LEARN MORE ABOUT THE MONTANA SHOOTING SPORTS ASSOCIATION AND ABOUT THE 15 PRO GUN BILLS WE HAVE LINED UP FOR THIS 2015 LEGISLATIVE SESSION: http://www.mtssa.org/?page_id=172
There is a serious threat to our right to bear arms because of narrow, monolithic and federally-controlled manufacture of essential ammunition components, smokeless powder (propellant), primers and cartridge brass. For example, there are only two manufacturers of smokeless powder in the U.S., one plant owned by defense contractor General Dynamics and another owned by defense contractor Alliant Systems (ATK). All other smokeless powder used in the U.S. is imported, and subject to immediate and arbitrary import restrictions. And, General Dynamics and Alliant Systems are subject to a standard condition of military contracts that 100% of their production may be commandeered for military use at any time.
Without ammunition, our firearms and our right to bear ammunition are worth nothing.
We propose certain incentives to encourage small-scale production of ammunition components in Montana. That model includes offering liability protection to future producers, providing that such producers qualify for existing state assistance with financing, and will include a 20-year tax amnesty from start of business, which would give up zero current tax income to the state but would provide jobs for Montana.
- Created: Thursday, 22 January 2015
- Written by Gun Owners of America
It’s downright strange. And more than slightly suspicious.
One of our spokesmen will be on talk-radio in some distant part of the country, and the first caller will ask a familiar question: “Why has all of the ammunition flown off the shelves?”
There are a variety of answers to this question, but many of them revolve around the same three words. And those words are: Barack Hussein Obama.
Under Obama, for some reason, agencies like FEMA and the IRS have suddenly found it necessary to make large ammunition purchases.
In addition, Obama has banned the import of Russian made 7N6 6.45×39 ammunition using questionable legal justification, and this may be just the beginning.
Private gun owners have made atypically large purchases because of a fear of what Obama and his disciples might do next. And the paucity of ammunition on the shelves in many places has created a self-perpetuating cycle.
Perhaps for this reason, Montana state Senator Matt Rosendale has introduced Senate Bill 122 — a bill which would use Montana’s considerable resources to encourage the manufacture and sale of ammunition in Montana: CONTINUE READING GOA ARTICLE: http://www.gunowners.org/state01222015a.htm
LEARN MORE ABOUT THE MONTANA SHOOTING SPORTS ASSOCIATION AND ABOUT THE 15 PRO GUN BILLS WE HAVE LINED UP FOR THIS 2015 LEGISLATIVE SESSION: http://www.mtssa.org/?page_id=172
2015 Pro Gun, RKBA Legislation – Montana Shooting Sports Association (MSSA)
Montana’s once-every-two-years legislative session will begin on Monday, January 5th 2015. When the session convenes, things will happen quickly because the session only lasts 90 working days. You need to be prepared to keep up and weigh in.
Here is a list of the Bills presented by MSSA that are slated to debate during this session. Please familiarize yourselves with these Bills and share the information with your Friends and Family members. Once the Legislature convenes, we are going to need your help to get these passed into law in Montana. Please be prepared!
If you reside in the State of Montana, PLEASE ask your Legislators to support these bills! And if you reside in other States, please work to get similar legislation enacted in your State.
If you’re interested in participating in, and/or keeping track of the progress of MSSA RKBA legislation in Montana this legislative session, the following options are available to you:
1) You may “Like” and “Follow” the MSSA facebook page, which will be updated regularly during the legislative session beginning 01/05/2015. https://www.facebook.com/pages/Monta…3426517?ref=hl
2) You may contact MSSA and ask to be added to our legislative update email distribution list: firstname.lastname@example.org
3) For questions and concerns regarding this, or any, legislation the MSSA is currently working on, you may contact the MSSA Legislative Coordinator at email@example.com or on the MSSA Legislative Coordinator facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/MSSALegCoord
MONTANA SHOOTING SPORTS ASSOCIATION
2015 LEGISLATIVE ISSUES
1. Smokeless powder and primer production. There is a serious threat to our right to bear arms because of narrow, monolithic and federally-controlled manufacture of essential ammunition components, smokeless powder (propellant), primers and cartridge brass. For example, there are only two manufacturers of smokeless powder in the U.S., one plant owned by defense contractor General Dynamics and another owned by defense contractor Alliant Systems (ATK). All other smokeless powder used in the U.S. is imported, and subject to immediate and arbitrary import restrictions. And, General Dynamics and Alliant Systems are subject to a standard condition of military contracts that 100% of their production may be commandeered for military use at any time. Without ammunition, our firearms and our right to bear ammunition are worth nothing. We propose certain incentives to encourage small-scale production of ammunition components in Montana. That model includes offering liability protection to future producers, providing that such producers qualify for existing state assistance with financing, and will include a 20-year tax amnesty from start of business, which would give up zero current tax income to the state but would provide jobs for Montana.
