Montana GOP Primary June 5, 2012

TWG Note: Wondering about the upcoming Montana GOP Primary?  Me too.  This, from one of the TOP Gun Rights and Freedom Advocates in this Nation, Mr. Gary Marbut.  Mr. Marbut is the President of the Montana Shooting Sports Association.  We can Thank Mr. Marbut for a plethora of very successful bills, including the Firearms Freedom Act.  Mr. Marbut has been a vigilant and diligent proponent for our Second and Tenth Amendments, not just here in Montana, but across this Nation.   You can learn more about Mr. Marbut’s efforts and about the Montana Shooting Sports Association by visiting the following sites:

Gary Marbut, Montana Shooting Sports Association

Montana Shooting Sports Association

MTSSA LEGISLATIVE SUCCESSES

GARY MARBUT – AUTHOR, GUN LAWS OF MONTANA

GARY MARBUT

 

Here is Mr. Marbut’s assessment of the upcoming Montana. You can find the original text at: http://progunleaders.org/MTGOPPrimary.html

 

Montana Republican Governor’s Primary Election Race
The View from MSSA

Usually, after pouring over candidate voting records from previous public service, and examining returned candidate questionnaires, MSSA would like to make an endorsement in a race as important as the one for Governor of Montana.

There are seven Republican candidates facing off in the upcoming Primary Election on June 5th.  Historically, to endorse any one candidate, MSSA wants to see one letter grade gap between the endorsed candidate and others, an “A” versus a “C”, or a “B” versus a “D.” (We don’t endorse candidates for the Primary who don’t earn at least a “B” grade.)

In the Republican Primary race for Governor, we simply cannot identify any candidate that is head-and-shoulders better than the rest – with a letter grade gap above the others.  So, MSSA will make no endorsement in the Republican Primary for Governor.

If I ended this message right here, I can imagine that most GOP Governor candidates would be satisfied, although maybe some disappointed.

However, I can also imagine many MSSA members saying or thinking, “Come on Gary.  You know these candidates.  You’ve worked with them, tracked their votes in the Legislature, talked with them, watched their performance, and surveyed them.  We need whatever information you can pass along in order to make an intelligent choice in the Primary.”  Right.

So, I feel MSSA owes its members at least some information about the various candidates.  In lieu of an MSSA endorsement, let me tell you what I know and what I think (I’ll mix the two) about the various candidates.

I tend to want to place political figures on a spectrum from liberal to conservative.  Because those are fuzzy terms as commonly used, let me tell you how I define them.  I think of a modern (not classic) liberal as a person who tolerates or favors shifting power, choice and money from people to government.  I think of a conservative as a person who would prefer to shift power, choice and money from government to people.  Those are generally the definitions I will apply here.  I will also discuss what is known about each candidate’s position on the right to keep and bear arms, MSSA’s prime focus.

As far as I know, there are no out-and-out liberals in this Republican Primary race, but some appear to be more or less conservative than others.  Here’s what I know or believe, working from the most conservative to the least conservative. (BTW, these candidates will ALL probably end up disliking all or parts of my assessment – comes with the turf if I’m to give MSSA members an honest review.  I know most of these candidates personally, and count them as friends.  I hope they’re still friends after they read my comments.)

Bob Fanning & Joel Boniek

The most conservative of the candidates is Bob Fanning.  Fanning has a good grasp of constitutional principles.  He’s a firm advocate for states’ rights.  He has far more time and energy invested in wolf control than any other candidate, maybe than all candidates combined.  Fanning has been a CEO and a member of the Chicago Board of Trade.  He understands economics.  Fanning returned a great MSSA candidate questionnaire.  Bob likes to describe himself as a “Montanan by choice; not by accident.”  He moved here over a decade ago to deliberately become a Montanan.  Fanning has not previously held any public office in Montana.  Bob buys big game tags every year and is an elk hunter.  He is not as acquainted with the details and processes of state government as some other candidates.  Fanning hasn’t raised a lot of money, and he got off to a late start with is campaign.  His running mate is former Rep. Joel Boniek, a philosophically-pure guy who carried the Montana Firearms Freedom Act for MSSA when it passed in 2009.  I’d say Fanning’s chances of getting into the Governor’s office are a long shot.  He’d have a steep learning curve if he got there, but would be something of a breath of fresh air for Montana in the Governor’s chair.
http://www.bobfanning.com/

Ken Miller & Bill Gallagher

Former State Senator Ken Miller is very nearly as conservative as Fanning.  Miller also has a strong bent towards states’ rights and individual liberty.  Miller has FAR more effort invested in the Governor race than any other candidate.  He’s been actively campaigning for over a year and has crisscrossed Montana multiple times meeting locally with any groups of people who wanted to meet him.  Ken was Chairman of the state GOP for a cycle, and managed to shake up and out that good-old-boy GOP structure some to make the GOP a more effective organization.  As GOP Chairman, he was willing to make more hard decisions than some others who have held the post.  When in the Montana Senate, Miller always supported MSSA’s pro-gun bills.  Miller returned a very good MSSA candidate questionnaire, although with reservation about MSSA’s proposal to stimulate smokeless powder and primer manufacture in Montana.  Ken and his wife Peggy are both big game hunters.  Ken grew up in Montana, and has been a successful small business owner in Montana.  In statewide polling, Miller continues to run a close second place in terms of support among likely Republican voters.  Miller’s running mate is Bill Gallagher, a Helena attorney currently elected to the Montana Public Service Commission.  Because both Miller and Gallagher have served in elected public office at the state level, they have a good grasp of how state government works and perhaps, because of that, an enhanced ability to translate Miller’s philosophy into deeds.
http://www.miller4governor.com/

I see a bit of a gap on the liberal-to-conservative spectrum between these candidates and the next two.

