View Full Version : This is why we cannot have nice things... in Montana
For the past couple legislative sessions Montana has tried to get silencers for hunting and all sort of general changes to gun laws for years. The legislation is finally passing these laws... and the new Governor who just won his seat and has nothing to fear, vetoes every single one of them.
Montana Gov Steve Bullock on HB-302 "Prohibit state enforcement of any federal ban on semi-auto firearms/magazines" basically said MT officials would not enforce an unconstitutional federal ban on weapons. His response:
Further, HB-302 is unnecessary. To date, there has been no action in Congress to enact a ban on semiautomatic weapons. Moreover, recent news reports have indicated that a majority of Congress does not support such legislation.
"To Date" must mean something differently to Steve Bullock than it does everyone else. I remember 1994 being a date. And "recent news reports"... Because we should pass laws that only effect immediate circumstances. When legislation meets only once every two years we should look at the local news of that session and only pass laws that are currently in need of action.
In Montana it is actually a crime to have a silencer on your person on public land. You can be charged with poaching (but won't because it's ridiculous and wasn't enforced even when poachers have used silencers!) regardless of time of year. Ok, so two laws come up HB-27 "Authorize use of sound suppressors while hunting certain large predators"... This would have made it not be a crime to generally have a silencer on public land and allow for wolf population control with a silencer as a shooter's safety device (hearing and awareness). To Steve Bullock:
Allowing the use of suppressed weapons for hunting was proposed in the 2009 and 2011 Montana legislative sessions. In both sessions, the legislation was defeated. I do not see the need for suppressed weapons for wolf hunting. I believe most Montanans would agree.
This law shouldn't pass because although this legislature passed it 63 to 33 in the house, previous legislatures could not agree, so apparently to Steve Bullock, the passing of laws works a little differently than School House Rock taught us. A bill that has been attempted previously must be passed but vetoed a couple of times before the Gov can consider it "worthy" of passing.
This legislature has already passed, and I have signed into law, HB-73, which substantially liberalized the methods by which wolves may be hunted in Montana. HB 73 allows hunters to obtain multiple wolf licenses, allows wolf hunters to use electronic calls and not wear orange when hunting wolves outside the general big game season, and reduces the price of a nonresident wolf license. That bill enjoyed overwhelming bipartisan support because these measures will facilitate a more effective wolf harvest, while maintaining Montana's time-honored traditions of fair-chase hunting. HB-27 does not meet this critical threshold. Allowing suppressed weapons to hunt wolves will not provide a more effective wolf hunting season, or add significantly to overall wolfharvest.
Wolf hunting which is difficult as I understand it. So we've made that easier. So there is no need to protect the hearing of hunters. Makes no sense... There must be something else going on....
Most hunters are very concerned about the future of hunting in Montana. They know how important it is to act responsibly to protect our hunting traditions through reverence for game animals, use off air-chase methodology, and attention to maintaining a respectful public image.
AND THERE IT IS. "public image". We can't have less noise pollution in and around hunting areas, can't protect hunter's hearing, and can't increase the margin of safety for all hunters because the Governor eludes that silencers are bad for public image. Of course he wouldn't just say that.... Oh wait...
Hunting with suppressed weapons has negative connotations that warrant serious consideration in the face of attempts by anti-hunters to portray hunting in a negative light.
He says exactly that. So apparently to Steve Bullock, because he takes up the Hollywood notion of silencers as being tools for hit-men, and not the accurate notion they are safety devices, he is protecting the "image" by continuing to reinforce his self-believed stereotypes. You know, we shouldn't allow hunting with Black Rifles because it might be bad for the image. Does Steve Bullock remember that at one point the marriage of mixed races was considered bad for "image"? How are people's misconceptions ever going to change if officials continue to reinforce stereotypes and their own personal bias?
From a law enforcement perspective, suppressors represent a challenge to peace officers as they attempt to ensure compliance with both state law and rules set by property owners. Enforcing fish and game laws is a demanding job. We should not make a game warden's job that much more difficult by allowing a situation in which he or she cannot readily identify or locate the full sound of rifle shots in the field because of the use of a suppressed weapon by an individual who could have less than lawful intentions. Property owners across Montana deserve the same consideration, as they endeavor to be good neighbors by allowing hunters access to their land. I believe most landowners prefer to hear the full discharge of a firearm when hunters or others with firearms are on or near their property. For these reasons, I respectfully ask for your support in sustaining my veto.
Translation: Fish and Game would like to keep as much power as they can, can't allow pesky legislature (will of the people) to meddle with that. Followed by a bunch of garbage reasons that all the other states that have allowed hunting with silencers are not actually struggling with.