2. Prohibit enforcement of new federal gun laws by Montana public employees. Every week there is talk of a new federal gun control bill, to limit magazine capacity, to outlaw semi-auto rifles, to ban common bullets, to limit the number of firearms a person may own, and many more. The principle has already been established by the U.S. Supreme Court (Printz v. US) that the federal government may not commandeer state and local government employees to implement federal programs. We propose that Montana public employees be prohibited from enforcing, or assisting to enforce, any federal gun laws that are not already in effect.
3. Allow safe travel to work and employee property right inside private vehicles. Employees have a property right to what they choose to carry in their vehicles, whether Bibles, newspapers, or firearms. Employees also have a constitutional right to be equipped to provide for their own personal protection when traveling to and from work. However, many private employers have made it a termination offense for an employee to have a firearm locked in the employee’s vehicle if that vehicle is parked in a company parking lot. Such employers assume no responsibility for employee safety during travel to and from work. We propose that employers be prohibited from firing employees only because that employee has a firearm locked in a privately owned vehicle in a company parking lot. This bill would require that any such firearms also be out of sight from outside the vehicle.
4. “Prohibited Places.” There is a badly-conceived statute at 45-8-328 to regulate “prohibited places.” This law allows anyone to carry a firearm openly in the listed places but prohibits those who have taken training, had a background check, obtained a concealed weapon permit from their sheriff from exercising their CWP in these “prohibited places.” We propose that this archaic and bad law be repealed. There is a backup, alternative solution at:
5. University system gun bans. The people of Montana have reserved from government interference the right to keep or bear arms in the Montana Constitution. The Montana university system is a government entity. The Montana Constitution gives the Board of Regents broad authority to manage the affairs of the U. system, but it gives the Board NO authority whatsoever to suspend, amend or abolish the Constitution and the rights the people have reserved to themselves from government interference. We propose a bill that withdraws all authority from the Board of Regents to restrict firearms on U. system campuses, and then gives back to the U. system narrowly-tailored authority to adopt certain restrictions that are sensible and also defensible under recent federal (Heller and McDonald) and state (Colorado, Oregon and Utah) court cases.
6. Sheriffs First – Law Enforcement Cooperation. Many Montanans, both citizens and people in public office, are concerned about the lack of accountability of federal officers conducting law enforcement operations in Montana. In Montana, we know the county sheriff and he is elected and accountable locally. We believe the sheriff is the chief law enforcement officer in the county, and ought to have the tools to implement that status. MSSA will offer a bill to require federal officers to obtain the written permission of the local sheriff before conducting an arrest, search, or seizure in the sheriff’s county. There are exceptions for federal reservations, Border Patrol, Immigration and Naturalization Service, close pursuit, when a federal officer witnesses a crime that requires an immediate response, if the sheriff or his personnel are under investigation, and other necessary exceptions. This bill was passed by the Legislature in 1995, but was vetoed by the Governor.
7. Sound suppressors illegal for poaching only. Firearm suppressors do not “silence” firearms, but suppress somewhat the noise of the muzzle blast. They do nothing to attenuate the loud crack of the sonic boom as a bullet breaks the sound barrier all along its flight path. Currently, firearm suppressors are illegal for hunting. FWP argues this is necessary for them to be able to catch criminals who poach. We propose a bill to make use of suppressors illegal for poaching only, but not for general hunting. Some argue that use of suppressors for hunting is not “fair chase,” because the hunted animal would not hear the muzzle blast from a hunter’s rifle. This argument ignores physics – that a rifle bullet arrives before the sound of the muzzle blast because the bullet flies faster than the speed of sound. It ignores that a missed shot will startle the game animal with the nearby sonic boom before any sound of muzzle blast arrives. Finally, it ignores the common acceptance of “fair chase” hunting with absolutely silent arrows during archery season.
8. Harmonizing concealed weapon permit (CWP) requirements. Since 1991, a CWP has not been required for a law-abiding person to carry a concealed weapon in 99.4% of Montana – outside the limits of cities or towns. With over two decades of experience that not requiring CWPs for nearly all of Montana has not created any problems, we propose a bill to harmonize the law so a permit will no longer be required for a law abiding person to carry a concealed weapon in the remaining small 6/10ths of 1% of Montana, inside cities and towns. We intend to leave the permitting process in place, so citizens who desire them may still obtain CWPs for travel to other states that recognize Montana CWPs, and for firearm purchases at gun stores under the federal Brady Law. This change would exclude criminals from applicability – it would still be illegal for criminals to carry concealed weapons.