Neil Livingstone & Ryan Zinke

Neil Livingstone is an interesting guy, albeit a bit mysterious.  Although born in Montana, Neil has spent much of his life immersed in the murky world of international business, intelligence and clandestine operations, both in Washington, D.C., and overseas.  Livingstone speaks forcefully about his commitment to constitutional principles, and he definitely wishes to roll back what he sees as extreme environmentalists’ suppression of the natural resource industry in Montana.  Livingstone returned a fine candidate questionnaire, although he had some un-detailed concerns about MSSA’s “Sheriffs First” proposal.  Livingstone has not held elected office in Montana.  While expressing strong support for the right to keep and bear arms, Livingstone did select a running mate, State Senator Ryan Zinke, who formerly expressed a very definite opinion that “civilians” should not be allowed to own .50-caliber rifles.  Livingstone quickly explains that he and former SEAL commander Zinke have come to terms about .50-caliber rifles, and Zinke now whole-heartedly supports civilian ownership of such firearms, as does Livingstone.  Livingstone has a forceful personality.  There are concerns expressed by some, however, that he has not spent enough time in Montana in recent years to have a good sense of Montana issues and Montana culture.  Livingstone has not hunted in Montana, but says he has hunted in Eurasia and Africa.  Livingstone is supported by a number of former high-ranking military and government officials of excellent national repute, many of whom are not Montana residents.  Were Livingstone elected Montana Governor, one gets the impression he would kick ass, and that the timid and naysayers would do well to keep out of his way.  With his long employment, connections and experience with the federal government, one would hope that his total allegiance would be to Montana, rather than to the federal government or influences from D.C. or elsewhere.
http://neil2012.com/

Corey Stapleton & Bob Keenan

Both Stapleton and Keenan are former state senators, both with good conservative credentials, and both of them are known as proven supporters of the right to keep and bear arms – excellent guys.  Stapleton is a graduate of Annapolis, a strong recommendation by anyone’s standard.  Stapleton did not return MSSA’s candidate questionnaire, but, based on his past votes in the Montana Senate, I believe he would support most of the issues MSSA plans to have before the 2013 Legislature.  Because both Stapleton and Keenan have long experience in the Legislature, they also know how state government works and how to translate their philosophy into deeds at the state level.  They would also be realistic, even pragmatic, about what a Governor can accomplish.   Stapleton’s campaign has not been highly visible. There is a concern that because Stapleton has been (and presumably still is) an officer in the U.S. military, the federal government might be able to “pull rank” and command his loyalty in any disagreement between Montana and the federal government.
http://www.coreystapleton.com/

Continuing to work from the conservative end of the political spectrum gets us to:

Rick Hill & Jon Sonju

Rick Hill was formerly elected to represent Montana in the U.S. House of Representatives, and his running mate, Jon Sonju, has been in the Montana Senate.  Both are experienced hands in the process of politics.  Hill is currently thought my many to be the front-runner in this seven-way Republican Primary.  He is reported to lead in fundraising, and is known to be supported by many “old guard” Republican figures.  Although Hill did not return MSSA’s candidate questionnaire, he did speak to the MSSA Annual Meeting in Helena in March (as did Fanning, Miller and Livingstone), where he expressed strong support for the right to keep and bear arms.  It is unknown how this strong expression will translate to the details of MSSA’s legislative agenda in 2013.  I expect he would support most of those issues, but with no returned candidate questionnaire and no voting record from the Montana Legislature, that’s just my educated guess.  Hill is reputed to occasionally hunt upland game birds.  Sonju has been a solid supporter of gun issues in the Legislature, and his family manufactures firearms in the Kalispell area.  It is argued by some that the nature of Hill’s work and experience in D.C. and Montana may make him more vulnerable to attacks by the Democrats in the General Election, making it difficult for him to win the General Election, although Democrats will certainly attack whomever becomes the Republican candidate for the General Election.  Hill recently released a statement asserting need to better manage wolves to prevent negative impact on game herds.  While quite welcome, this recent interest by Hill is seen by some as being a bit late and lacking the strong intent needed to resurrect Montana’s predator-decimated game herds.
http://www.rickhillforgovernor.com/

Jim Lynch & Al Olszewski

Current Governor Brian Schweitzer (a Democrat) appointed Jim Lynch to be Director of the Montana Department of Transportation.  In that office, Lynch says that he has made maintenance of the Montana highway system much more effective and efficient.  He wishes to bring the same management techniques to the Governor’s Office.  Lynch has been an insider in state government long enough to know how things work, although he hasn’t been involved in the political machinations used to turn eggs into an omelet.  Lynch did return a very good MSSA candidate questionnaire, a plus for him, although MSSA puts more credence in a voting record history than in a candidate questionnaire.  I know nothing about Lynch’s running mate, Al Olszewski.  It is said that Lynch has made numerous political donations on record to Democrat candidates, although that may just be an unspoken job requirement to work for Governor Schweitzer.  It is my fuzzy opinion that Lynch is probably a pretty good manager, but I have not heard others who know him speak of his conservative philosophy or credentials.
http://lynchforgov.com/

Jim O’Hara & Scott Swingley

Jim O’Hara is elected as a County Commissioner of Choteau County.  He did not return MSSA’s candidate questionnaire.  I haven’t met O’Hara and really don’t know anything about Jim or his running mate, Scott Swingley.
http://www.oharagov.com/

Conclusion?

I’ve tried seven times to write a conclusion, but I’m just not getting there.  I guess you’ll have to draw your own conclusion.  I hope this has been helpful.

SOURCE: http://progunleaders.org/MTGOPPrimary.html

 

Humane Society of the United States – (HSUS) Poll Shows Donors Still In The Dark

“We are going to use the ballot box and the democratic process to stop all hunting in the United States … We will take it species by species until all hunting is stopped in California. Then we will take it state by state.”

