What's doin' in the legislature...

Jay, it's true. You just don't get it. (0.00 / 0)

Since you and squirlygirly simply hate Kern's bill, maybe you would be kind enough to sketch your worst case scenario if this bill passes. WHAT is going to happen?  And you ask if Montanans WANT this bill.  Well, yes they apperently do.  End of story.  Nothing's going to happen.  Again, allow me to reiterate.  TRY carrying concealed some time.  I can tell from the comments that all the whiners have never carry a concealed weapon.  It just ain't that easy or comfortable.  And one last time, if Montanans overWHELMINGLY want this bill, isn't it the height of arrogance to deny them?  p.s.  I suspect that you and squirlygirl are from  outta state sent here to save us from ourselves.  No thanks.

---

by: Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers! @ Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 19:49:14 PM UTC

you didn't answer my question... (0.00 / 0)

...do you really want to end permits for concealed carry? Why?

The out-of-state card is cute, Larry. Usually it's only the rightie bloviators who go to it. But, remember, people who were born elsewhere and live in Montana have all the rights and claims to Montana that you do.

---

by: Jay Stevens @ Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 20:36:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You missed the point again. (4.00 / 1)

Yes, end concealed carry permits, because people have a basic right to carry a firearm, concealed or NOT concealed.  I will answer your question with a question.  Why should a law abiding citizen have to get the approval of the local cops to carry concealed?  For you see, if they're law abiding to begin with, they'll probably get it.  If they're criminals, they won't.  And criminals will carry anyway.  So, as someone mentioned, all it does is eliminate the paper.  And quite true, people born eslewhere have the same rights as long-time Montanans.  But do you REALLY think that someone who just moved here REALLY understands what Montana is all about?  That's kinda like me moving to say Maine and claiming to know the history of ocean fishing.  What's really irritating about some folks who post here is that they believe themselve to represent the purest strain of liberal thought, and are terribly intolerant of the views of other lefties.  I find that hilarious.  Take for example the argument that since law enforcement opposes Kern's bill, it just MUST be the right thing to do.  Well, could someone explain to me just WHEN the left became unquestioning supporters of law enforcement?  In case you've forgotten, we DO live in  two Americas.  And law enforcement is NOT always kind nor equitable to the poor folks who live in my America. I say to HELL with cops and what they want.  Gun rights are  not about what they want.  And once again, I think it's incumbent on those opposing  Kern's bill to provide for all of us supporters the horrible reality we will witness if this bill passes.  It's the civil thing to do.  For again, I have stated that NOTHING will happen out of the ordinary.  Now, if I'm wrong, I  will be shown to be wrong by facts.  Please, post what YOU think will happen.  And p.s. as far as the outta stater remark, I have endured many, many looong years of folks moving here and trying to change Montana one way or another, usually by wanting to make it look just like where they came from!  So, sorry if I offended.  I suffer a bit from the Tom McCall syndrome.  Look him up some time.  

---

by: Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers! @ Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 21:31:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Mental illness, for one (0.00 / 0)

Why should a law abiding citizen have to get the approval of the local cops to carry concealed?

Personality disorders rarely exhibit themselves as clinical, but are apparent in a person's relations with others.  Part of the current permitting process is validating with those who will vouch for an applicant.

For you see, if they're law abiding to begin with, they'll probably get it.  If they're criminals, they won't.

Larry, you've just undercut your own argument here.  If stable law abiding citizens will get a permit regardless, then why do we need a law eliminating the permit process?  Simply put, we don't.  This is useless law.

once again, I think it's incumbent on those opposing  Kern's bill to provide for all of us supporters the horrible reality we will witness if this bill passes.

Larry, I've already done that ... and you ignored it.  This law will give power to those who are untrained and unready to brandish or shoot a firearm in self-defense.  It enables those most likely to misuse that power with a legal defense if they do, a legal defense that you and I will have to pay for.  Furthermore, you've already written that criminals will ignore the law regardless.  Passing this law gives them one less charge they have to ignore.  That makes it bad law.  Sorry, but I can't and won't support bad and useless law.

Now, if I'm wrong, I  will be shown to be wrong by facts.

No, Larry.  If you're wrong it will be shown by dead or mangled bodies.  You might want to try and keep that in mind.

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 23:36:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

They're right, Larry... (0.00 / 1)

It's best that you just sit down and shut-up...let the intellectuals sort this issue out.  

Only those in Government know what's best for all of us.  Unfortunately, you're just not capable of taking care of yourself, but do not fear, the Liberal Democrats are here to help!  

---

by: Rusty Shackleford @ Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 01:07:05 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

deterrence? (0.00 / 0)

wouldn't getting caught with a concealed weapon without a permit be something you charge someone with? So a cop makes a stop, dude -- violent assault felon -- is packing, concealed. That's an extra charge, right?

Wouldn't that be a deterrence?

If you're in favor of everybody carrying, regardless of criminal record or mental state, then, yeah, I'm kind of opposed to that.

I'd love to see poll numbers on this, btw.

---

by: Jay Stevens @ Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 03:26:08 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Jay, be honest here, OK? (0.00 / 0)

What if the poll numbers were HUGELY against what you want, would you stop complaining and allow democracy to work?  And as far as mental illness, how you gonna work that one?  They have rights too.  It's pretty damn hard to deny them their rights.  I don't think we want to start down that road.

---

by: Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers! @ Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 03:38:42 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

honestly? (0.00 / 0)

It depends on the subject and the law, and where it originated. This particular bill as it was originally written had a lot of weird stuff in it. And I don't trust Kerns' judgment or reasoning, esp. after reading his blog. But if a majority of Montanans supported this thing -- after knowing what it would do -- I'd probably accept it. I don't think it'll have disastrous consequences...but what's "disastrous"? How many people have to die to make this bill disastrous? A dozen? Hundreds? One?