Typical that every reason for vetoing the laws only seeks to keep the already law abiding from continuing to be. And does nothing to engage the criminal or prevent their abuses. Please and Thank You for protecting us from ourselves.
There is a second silencer bill coming up HB-205, one that would remove the prohibition for silencers for ALL hunting. That sure as hell will also be vetoed by Governor Steve Bullock who does not care at all for the facts of the matter, but would rather engage his personal bias. There is also constitutional carry HB-304 in city limits (already exists outside of city limits, and open carry already legal everywhere) coming up. Also likely to be vetoed.
Governor Steve Bullock can be reached at:
Office of the Governor
PO Box 200801
Helena MT 59620-0801
Toll Free Number: 855-318-1330
406-444-3111, FAX 406-444-5529
Sounds like the state needs to dump him next election.
The only reason Bullock is governor is because 17,729 idiots voted for Vandevender, the Loser, I'm meant to say Libertarian, party candidate. If half of those mouth breathers could have brought themselves to vote for someone who could win, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Belmont31R
03-30-13, 17:34
The only reason Bullock is governor is because 17,729 idiots voted for Vandevender, the Loser, I'm meant to say Libertarian, party candidate. If half of those mouth breathers could have brought themselves to vote for someone who could win, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Why should libertarians vote for a party that hates them and likes Democrats better?
Why should libertarians vote for a party that hates them and likes Democrats better?
See above. Stick to your ideals when you can, but be realistic.
MountainRaven
03-30-13, 19:53
See above. Stick to your ideals when you can, but be realistic.
And that's why we don't have an effective third party in this country.
Or, as you say, why we don't get to have nice things.
Belmont31R
03-30-13, 21:11
See above. Stick to your ideals when you can, but be realistic.
I am being realistic. The GOP leadership likes democrats better than libertarians. The GOP doesn't even like the Tea Party which gave them the House back in 2010.
I'm not in the same political party, and the vast majority of the GOP have zero interest in libertarian ideology beyond blaming them when they lose elections.
So I have zero compelling interest in voting for any GOP'er besides someone like Ted Cruz, and the GOP masters are already pissed about him.
The only reason Bullock is governor is because 17,729 idiots voted for Vandevender, the Loser, I'm meant to say Libertarian, party candidate. If half of those mouth breathers could have brought themselves to vote for someone who could win, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Actually the reason that guy won is because EVERY WEEKEND he had dozens of volunteers canvassing the cities stumping for votes. I got called every weekend and was asked to help out his campaign as a volunteer for MONTHS in advance of the election. in all that time i NEVER ONCE recieved a call from ANY republican candidate or ANY OTHER candidate.
Further the tea party refused to endorse anyone up front weakening the pack.
Even FURTHER the hanky panky that went on at the republican convention in the state was nothing short of criminal.
Bottom line is that the Dems out campaigned the repubs. Had NOTHING to do with the Libertarians, even tho 25% of the state actually votes for libertarian candidates consistently.
Belmont31R
03-30-13, 21:18
Actually the reason that guy won is because EVERY WEEKEND he had dozens of volunteers canvassing the cities stumping for votes. I got called every weekend and was asked to help out his campaign as a volunteer for MONTHS in advance of the election. in all that time i NEVER ONCE recieved a call from ANY republican candidate or ANY OTHER candidate.
Further the tea party refused to endorse anyone up front weakening the pack.
Even FURTHER the hanky panky that went on at the republican convention in the state was nothing short of criminal.
Bottom line is that the Dems out campaigned the repubs. Had NOTHING to do with the Libertarians, even tho 25% of the state actually votes for libertarian candidates consistently.
Ah so now the truth comes out. :lol:
Expound further on the hanky panky at the GOP Convention? Around here they will call the cops and change the rules if the old guard country club types don't get their way. In LA they had people arrested, and at the national GOP convention they just changed the rules so the GOP can 'reassign' delegates votes to whomever they want. Doesn't matter what happens in the primaries or who the delegates are. Someone like Boehner can just nominate whoever they want...:rolleyes:
But all you GOP'ers keep blaming libertarians who you shit on every chance you get, get people arrested, and just change the rules when you don't get your way. I'm sure there's a Democrat out there somewhere who you can 'reach across the aisle' with....;)
Jack-O, It's called politics. What have you done to change politics in Montana for the better? You may want to pickup the guidon and lead from the front instead of complaining from the rear.
The truth comes out? No, another point of view is all the Jack-O has to offer. That being said, how did I know the resident professional victim would get involved in this thread...
Belmont31R
03-30-13, 21:59
Jack-O, It's called politics. What have you done to change politics in Montana for the better? You may want to pickup the guidon and lead from the front instead of complaining from the rear.
The truth comes out? No, another point of view is all the Jack-O has to offer. That being said, how did I know the resident professional victim would get involved in this thread...