~Wayne Pacelle

Humane Society Of The United States President

 

SHOCK POLL: 90 Percent of HSUS Donors Are in the Dark – HumaneWatch

---

SHOCK POLL: 90 Percent of HSUS Donors Are in the Dark Posted: 16 May 2012 05:34 AM PDT We’ve already established through public polling that the vast majority of Americans—you know, the regular folks who are the targets of HSUS’s disclaimer-less, deceptive TV ads—mistakenly believe that HSUS is a pet shelter umbrella group. HSUS has replied by trying to draw a distinction between its members and the average American. Wayne Pacelle recently told the Associated Press that “HSUS donors understand its role” (reporter’s paraphrase). It turns out Pacelle could hardly be more wrong. We conducted an online survey of HSUS supporters and received some shocking results. Here’s the bottom line, from a survey of 1,010 self-identified HSUS donors, who answered “yes” to the question “Have you ever donated to the Humane Society of the United States?”: Just 1 percent of HSUS’s donors list “farm animal protection” as their primary reason for supporting the group. Seventy-four percent of donors give to HSUS to either help pet shelters or reduce the number of animals euthanized each year. Ninety—yes, 90—percent of HSUS’s donors were unaware that it gives just 1 percent of its budget to local pet shelters. Knowing HSUS’s non-support of shelters, 80 percent of HSUS’s own donors think the group “misleads people into thinking that it supports local humane societies and pet shelters.” Nearly 50 percent of HSUS’s donors say they are less likely to support the group now that they know HSUS gives so little to local pet shelters. This evidence should leave no doubt that HSUS relies on misconception—the notion that it’s a real “humane society.” Most Americans—and we can now say most HSUS donors—believe that HSUS is mostly about supporting pet shelters. HSUS needs this false perception to raise the hundreds of millions it collects. The poll clearly shows that half of donors would be less likely to give now that they know how little of their donations goes to local pet shelters. HSUS must hope they stay in the dark. Wayne Pacelle can no longer claim that HSUS donors “understand” what HSUS is up to. And all the rhetoric about how HSUS is clear about what it does not only seems like a cop-out, but it comes across as blaming the victim. After all, more than 85 percent of the animals in HSUS’s manipulative ads are cats and dogs. There are a few reform options. HSUS could prominently put a large-print disclaimer on all of its ads that it is independent of local humane societies. (Right now, less than 1 percent of HSUS’s TV ads have a disclaimer—and it’s in small font.) HSUS could stop manipulating viewers with a disproportionate amount of pets. And HSUS could simply change its name, replacing “Humane Society” with something more appropriate. (The “Vegan Lawyers and Lobbyists Society”?) HSUS won’t, of course. As regular readers already know well, HSUS wants to get rid most human uses of animals—most notably in agriculture. That’s not the goal of a cat-and-dog group—that’s the goal of a PETA-type group. It’s no surprise then that HSUS leaders cut their teeth in radical animal rights/liberation groups. And that’s certainly not the goal of HSUS’s supporters. Which is why we’re going to make sure they find out the truth. Full results (PDF): 1. What is the primary reason you support the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS)? 40%     To help HSUS care for homeless dogs and cats in animal shelters and humane socities. 3%       To help HSUS’s animal rescue team. 15%     To raise awareness about animal cruelty. 34%     To reduce the number of animals put down in shelters each year. 1%       To support HSUS’s farm animal protection programs. 6%       To support HSUS’s political lobbying for anti-animal cruelty legislation. 2. Were you aware that HSUS gives just 1 percent of its budget to local pet shelters? 90%    No 10%    Yes 3. Now that you know that HSUS gives just one percent of its budget to local pet shelters, do you think the HSUS misleads people into thinking that it supports local humane societies and pet shelters? 6%     Not at all 13%   Not really 28%   Somewhat 52%   Very Much 4. Now that you know that HSUS gives just one percent of its budget to local pet shelters, are you more or less likely to support HSUS? 21%    Much Less Likely 26%    Less Likely 8%      More Likely 6%      Much More Likely 38%    Neither Survey Methodology HumaneWatch conducted a nationally representative online survey of 1,010 Humane Society of the United States donors from April 21 – 25, 2012. The survey’s margin of error is ±3.1%. Read More…

Before You Donate Your Money, Effort and Time to The “Humane Society Of The United States” (aka HSUS)… Please Consider This…

TWG Note:  I’ve been screaming about the Humane Society of the United States for a while now, and today I feel the urge to continue my rant.  Yesterday’s post about California SB 1221  reignited my fury over those sleazebags at HSUS.   As an animal lover, I’m deeply offended by their continued deception, preying on the sympathies of my fellow animal lovers to line their pockets and to aid and abet their own devious agendas….  They’re a greedy, snarling pack of sleazy lawyers.

Here’s a bit of the post from yesterday…..

SB 1221… 

SB 1221 is supported by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) – a group that supports banning all hunting with or without dogs.  Its President, Wayne Pacelle, has been quoted as saying: “We are going to use the ballot box and the democratic process to stop all hunting in the United States … We will take it species by species until all hunting is stopped in California. Then we will take it state by state.”

In 2003, HSUS unsuccessfully championed California Assembly Bill 342 that would have banned all hunting with hounds.  They now seem to be taking a deceptive and incremental approach to accomplish the same goal via SB 1221.  Don’t let anti-hunting extremists remove another traditional form of hunting.

Below are some posts from the website HUMANEWATCH.ORG that should get the point across……. They’re keeping an eye on those deceitful crooks at HSUS…  If this is something that interests you, please sign up for their email distribution list.

FROM HUMANEWATCH.ORG:

There’s a lot of information about the Humane Society of the United States that people don’t know. It can be overwhelming, especially as we blog on a regular basis to add to the knowledge pool. To get up to speed about America’s most deceptive animal rights group, we recommend you check out the following:

• Read about how HSUS gives only 1 percent of its budget to pet shelters—the real humane societies.
• See how HSUS deceives the public in its advertising.
• Read about how HSUS earns a “D” grade from the American Institute of Philanthropy.
• Watch our 30-second “consumer alert” ad.
• See how HSUS’s CEO thinks Michael Vick “would do a good job as a pet owner.”
• Learn about how HSUS’s agenda is similar to PETA’s.

Despite its name, the Humane Society of the United States is not affiliated with your local humane society. HSUS doesn’t run a single pet shelter and gives only 1 percent of its budget to local shelters.

This is news to most Americans. According to public polling, about 70 percent of Americans mistakenly believe that HSUS is a pet shelter “umbrella group” and that HSUS gives most of its money to pet shelters.

Why the massive perception-reality gap? We can certainly thank HSUS’s multimillion-dollar ad campaign. You know the formula: Slow music, B-list celebrity spokeswoman, and pictures of sad-looking dogs and cats. And that fine-print disclaimer that HSUS is independent of local humane societies? It’s on less than 1 percent of the ads. See how the scam works?