9. Clarify authority of school boards for firearms violations. An underreported tragedy in Montana is the number of students who have been disciplined, many expelled, for forgetting that their hunting rifle was locked in their vehicle, usually from a weekend hunt. When such a condition occurs in a school parking lot, ill-informed administrators usually tell reviewing school boards (incorrectly) that the board has no choice but to expel offending students because of mandatory federal law. However, unknown to these poorly-informed administrators, federal law on the subject specifically excludes from consideration any firearm locked in a vehicle in a school parking lot. About 450 Montana high school students have been expelled, and had their academic aspirations ruined for life, over this issue. We propose a bill to clarify for uninformed administrators and misinformed school boards that firearms locked in a student vehicle does not mandate expulsion, but that school boards have full discretion to apply discipline as needed and appropriate to the ingredients of the incident. This bill would NOT deprive school boards of tools to deal with genuine safety problems, but would clarify that firearms locked in vehicles do not MANDATE student expulsion.
10. Bankruptcy and Arms. Allow up to $5,000 of firearms, archery equipment and ammunition that a person has owned for a year or more to be exempt from claims under bankruptcy.
11. Home Guard. Expand upon existing laws establishing the Montana Home Guard to specify organization, mission, duties, responsibilities and control.
12. Shooting range funding. Montana began using some hunter license money to make matching grants to develop local shooting ranges in 1989. The program to build safe and suitable places for Montana people to shoot was put into state law in 1999, as the Shooting Range Development Program (SRDP). The funds for this program are approved each legislative session in the appropriations process for the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks budget. There are no general tax revenues used for this program, only the money hunters pay for licenses. The 2007 Legislature appropriated $1,000,000 for the SRDP. $600,000 was appropriated in 2009, and about $650,000 in 2011 and 2013. We ask that $1,000,000 be appropriated to the SRDP in the 2014 legislative session, regardless of any FWP opposition to that level of funding.
Reporter, The Daily Caller News Foundation
The University of Iowa may have broken federal guidelines by sharing with the local sheriff’s department private information about students who apply for campus gun permits.
Under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, public universities are required to keep secret personal information on students, such as their grades and addresses. But Iowa has been sending personal information regarding students who apply for campus gun permits to the sheriff’s office.
David Codrea writes for the Gun Rights Examiner. I read his articles daily and enjoy reading his opinions. In fact, I’ve even used his “Candidate Questionnaire” and tailored it to use for upcoming elections and candidate forums.
I have a few points I’d like to make before sending you on over to David’s article…. Please allow me a few moments of your time…..
Today’s article is about differences between Second Amendment Shooters and Sport Shooters and how a new law will affect College Campuses. As a supporter of Students For Concealed Carry On Campus, this article brings up several questions for me, one of the most important being this one…
“If the Regents “are responsible for campus security issues,” does that mean they incur personal liability should they fail to protect everyone in their jurisdiction? And just because legislators claim the powert to delegate authority over your rights to a third party doesn’t mean that’s moral or legitimate. Or “only proper.”
I, for one, would very much like to press this question to each and every school facility that bans law-abiding citizens from legally carrying firearms. I don’t have children, but if I did have a child in school I would DEMAND to know exactly how they intend to protect my child while in their care.
The belief that these so-called “gun free zones” will prevent crime relies upon flawed reasoning, namely the belief that criminals will be deterred by these new “gun free zone” laws, even though they are not deterred by longstanding laws against pedophilia, rape, murder, armed robbery, etc. Perhaps looking at a few high profile shootings will better illustrate the point.
1. The Columbine High School Massacre
The Columbine High School massacre occurred on Tuesday, April 20, 1999, at Columbine High School in Columbine in unincorporated Jefferson County, Colorado, near Denver and Littleton. Two students, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, embarked on a shooting rampage, killing 12 students and a teacher, as well as wounding 23 others, before committing suicide. The killers unlawfully brought guns into their high school, and proceeded to unlawfully kill innocent people, before unlawfully killing themselves. Guns were not allowed in the school, and neither was murder, yet law did not deter these people who were bent on committing murder then suicide. Perhaps if the teachers had been given the option to voluntarily receive training and a concealed handgun to defend themselves and their students, this tragedy could have been averted or at least lessened.
2. The Westroads Mall Shooting
The Westroads Mall shooting was a murder-suicide that occurred on December 5, 2007, at the Von Maur department store in the Westroads Mall in Omaha, Nebraska, United States. Nineteen-year-old Robert A. Hawkins killed nine people (including himself) and wounded four, two of them critically. The mall was a “gun free” zone as well, meaning that law abiding citizens were not allowed to carry a gun for self defense. The killer who was bent on murdering as many people as he could, before committing suicide, wasn’t deterred by the laws against murder, nor was he deterred by the sign in front of the mall which stated guns were not allowed.
