “Constitutional Carry Veto in Montana”

  1. Andy B. says:

    I’d say it’s a big deal because incorporated areas are probably where people are most in need to carry. And, we should never dismiss a human rights question, just because human rights are only being violated in small areas.

    This is a good opportunity to throw out the question, why we don’t have anything resembling an approach to Constitutional Carry legislation in Pennsylvania, especially since we have “hardliners” in our legislature who aren’t afraid to risk being called “radicals” on other issues, like homosexuality and immigration. But, they are curiously reserved when it comes to gun rights.

    Actually I know the answer, but it is time for a lot more people to start asking the question.

  2. Sebastian says:

    Andy:

    I don’t see why it’s a big deal for legislators and the Governor to get this done, since it’s already the law in most of Montana. I didn’t mean to say I don’t think it’s a big deal for this to get passed. The more states that pass Constitutional Carry, the better. It’s kind of amazing to me that Wyoming passed it and we get a veto from the MT Governor.

    But then again, this is the same governor that tried to tell everyone Obama wasn’t a problem on the gun issue.

    I’d love to see Constitutional Carry in PA. There have been rumors there might be a bill, but I don’t know how much credence to lend to that. There are plenty of soft Republicans that would prefer this issue not come up. A big problem you have with any bill like this is Greenleaf in Judiciary in the Senate, along with several other fairly weak kneed GOP Senators on that same committee.

  3. Brock Manson says:

    And….wasn’t this guy “A” rated from the NRA?

    Fantastic.

  4. Sebastian says:

    Yeah, but up until this, his record was solid. Keep in mind that Jan Brewer had an A too, because she signed Constitutional Carry in Arizona. Once they get re-elected and know they don’t have to face voters again, they often get soft. It’s one downside to term limits.

  5. Matthew Carberry says:

    Over on Oleg’s APS a couple MT members contacted the NRA about pulling his rating. They were told it would have to wait until his next election (if he stays in government).

    Given today’s political situation I think I can see a good reason for NRA to consider making immediate public, non-election timeframe, rating adjustment announcements for lame ducks who pull this kind of thing.

    Let them and the public know we are continuing to watch and they can’t retire coasting on their record and in good graces.

    In this case especially since he had given no sign he would veto and his justification “concerns” were addressed and dismembered in the Legislative debates on the bill.

  6. Sebastian says:

    NRA only adjusts grades at election time. The problem is you make an exception for one person you open the door to doing it for everyone. I don’t really want ILA people wasting resources constantly adjusting grades up and down, except for when it matters.

  7. Matthew Carberry says:

    Sebastian,

    Not everyone. Lame ducks. Heck, restrict it to Governors and Congressmen/Senators/Presidents due to their national visibility.

    And only on big things like key vetos that blow their previous record out of the water.

    That’s going to be a much smaller and more manageable group and will give the lame ducks a reason to stay in line up until the day they leave office.

    Right now we have no stick, as far as ratings go, for lame ducks.

    The point being to make the expression of displeasure public so, if they have any thoughts on running for a new office in a few years they will have going down tarnished as the last memory of the voters as a consideration.

    They won’t be able to brush it off as a half-forgotten “mistake in their past”.

  8. Sebastian says:

    If they are lame ducks, then what’s the point? The grades are an election tool. If they run for another office, they have their grades assigned with their entire record taken into consideration.

    I get leery of asking NRA to spend resources redoing grades for people who are likely to never face voters again. If they do, then yeah. But understand that ILA doesn’t have teams of people dedicated to grades. Those grades get assigned by the lobbyists for those states, or by the lobbyists in federal affairs. We’re not talking a large number of people, and many of them have a large number of states and have to keep track of a large number of legislators.

    I also get leery of when something smacks of expending effort on feel good stuff that doesn’t really serve any real political purpose.

  9. Matthew Carberry says:

    Well, you’re the “NRA-ILA shill” around here so I guess you’d know. =)

    I can see your point,

    As long as some mention (strongly worded letter) is publically made by NRA that casts this sort of action by A raters as a betrayal and warns it will not be forgotten the effect would be about the same.

    “This will not stand, ya know, this aggression will not stand, man.”

  10. Andy B. says:

    Sebastian: “I don’t see why it’s a big deal for legislators and the Governor to get this done, since it’s already the law in most of Montana. I didn’t mean to say I don’t think it’s a big deal for this to get passed. ”

    Thanks. I really misunderstood. Should have known better.

    To throw out a hint about why Constitutional Carry isn’t happening in PA, it’s because some of the old RKBA leadership blood in the state doesn’t support it, despite giving lip-service to it for years now; and the energetic new blood remains too much under their thrall, so appear to decline to push the issue. We have been hearing “The time isn’t right” here in PA for as long as I can remember, while we’ve had upward of 40 incumbent state legislators answering candidate questionnaires saying they would support it. That should have been enough to get a toe in the water, if the grassroots had ever chosen to push the issue. But, they have a cozy agreement with what should be some of the prime movers in the General Assembly.

    What would convince me I’m wrong is to see that first Constitutional Carry bill introduced. When it is, I will bet it won’t be one of the legislators who have styled themselves as RKBA hardliners for year now.

  11. Brice says:

    Well, as a Montanan, I’m pissed. This is the same governor that Photoshopped his opponents and big spending national liberals onto clay targets and shot them for a campaign ad. WTF! I know why he did it:
    If a cop pulls over someone and they are carrying a concealed weapon in town but do not have a permit, the police officer can:
    a. Take their word for it that they have the right.
    b. Run a full background check and warrant search.
    Cops around here seem to live in a different world than I do. They see every person as a personal threat and don’t want anybody else to have guns.
    Personally, I’d continue apply for my permit so that I can carry when I travel so this one is a non-issue for me. But I still don’t like the veto. He can’t run for Govenor next year, but he may make run for the House. I’ll be watching and voting.

  12. Sage Thrasher says:

    The problem with this kind of veto or any veto of a pre-emption bill, is that it shows a basic, gut-level mistrust of law-abiding gun owners. Very disappointing.

top