Here’s what an honest HSUS TV appeal might look like. There’s no confusion, and no need for a disclaimer. But we’re going to go out on a limb and guess it wouldn’t be quite as lucrative for HSUS.

 

Will HSUS Be Bullhooked for Millions in Legal Fees?

http://www.facebook.com/plugins/like.php?channel_url=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.ak.facebook.com%2Fconnect%2Fxd_arbiter.php%3Fversion%3D5%23cb%3Df323f9389bc9138%26origin%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fhumanewatch.org%252Ff1d16ba088f5383%26domain%3Dhumanewatch.org%26relation%3Dparent.parent&extended_social_context=false&font=lucida%20grande&href=http%3A%2F%2Fhumanewatch.org%2Findex.php%2Fsite%2Fpost%2Fwill_hsus_be_bullhooked_for_millions_in_legal_fees%2F&layout=box_count&locale=en_US&node_type=link&sdk=joey&show_faces=false&width=60<!– doesn’t seem to work, though it does give the id number of the post:Trying other permalink options for (Will HSUS Be Bullhooked for Millions in Legal Fees?)? –>The ongoing legal drama between a set of animal rights groups and Feld Entertainment, which owns the Ringling Bros. circus, has taken a saucy new turn. And it looks like the animal rights activists and their lawyers could soon be neck-deep in elephant dung.

First, a quick review. Animal rights activists brought a lawsuit against Feld in 2000 alleging elephant abuse in violation of the Endangered Species Act, with former Feld trainer Tom Rider as a key witness and plaintiff. After years of legal wrangling, D.C. federal judge Emmet Sullivan threw out the lawsuit in late 2009, finding that the plaintiffs lacked standing and—more importantly—that Rider was “essentially a paid plaintiff and fact witness who is not credible” after receiving at least $190,000 from the animal rights cabal, his sole source of income as the case made its way through the courts. A US Court of Appeals recently upheld the dismissal. (Read the full opinion here.)

Feld returned fire, filing a racketeering lawsuit that hinges on the court’s findings. How the alleged scheme worked, according to Sullivan’s 2009 ruling, was essentially that counsel for plaintiffs’ law firm Meyer, Glitzenstein, and Crystal ran a nonprofit called the “Wildlife Advocacy Project” (WAP) and other groups funneled money through it to Rider. (Rider also allegedly received payments directly from animal rights group plaintiffs and through MGC.)

HSUS fits in because the Fund for Animals was a plaintiff in the suit against Feld, and merged with HSUS in 2004/2005. Fund chief—now an HSUS executive—Michael Markarian also apparently fits into the equation, according to Sullivan’s ruling:

Beginning in December 2001 and continuing until at least the beginning of 2008, the organizational plaintiffs made payments to WAP for the purpose of funding Mr. Rider. While FFA/HSUS (Mr. Markarian) testified that it was not certain whether WAP used its “donations” for other purposes as well, this testimony is undermined by the documents underlying FFA/HSUS’s “donations,” which indicate that the money was specifically for use in connection with this litigation. FFA/HSUS’s testimony also is questionable given that in 2003, plaintiffs’ counsel, Ms. Meyer, specifically sent an email to the representatives of the organizational plaintiffs, including Mr. Markarian, requesting funds to support Mr. Rider’s advocacy efforts regarding the elephants and the lawsuit, and expressly suggesting that the funds for Mr. Rider could be contributed to WAP so that they would be tax deductible.

Also named in the racketeering lawsuit are HSUS attorney Kimberly Ockene and HSUS Senior Vice President Jonathan Lovvorn, both of whom used to work at Meyer, Glitzenstein, and Crystal and were plaintiff attorneys during the Endangered Species Act complaint. In fact, Feld’s attorneys allege that money was taken out of an HSUS bank account and earmarked for Rider.

So what’s new?

Last week Feld’s attorneys filed a motion in the original case—not the racketeering case—demanding that the plaintiffs pay for legal fees that Feld accrued, totaling an estimated $20 million. Defending a lawsuit for a decade tends to be an expensive endeavor, after all.

This could be a double-whammy for HSUS. It could be on the hook for a good chunk of the $20 million in legal fees. Additionally, Feld is seeking treble damages under RICO against HSUS and the other defendants in the separate racketeering lawsuit—so add another $60 million to the potential pot.

And that’s not all.

Feld’s attorneys are also asking the court to officially sanction the attorneys for their conduct. They allege that “Not only did counsel bring fraudulent (Rider) and frivolous (API) claims, they doggedly pursued them for more than eleven years.” Feld alleges that the plaintiffs knew that their key witness was unreliable and “each and every step of the way counsel had an opportunity to drop either Rider or API or both (and put an end to FEI’s mounting legal expenses). Yet they did not. Instead, they embraced Rider’s lies and API’s meritless and hollow allegations…”

And since the court is apparently allowed to hold the attorneys jointly and severally liable for the estimated $20 million in legal fees (if the court rules the plaintiffs should pay it), that means HSUS, Lovvorn, and Ockene, among others, could have quite the bill, along with a bench-slap to go with it.

We encourage you to read the whole motion for all the intricacies and details. When there’s a ruling, we’ll be sure you’re among the first to know.

READ MORE AT HUMANEWATCH.ORG

California Senate and Assembly Commitees to Debate MORE Firearms Bills Tomorrow

 

California Senate and Assembly Committees to Hear Pro- and Anti-Gun Legislation Tomorrow

TOMORROW, several firearm-related bills will be heard in committees in the state Senate and Assembly.  In the state Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Water, Senate Bill 1221 and Senate Bill 1367 are scheduled to be heard.  In the state Senate Committee on Public Safety, Senate Bill 1567 and Senate Bill 1569 are scheduled to be heard.  In the state Assembly Committee on Public Safety, Assembly Bill 2182 and Assembly Bill 2549 are scheduled to be heard.   This Wednesday, April 25, the state Assembly Committee on Appropriations is scheduled to hear Assembly Bill 2333. 

 

Please call AND e-mail the respective committees TODAY!

 

TOMORROW, several firearm-related bills will be heard in committees in the state Senate and Assembly. 