3. The Virginia Tech Massacre
The Virginia Tech massacre was a school shooting which occurred on April 16th, 2007, at the campus of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech) in Blacksburg, Virginia. The perpetrator, Seung-Hui Cho, killed 32 people and wounded many more before committing suicide. Virginia tech was a “gun free zone”, which meant the students and professors were forbidden to carry concealed handguns for their own protection. This didn’t deter the gunman, who just wanted to kill his fellow students before taking his own life. Again, a person who wants to die wasn’t deterred by the prospect of jail time for having a gun in the “gun free zone”, or even the possibility of being executed for committing murder.
4. The Northern Illinois University Shooting
The Northern Illinois University shooting was an incident that took place on February 14, 2008, during which a gunman shot multiple people on the campus of Northern Illinois University in DeKalb, Illinois, before committing suicide. Five of his victims were killed, eighteen were wounded. NIU’s campus was a gun free zone as well, and indeed the entire state of Illinois prohibits concealed carry. Once more we see that a gunman bent on murder and suicide didn’t follow the rules of the “gun free zone”, but his victims did follow the rules and were left defenseless.
5. The Lane Bryant Shooting
The Lane Bryant shooting was an incident of mass murder and armed robbery at a Lane Bryant clothing outlet in the Brookside Marketplace in the Chicago suburb of Tinley Park, Illinois, that occurred on February 2, 2008. The shooting resulted in five fatalities, and the injury of another. The killer used his gun to subdue 6 women, before binding and killing them. The gunman escaped and is still at large, despite the fact that an armed police officer was just a couple thousand feet away. Being in the state of Illinois, concealed carry is illegal, so all 6 of the women were defenseless. The gunman, who was willing to risk the death penalty or life in prison for murder, kidnapping, and armed robbery, wasn’t deterred by the law against carrying a concealed handgun. The victims, being law abiding people, followed the law and were left defenseless.
6. The Fort Hood Shootings
A murderer who ignored the Army’s strict rules against carrying a loaded gun on a military base killed 13 soldiers and wounded dozens more. The victims, who abided by the Army’s gun control rules, were defenseless. The deadly shooting spree was only stopped when a civilian police officer arrived and shot the gunman.
7. The Mercaz HaRav Massacre
A lone gunman shot multiple students at the Mercaz HaRav yeshiva, a religious school in Jerusalem, Israel. Eight students and the shooter were killed and ten more were wounded, five of them in serious to critical condition. The attack began at 8:36 p.m. local time and ended about twenty minutes later. The attacker was not stopped by the police, but rather by a student, Yitzhak Dadon, whom saved the lives of countless students by lawfully shooting the attacker with his personal firearm. This is a clear example of a student who was permitted by law to carry a concealed handgun, and who used this handgun to stop the criminal and save lives. One can only wonder how many lives at Columbine, Virginia Tech, Lane Bryant, Northern Illinois University, and the Westroads mall could have been saved if the law abiding victims and bystanders had been allowed to carry a gun for self defense.
The above tragic and horrific events are just a few examples, each of which show that a person who is willing to commit a serious crime like pedophilia, rape, murder or armed robbery, or a person who is planning to kill themselves, will not even give a second thought the penalty for carrying a gun. They know that if they are caught, the gun possession charge will be the least of their worries, or they are too mentally disturbed to think rationally about and care about the penalties. In short, criminals ignore gun control laws.On the other hand, the law abiding students, teachers, and shoppers who were unable to defend themselves had a lot to live for, and didn’t want to risk their freedom and futures by facing a gun possession charge. A teacher who unlawfully carried a gun in self defense could lose their job, and face jail time. A college student who illegally carried a gun for self defense could be expelled and face bleak career prospects, in addition to the specter of a prison sentence. A mall shopper who unlawfully carried a gun would face similar prospects. This shows that the gun free zones only disarm the law abiding citizens who we don’t need to fear, and won’t deter the killers.
CRIMINALS DISOBEY LAWS
Criminals don’t abide by the laws of our society. Instead, they violate the laws for their own personal gain. It is this very fact that makes them criminals.
Gun control is just another law for criminals to disobey and so-called “gun-free zones” are an invitation to mass murder of our children.
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property
IF YOU HAVE A CHILD ATTENDING SCHOOL IN A SO-CALLED “GUN FREE ZONE”, PLEASE ASK THE QUESTION “WHO WILL PROTECT MY CHILD IF THEY CANNOT PROTECT THEMSELVES AND THE TEACHERS ARE NOT ALLOWED?”
!!!DEMAND ANSWERS!!! THESE ARE YOUR CHILDREN!
IF YOU ARE A COLLEGE STUDENT, OR A PARENT OF A COLLEGE STUDENT,, PLEASE GET INVOLVED IN THE ORGANIZATION