Thing that gets me is that there are other castle doctrine bills that are clear and straightforward and give homeowners the legal protection to defend their homes that you and most others are looking for. I don't get why folks want the right to brandish, the booting of the conceal carry law, etc & co. I haven't heard a rational explanation yet.

---

by: Jay Stevens @ Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 12:59:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Jay, thank you..... (0.00 / 0)

for a very measured response.  For you see, when you call all of us supporters crazy, I don't mind, but you alienate a whole lot of good people that I know, like Deb Kottel and Bob Melhoff, both supporters of this bill in the Legislature.  Allow me a little Montana example of gun laws.  I was teaching in a tiny HiLine town when the legislature decided that guns could no longer be brought to school.  We were astounded, for every kid had a rifle in the back of their trucks to shoot coyotes on the way home.  And there WERE no massacres in schools at the time. So to us, it seemed like a senseless law.  My point being that of COURSE there will  be mass shootings by crazies, but no law will stop that.  Just look at the recent example in Germany.  But those slaughters could be stopped by someone carrying.

---

by: Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers! @ Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 15:38:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

well... (0.00 / 0)

...I don't know if I would call all supporters of the bill "crazy," just Kerns! I mean, have you ever read the dude's website?

There are people I respect who support this bill. Really and truly. But I do know that a lot of Democrats feel they have to support any bill deregulating guns in order to appear tough and pro-gun. Ditto with GOPers. H*ll, that's their bread-and-butter.

The bill seems extreme to me. A repudiation of all gun laws, when MT's laws already seem pretty fair.

---

by: Jay Stevens @ Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 15:51:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Violent offenders generally don't open carry (0.00 / 0)

because they're not permitted to have a firearm, period.  So an extra charge of concealment is useless and not a deterrent in any way.  They will already be charged for possession.  

- Keeping the Left honest since 2001

---

by: sydney@alias @ Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 16:40:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Worse case scenario (0.00 / 0)

Defined here by opponents to the bill.

Defined here, in a previous post at 4&20 - or here, in another previous post.

Oh - and Larry - it's quite clear from that Seattle Times article that the people who are up there most loudly supporting the bill are out-of-state lobbyists from the NRA.

---

by: jhwygirl @ Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 21:31:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well, (0.00 / 0)

you know how us "terrorists" are.  We ain't too edjumacated!  We don't read so good, specially fancy schmancy reports.  I wanna hear it from you, NOT someone else's words.  And sorry, someone banned me from 4 $ 20. I can carry concealed legally but NOT post on certain lefty sites. Free speech is just too damn dangerous!  So, just like with guns, only certain folks can write there. So sorry, I don't read anywhere I can't comment.

---

by: Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers! @ Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 21:44:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I banned you (0.00 / 0)

not "someone".

---

by: jhwygirl @ Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 21:53:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I know you did. (0.00 / 0)

You have NO idea who you've banned.  The people you write about, well, I KNOW'EM!  They're gonna think you're a silly little person intolerant of the ideas of others and whose opinions are unworthy of serious consideration.  Just a warning.

---

by: Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers! @ Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 23:27:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Like all things, it's only dangerous when misaplied (0.00 / 0)

Free speech is just too damn dangerous!

Larry, even you know that's bogus.  The First applies to the government, not a private entity.  Don't piss on a property owner's pantleg and expect to look the hero when they take offense.

Look, you've been banned from multiple websites; some right,  some left, some libertarian.  The one common factor to all those banninations is you.  Think on that a little.

They're gonna think ...

Since when should a blogger give a crap about what "they're gonna think"?  And why would you, of all people, advocate caving to others opinions?

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 23:48:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

LOL (0.00 / 0)

First of all - you were the one that referred to "someone" - not me.  Why dance around it, Larry?

Secondly - you don't think I KNOW about the people I write about?  

Silly...little...intolerant?  Me?  It's one thing to intolerant of poor behavior - You, on the other hand, have exposed yourself as both a misogynist and a homophobe, and you call ME intolerant?

WhatEVER.

Oh - as for not having any idea who I banned?  Rather than go further with that one, let me just say that I know enough.

---

by: jhwygirl @ Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 02:46:26 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well, (0.00 / 0)

you wrote some  truly nasty things about Jim Keane of Butte.  ONLY someone from outta state and TOTALLY ignorant of Butte history could marvel at just why Jim supports the legislative bills that he does.  Does this make him a bad person worthy of your scorn?  Only in your eyes.  He's a BUTTE democrat for God's sake.  Sorry, but you don't know shit.  The Pit, which you so roundly criticize, provided employment for a HUGE number of Montanans long before you  arrived on the scene, including members of my family.  And it provided a good living and a living wage.  But you even insulted the town of Butte!  Go there some time and spout that nonsense.  And please, stop lying.  I am NOT a misogynist because I didn't like Hillary.  And I am NOT a homophobe because homo rights are not first and foremost on my political agenda.  In SPITE of the fact that you have the power to ban, the world according to squirlygirl is NOT necessarily the real world of Montana.   p.s.  NO ONE has locked horns with the mining industry more than I have, but at the same time, I doubt that anyone on THIS forum has had as many relatives as I have who spent their lives underground working the mines.  But what I have NEVER done, like  you, is lost respect for working men, even miners.

---

by: Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers! @ Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 03:23:37 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I didn't diss on Butte (0.00 / 0)

It's a fine town and people there are working very hard to recover from the corporate rape of the environment in that region.

And Keane isn't the only Democrat that has garnered not only my scorn, but others, for their support and votes that are stripping MEPA bare.

---

by: jhwygirl @ Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 04:24:45 AM UTC

[ Parent ]