 

In the state Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Water, Senate Bill 1221 and Senate Bill 1367 are scheduled to be heard.   Please call AND e-mail members of the state Senate Committee  on Natural Resources and Water  and urge them to OPPOSE SB 1221 and SUPPORT SB 1367.  Contact information for these committee members can be found here.

 

In the state Senate Committee on Public Safety, Senate Bill 1567 and Senate Bill 1569 are scheduled to be heard.   Please call and e-mail members of the state Senate Committee on Public Safety and urge them to SUPPORT SB 1567 and SB 1569.  Contact information for these committee members can be found here.

 

In the state Assembly Committee on Public Safety, Assembly Bill 2182 and Assembly Bill 2549 are scheduled to be heard.  Please call AND e-mail members of the state Assembly Committee on Public Safety and urge them to OPPOSE AB 2182 and AB 2549.  Contact information for these committee members can be found here.

 

This Wednesday, April 25, the Assembly Appropriations Committee is scheduled to hear Assembly Bill 2333.  Please call AND e-mail members of the Assembly Appropriations Committee and urge them to OPPOSE AB 2333.  Contact information for these committee members can be found here.

 

Bill explanation for bills that need to be OPPOSED:

 

SB 1221, introduced by state Senator Ted Lieu (D-28), would ban hunting bears and bobcats with dogs.  Hunting with dogs is a tradition that continues to be practiced across the country. Many dog breeds with select characteristics for hunting can be traced back for thousands of years.  Seventeen states allow bear hunting with dogs.  The use of hounds for hunting has never been shown to have an adverse impact on wildlife numbers as biologists and wildlife experts direct regulations and bag limits just as they do with other hunting seasons.

 

SB 1221 is supported by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) – a group that supports banning all hunting with or without dogs.  Its President, Wayne Pacelle, has been quoted as saying: “We are going to use the ballot box and the democratic process to stop all hunting in the United States … We will take it species by species until all hunting is stopped in California. Then we will take it state by state.”

 

In 2003, HSUS unsuccessfully championed California Assembly Bill 342 that would have banned all hunting with hounds.  They now seem to be taking a deceptive and incremental approach to accomplish the same goal via SB 1221.  Don’t let anti-hunting extremists remove another traditional form of hunting.

 

AB 2182, introduced by state Assembly Member Norma Torres (D-31), would require that a person be arrested if they inadvertently attempt to bring a firearm through an airport TSA checkpoint and ban that person from entering that airport in the future.

 

AB 2549, introduced by state Assembly Member Isadore Hall (D-52), ignores many of the fundamental legal issues that have been created by the firearms polices and regulations of the California Department of Justice.  One specific section of AB 2549 will allow ONLY a law enforcement officer to retain ONE of the personally owned and regulated firearms should they leave their issuing agency, the rest of their personally owned and regulated firearms will confiscated and /or surrendered for disposal.  These regulated firearms can only be owned by law enforcement officers if he/she has received a letter from their issuing agency first.

 

AB 2333, introduced by Assemblyman Jose Solorio (D-69), would expand the crime of bringing a BB gun onto school grounds, to include non-metallic projectiles, and would impose an unnecessary and potentially severe criminal liability on everyday toys (not just BB guns and pellet guns) with severe penalties. Under this bill, a parent who inadvertently has a toy gun in their car when picking up their child from school can end up facing FELONY charges and up to a year in jail; the same is true for students who inadvertently have a toy that expels a plastic (or even a foam) projectile in their backpack or car.  AB 2333 would also create a negligent storage law for BB “devices,” a person who knows or reasonably should know that a minor is likely to gain access to that BB device without the permission of the minor’s parent or legal guardian is subject to civil fines starting at $250.

 

Bill explanation for bills that need to be SUPPORTED:

 

SB 1367, introduced by state Senator Jean Fuller (R-18), would allow a concealed carry permit holder to carry concealed for self-defense while archery hunting.  California law already allows permit holders to carry concealed during firearms seasons.

 

SB 1567, introduced by state Senator Doug La Malfa (R-4), would REDUCE the current firearms transfer waiting period from ten days to “instant” for persons licensed to carry a concealed firearm.

 

SB 1569, also introduced by state Senator Fuller, would REDUCE the current firearms transfer waiting period from ten days to three days.

 

 

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE

Gun Grabbing Radical Extremist EcoTerrorists Whining About LEGAL Hunt, “Demanding” Official’s Removal From Office

Western Outdoor News

Anti-gun extremists call for official’s removal after legal mountain lion hunt

BY: CJ Ciaramella – March 17, 2012 5:00 am

Environmentalists and Democrats are calling for California Fish and Game Commission president Dan Richards’ removal after the publication of a photograph of him with a mountain lion he had legally hunted and killed in Idaho. Fish and Game Commission president Dan Richards first came under fire in February when Western Outdoor News published a photo of the smiling Richards with a dead mountain lion he had legally bagged on a hunting trip in Idaho.

 

CONTINUE READING: http://freebeacon.com/recall-of-the-wild/

U.S. House Committee Passes Sportsmen’s Heritage Act of 2012

Fairfax, Va. – On Wednesday, H.R. 4089, the Sportsmen’s Heritage Act of 2012, passed the House Committee on Natural Resources by a bipartisan vote of 27 to 16. This bill will protect and enhance opportunities for recreational hunting, fishing and shooting. 

“This legislation is critical to protect our hunting and shooting heritage,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director for NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action. “The NRA applauds the Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus Co-Chairman and bill sponsor, Rep. Jeff Miller, for his leadership on this legislation and in leading the fight to help preserve the rights of American sportsmen.”

H.R. 4089 is a compilation of four different bills:  

The “Polar Bear Conservation and Fairness Act of 2011,” H.R. 991, which amends the Marine Mammal Protection Act by authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to issue importation permits to hunters for polar bear trophies taken before the polar bear was listed as “threatened”;

The “Recreational Fishing and Hunting Heritage and Opportunities Act,” H.R. 2834, which recognizes the rightful place of recreational hunting, fishing and shooting on Federal lands; supports Executive Order 13443, directs Federal land management agencies to facilitate the expansion and enhancement of hunting on Federal lands; ensures sound scientific management of wildlife and habitat; and establishes an “open unless closed” policy for recreational hunting, fishing and shooting on lands managed by the US Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management;

H.R. 1558, which amends the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to prevent this and future administrations from using the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to eliminate the right of hunters, shooters and anglers to use traditional ammunition and fishing tackle, by amending TSCA to clarify that the EPA does not have the authority to regulate shot, bullets and other projectiles, propellants, primers or sport fishing equipment components; and

The “Recreational Shooting Protection Act,” H.R. 3440, which prevents a ban on recreational shooting on BLM lands nationwide; and directs the BLM to manage national monument land in a manner that supports, promotes, and enhances recreational shooting opportunities.

 

Source: http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/news-from-nra-ila/2012/us-house-committee-passes-sportsmen’s-heritage-act-of-2012.aspx

Nebraska: Reading of Constitutional Right to Hunt and Fish Postponed

Due to an overwhelming number of bills scheduled to be heard in the Nebraska Legislature yesterday, the final reading for Legislative Resolution 40CA was postponed until next week.  This much-needed constitutional amendment would provide truly meaningful protections against anti-hunting activists who seek to ban all hunting in America, enshrining hunting and fishing in the Nebraska Constitution. 

LR 40CA would guarantee that these hunting and fishing rights are subject only to laws, rules and regulations that promote “wildlife conservation and management and that preserve the future of hunting and fishing.”  Specifically, it would prohibit regulations that would ban the use of “traditional methods” such as bow hunting or the sustainable taking of wildlife such as deer, elk and doves.  LR 40CA would protect the citizens’ hunting heritage from attacks initiated by well-funded anti-hunting extremists who have assailed sportsmen throughout the country in recent years.  In addition, it specifies that hunting, fishing and harvesting of wildlife shall be used as a preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife. This constitutional amendment would ensure that sportsmen will continue to be used as the state’s responsible game managers instead of the taxpayer-funded sharpshooters and unproven, expensive wildlife contraception schemes employed in other jurisdictions.

This issue has been up for debate for more than a year now and we are close to ensuring hunting and fishing rights for future generations of Cornhuskers!

Please contact your state Senator TODAY and respectfully urge him or her to support LR 40CA.  Contact information for your state Senator can be found here.

Source: http://nraila.org/hunting/issues-and-alerts/2012/3/nebraska-reading-of-constitutional-right-to-hunt-and-fish-postponed.aspx

Bob Fanning Running For Montana Governor

(Hat-Tip Elias Alias. Thanks for the forward, Elias!)

Bob Fanning is running for Governor of Montana as a populist Constitutional Republican who will fight for Montana sovereignty.

The U.S. Federal government has failed to protect Montanans from United Nations’ encroachment and has failed to protect Montanans from the criminality of Wall Street and the Federal Reserve System. The U.S. Federal government has failed to protect Montanans from Federal corruption. 

Early In the 2012 Gubernatorial race there have been thus far three Gubernatorial debates.  At Montana State University at Bozeman, Montana, Bob Fanning read his “Montana Declaration of Independence”. At the Republican debate on campus at Billings, Montana, Bob Fanning exposed the evil of the 106^th Congress as it placed into law the four satchel charges which blew up the American financial system on September 15, 2008. At the Gubernatorial debate at Great Falls, Montana, Bob Fanning read his blistering speech on the relationship between the UN’s Agenda 21 and the Foreclosure Fraud spectacle which is now engulfing the nation and many Montana families.

No other Montana Gubernatorial candidate is speaking up on these topics, for fear of – well, for fear of what? Are they afraid to speak truth to power?  Perhaps they simply do not know how real the threat is.

Bob Fanning is not afraid to speak the truth. He knows the truth; he “gets it”. Truth is that we’re now looking at a criminal cabal centered in the Federal Reserve, the Federal government and Wall Street, which has international ties with and is marching to the drums of the United Nations with full-blown intent of destroying America, and taking Montana down along with the other States in the process. 

Just why the other Republican Gubernatorial candidates do not know this, or, in knowing, are afraid to speak of it, escapes us. The RNC itself has proposed a resolution to expose the UN’s Agenda 21, yet of eight Republican Gubernatorial candidates only Bob Fanning is speaking out with a plan to shut down the United Nations gambit in Montana.  Here is a section from the Republican National Committee’s proposed resolution against Agenda 21 –

WHEREAS, the United Nations Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of extreme environmentalism, social engineering, and global political control that was initiated at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992; and,

WHEREAS, the United Nations Agenda 21 is being covertly pushed into local communities throughout the United States of America through the International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) through local “sustainable development” policies such as Smart Growth, Wildlands Project, Resilient Cities, Regional Visioning Projects, and other “Green” or “Alternative” projects; and,

WHEREAS, this United Nations Agenda 21 plan of radical so-called “sustainable development” views the American way of life of private property ownership, single family homes, private car ownership and individual travel choices, and privately owned farms; all as destructive to the environment; and,

WHEREAS, according to the United Nations Agenda 21 policy, social justice is described as the right and opportunity of all people to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment which would be accomplished by socialist/communist redistribution of wealth; and,

WHEREAS, according to the United Nations Agenda 21 policy National sovereignty is deemed a social injustice….

Okay. Now. The above was composed by a committee within the Republican National Committee. Can it be made more apparent than that? Montana is under siege by the United Nations’ Agenda 21 program which itself is fortified with NGOs such as Yukon To Yellowstone, ICLEI, etc. The State of Montana is not protecting Montanans from this scourge, and Bob Fanning continues to ask where is Steve Bullock, our alleged Attorney General?

This is the Great Falls Tribune coverage of the February 27, 2012, Gubernatorial debate in Great Falls, Montana, with the closing paragraph explaining about Bob’s statement on Agenda 21.

http://www.greatfallstribune.com/article/20120228/NEWS01/202280304/Montana-gubernatorial-candidates-mix-up-Great-Falls?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|Frontpage

“Fanning repeatedly warned the more than 100 people gathered at the Exhibition Hall about “Agenda 21,” which he said is a United Nations conspiracy to strip Americans of their private property rights. Fanning called on Bullock, as attorney general, to “step up to the plate and start protecting Montana homeowners” from “zombie banks” that are using foreclosures to act on the “communist call to redistribute wealth.”

More: As Bob Fanning pointed out in his speech at the Gubernatorial debate in Great Falls, this international madness is connected with the fraudulent foreclosure phenomenon.  To understand the validity in Bob’s stand against fraudulent foreclosure practices in the wake of the housing market implosion, please read about the Attorney General of New York State, who has initiated lawsuits on behalf of the people of New York.

http://www.ag.ny.gov/media_center/2012/feb/feb03a_12.html

Here is the headliner for that article on the New York Attorney General’s website –

A.G. SCHNEIDERMAN ANNOUNCES MAJOR LAWSUIT AGAINST NATION’S LARGEST BANKS FOR DECEPTIVE & FRAUDULENT USE OF ELECTRONIC MORTGAGE REGISTRY

Complaint Charges Use Of MERS By Bank Of America, J.P. Morgan Chase, And Wells Fargo Resulted In Fraudulent Foreclosure Filings  

Servicers And MERS Filed Improper Foreclosure Actions Where Authority To Sue Was Questionable

Schneiderman: MERS And Servicers Engaged In Deceptive and Fraudulent Practices That Harmed Homeowners And Undermined Judicial Foreclosure Process

Learn more at the above link. And then join Bob Fanning in asking, “where is Attorney General Steve Bullock when the people of Montana need him?”

For your convenience here is the text of Bob’s speech –

Right now thousands of Montana families are losing their homes to foreclosure and many more will face this crisis in the coming year!

 

This was and is a well executed plan by the world elite banksters (here) (here) (here) and the politicians in bed with them to usher in the United Nations’ plan called Agenda 21; which proposes a profound re-orientation of ALL humans unlike anything the world has ever experienced. I quote from their 1976 United Nations Habitat I Conference:

 

                 “Land…cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market… Private land ownership is also a principle instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth, therefore contributes to social injustice.”

 

Folks, they are telling you that it is a social injustice to own your own home!  This is the communist call to re-distribute wealth and part of that plan is FORECLOSURE. The Zombie Banks are the intermediary arm of the United Nations and the City of London financial district. Foreclosure is being accomplished at the local level through mortgage fraud, which is the ultimate goal of those who seek global governance! 

 

• The powerful and their puppets believe that they should tell you where to live, how to live, and their ultimate goal is to move you to an URBAN SETTLEMENT of their design.
• See the RNC’s denouncement of Agenda 21, in which the Republican National Committee’s winter committee resolves that Agenda 21 not only wants your property, but also wants to deprive Americans of private automobile ownership.
• This is systemic financial barbarism done with the flick of a pen; sending documents in the mail to the homeowner, invoking fear to drive you from your homes; and it uses courts to support the theft.
• This is how to have a war without a shot being fired. 
• In the last 12 years, many Homeowner’s across Montana thought they were getting a loan from the too big to fail Zombie Banks of Wall Street.
•  A large percentage of the Mortgage Note’s from these banks were securitized: in plain English, securitization

1)         Is a tax evasion scheme

2)         It is wrongful and improper foreclosure process based on forgery and fraud

3)         It undermines the integrity of the judicial process

4)         Causes mass confusion over property title and ownership

5)         And those Zombie Banks have no standing as many courts are recently affirming!

• These big banks used this elaborate design to take the homeowner’s equity and the investor’s money, knowing full well that very few could unravel this highly engineered plan of FRAUD!

 

We have given the too big to Fail Wall Street Banks respect that they do not DESERVE!  They and many compromised politicians are taking your taxes and pumping that money into methods of assault against your families, friends, and neighbors.

 

Again, this is a part of Agenda 21 to steal Montana’s wealth, folks…the LAND is the WEALTH!

 

All Montana land is under assault! It affects us all, whether you have a mortgage or not, because the EPA, BLM, and USFS are also a part of this wealth stealing plan…

 

This is a call to the leaders throughout Montana and to my opponents on both sides to address this crisis, to set up a hot line that will help homeowners to stand in this fight. The people need to know that certain papers are necessary for a bank to foreclose on their property, and in most cases those papers cannot be produced.

 

Do not leave your land, it is your WEALTH, YOUR HERITAGE, and YOUR CHILDREN’S INHERITANCE!

 

Possession is 9/10s of the law.  Together we Montanans will deal with the other 1/10^th…to make new laws that confront this assault head on. Montana’s antiquated codes and property laws were not designed for this battle and are currently inefficient. 

 

Attorney General Steve Bullock, of Washington DC’s Step Toe Johnson Law Firm, defender of these Zombie Banks, what are you doing to protect Montana property owners? Why are you allowing the Attorney General of the State of New York stand alone in exposing this? You have an oath-sworn duty to the people of Montana, and the facts are now known. Where are you?

 

As governor, foreclosure fraud will be one of my first priorities.

You are invited to read that speech at Bob Fanning’s campaign website where you can donate by credit card to Bob Fanning’s campaign.

Bob Fanning is the only man running for Governor of Montana who has the courage and knowledge to combat the international and Federal-level threats to our well being, freedom, and prosperity.  The other candidates wilt under the magnitude of the threat facing all Montanans today, but Bob Fanning rises to the challenge with Constitutional remedies and courageous implementation.

Judge Andrew Napolitano wrote to Bob Fanning on Monday, February 27, 2012, after having read Bob Fanning’s platform, and said that he is in agreement with Bob’s “substantive” planks.

Join with Judge Napolitano in recognizing that Bob Fanning’s Montana Declaration of Independence is valid, truthful, and necessary if we are to save freedom for Montanans and indeed for all Americans. Bob Fanning could use our help.

.

Contribute your support online at http://fanning-baldwin.com/?p=1647

Checks and money-orders may be mailed to:

Bob Fanning * FanningForGovernor2012 * Post Office Box 7 * Pray, Montana , 59065

- Friends of Fanning For Governor 2012 -
–

 Heirs to self knowledge shed gently their fears.

 

Gary Marbut and The Montana Shooting Sports Association Letter To Fish and Wildlife “Protection” Agency….. BE HONEST AND DO YOUR JOB, OR NO MORE FUNDS!

[TWG Note:  Below is a letter, written by Gary Marbut, President of the Montana Shooting Sports Association to the Fish and Wildlife "Protection" agency.  I think you'll find it most interesting, particularly if you live in Montana, Washington, Idaho and Oregon.  Please see my personal note below the letter, and please help me in sending Mr. Marbut a heartfelt THANKS for his efforts on behalf of our gun rights, wildlife, hunters and for all Americans who feel that Federal agencies have overstepped their boundaries.]

************************************************************

Shane Colton
FWP Commission

Shane,

See the story in the Bozeman Chronicle at:
http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/ap_news/montana/article_dcde1660-dd51-59b1-8515-a8e0b9957576.html

This is the first overt symptom of the agency “death spiral” for FWP.

For two decades, FWP has come to focus on wildlife and biology, when it should have been focused on fish and game.  A significant part of this picture has been FWP’s shocking tolerance and support for large predators.  FWP’s total, willing, even eager cooperation with large predator enhancement has long been predicted to result in an economic crash for the agency, when the word unavoidably spreads that there is no game left to hunt so there is no reason to buy a license.

FWP leaders have for too long leaned on the scales of policy by making excuses for the devastation wrought to game herds by large predators, fudging game counts and census numbers, and blaming any population declines that could not be covered up on climate change, sunspots, or aliens – anything but the truth.  This coverup culture has been fostered by senior staff, always near retirement, who knew they’d be gone and not in the hot seat when the crisis actually arrived.

If the overall FWP attitude had not been so Hell-bent on “ecosystem management,” “biological diversity,” “natural balance” and other similar catchy but terminal “green” ideas destined to end hunting, FWP managers could have projected the current crisis years ago.  I guess nobody at FWP noticed or cared several years ago when the editor of the NRA’s American Hunter magazine wrote a feature article about his fruitless elk hunting trip to southwest Montana, a trip where the only tracks he saw were wolf tracks.  Nobody at FWP noticed or cared about the other thousands of warnings from Montana citizens.  Worse, those warnings were ignored in a mad pursuit of a “green” agenda for FWP.

The stock mantra from FWP managers has been:  We’re the professionals.  We know best.  The outcome concerned citizens project will never come to pass.  The “evidence” of crashing game herds citizens cite is just “campfire stories” and is without merit because it doesn’t come from professional FWP biologists.

Yet when retired FWP employees, freed from the institutional FWP muzzle, asserted that FWP-tolerated wolves were turning the Montana landscape into a “biological desert,” FWP dismissed such comments summarily.

For the last two decades, FWP has been busy digging a hole for itself.  As it sees daylight disappearing around the edges of the hole, it still won’t quit digging.

Of course, the obvious solution for the bureaucratic-bound and reality-disconnected FWP will be to announce, “We’ve been managing wildlife for the general public (including the non-Montana public) for years.  Now we need the general public to pay the bills.”  FWP has so fouled its nest by inadvisably removing hunters from the economic equation that it will eventually have to go to the Legislature asking for relief, including increased fees that hunters simply won’t pay to access a vanishing resource, and, ultimately, general taxpayer money.

You can bet that when FWP approaches the Legislature demanding an allowance increase as a reward for having flunked Econ 101, MSSA and thousands of Montana hunters will be there to say “Absolutely no way.”  FWP has not only ignored the many warnings from Montana hunters, it has mocked and disrespected them.

What FWP needs is not more or alternate sources of money, but a total change in attitude and culture.  Until that happens, let FWP starve!  It is not serving Montanans.

Sincerely yours,

 

Gary Marbut, president
Montana Shooting Sports Association
http://www.mtssa.org
author, Gun Laws of Montana
http://www.mtpublish.com

 

*************************************************************

[TWG Note: Gary Marbut, President of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, has been diligently and tirelessly advocating for hunters, wildlife and for our Second and Tenth Amendment Rights not only here in Montana, but all over the country.  We can Thank Him for the Firearms Freedom Act, among many, many successful legislative efforts and accomplishments on our behalf.   Mr. Marbut is an amazing individual, and I hope you’ll join me in thanking him for his efforts and success.  

 

I’ve personally witnessed Mr Marbut’s relentless work here at the Montana Legislature and in numerous opinion articles he’s written in his efforts to expose the truth about gun rights, wildlife and Tenth Amendment issues.  He’s a SUPERSTAR in my book, and if you can help support his efforts, I’m certain a donation in any amount would be very much appreciated by him.  If you’d like to become a member of The Montana Shooting Sports Association, you can show your support by purchasing a membership for a mere $25  You do not need to be a resident of Montana to join the Montana Shooting Sports Association.  Donations and membership fees are used to help Gary’s efforts in advocating for our rights not just here in Montana, but all across America.

 

Donate to MSSA political efforts

MT Fish, Wildlife and Parks “Adaptive” Wolf Management Is Just Another Lie

[The wolf huggers in DC, CO, FL and CA seem to LOVE these predatory beasts.  I say we round 'em up and ship them to DC, CO, FL and CA.  Let those idiots live with these wolves and see how they like it.  Remember when those bears and wolves escaped in Ohio last year?  They residents were TERRIFIED!   We need to be able to LEGALLY hunt those wolves year round. Otherwise, people are going to have to break the law to protect themselves, their families, their pets and their livestock.  Montanans call it "The Three S's"  I wonder if they taste anything like chicken...]

 

w

 

 

The state senators and representatives who make up the EQC have been catching a lot of flack from their constituents about getting the wolf problem under control.  But, as long as MT FWP remains the same, trying to reduce wolf numbers through a wolf season with an established quota, that is never going to happen.  Still, MT FWP Director Joe Maurier says he doubts if we will ever have the opportunity to take wolves whenever there is an opportunity – 365 days a year.  However, study after study from around the world has found that is the ONLY way to possibly ever reduce wolf numbers to the point where game populations can rebound – OTHER THAN AERIAL GUNNING…. (Con’t)

 

READ MORE: http://lobowatch.wordpress.com/2012/01/13/mt-fish-wildlife-and-parks-adaptive-wolf-management-is-just-another-lie/