So you got nothing but lashing out? ;)
montanadave
03-30-13, 22:47
Back on point, I don't support hunting with suppressors. As a private landowner with state land bordering my property, I want to know if someone's hunting in my neck of the woods.
I don't have an issue with shooters owning and using suppressors for range use, home defense, training, etc. I just don't think there is any compelling argument for their use by legal hunters.
Feel free to disagree.
I have to wholeheartedly disagree. Simply from the standpoint of I don't like wearing earpro when I hunt. But, to your point , if I am hunting on someone's land I let them know and where I will be.
I have to say, I'm somewhat suprised, sir. The whole reason of my first suppresor was hunting. Not bothering people and hearing damage are high priorities with me.
Magic_Salad0892
03-31-13, 01:58
Back on point, I don't support hunting with suppressors. As a private landowner with state land bordering my property, I want to know if someone's hunting in my neck of the woods.
I don't have an issue with shooters owning and using suppressors for range use, home defense, training, etc. I just don't think there is any compelling argument for their use by legal hunters.
Feel free to disagree.
I can understand your viewpoint, but IMHO if it's legal I think it should be legal to hunt with, and I can't think of a good reason not to.
Though I think it should be a cime to knowingly hunt on somebody elses land without their permission. (If it isn't already.)
Back on point, I don't support hunting with suppressors. As a private landowner with state land bordering my property, I want to know if someone's hunting in my neck of the woods.
I don't have an issue with shooters owning and using suppressors for range use, home defense, training, etc. I just don't think there is any compelling argument for their use by legal hunters.
Feel free to disagree.
How does one stop them from doing it anyway? You can't just pick and choose arguments that work for you. Its not any different than the fuds saying people should be allowed to own firearms but not black rifles because for whatever reason.
Belmont31R
03-31-13, 02:06
Back on point, I don't support hunting with suppressors. As a private landowner with state land bordering my property, I want to know if someone's hunting in my neck of the woods.
I don't have an issue with shooters owning and using suppressors for range use, home defense, training, etc. I just don't think there is any compelling argument for their use by legal hunters.
Feel free to disagree.
What difference does it make after the shot is taken? Until they shoot how would you know anyways?
Moose-Knuckle
03-31-13, 03:29
I don't support hunting with suppressors. As a private landowner with state land bordering my property, I want to know if someone's hunting in my neck of the woods.
I just don't think there is any compelling argument for their use by legal hunters.
Feel free to disagree.
So what about bow hunters? Arrows and bolts are as silent as the grave.
I think it's a sad day when several European nations allow people to hunt with sound suppressors citing hearing protection and reducing the impact on the environment as reasons while there are "free states" here that criminalize it.
Belmont31R
03-31-13, 03:34
So what about bow hunters? Arrows and bolts are as silent as the grave.
I think it's a sad day when several European nations allow people to hunt with sound suppressors citing hearing protection and reducing the impact on the environment as reasons while there are "free states" here that criminalize it.
But but they're socialists!
Hunting applications aside I just wish one could walk into Walmart and walk out with a surefire, same as buying a bag of Doritos. How glorious such a world would be.
Back on point, I don't support hunting with suppressors. As a private landowner with state land bordering my property, I want to know if someone's hunting in my neck of the woods.
I don't have an issue with shooters owning and using suppressors for range use, home defense, training, etc. I just don't think there is any compelling argument for their use by legal hunters.
Feel free to disagree.
I disagree and think this is the same sentiment as the gun prohibition crowd. You want suppressors banned from hunting because someone could potentially break the law (and poach on your land) if they have access to a suppressor.
The shooters willing to go through the hoops of title-2 firearm ownership are not generally a demographic I would think prone to poaching or breaking the law in general.
I will soon also be a land owner and do not see any issue with people having the ability to hunt with suppressors on adjacent property.
And that's why we don't have an effective third party in this country.
No, it is not. The reason we have no effective third party in this country is that the system was designed as a 2 party system in effect, due to the "winner takes all" determination of the results.
Civics 101.
Or, as you say, why we don't get to have nice things.
MountainRaven
03-31-13, 14:20
No, it is not. The reason we have no effective third party in this country is that the system was designed as a 2 party system in effect, due to the "winner takes all" determination of the results.
Civics 101.
No it wasn't.
The way the system was designed is that you vote for Electors. The Electors are supposed to vote for whoever they want. Ostensibly, they're supposed to vote as indicated by the voters: If half of the voters choose Obama, half the Electors are supposed to vote for Obama. Only recently has it become a 'Winner-Take-All' system.
Littlelebowski
03-31-13, 14:28
So what about bow hunters? Arrows and bolts are as silent as the grave.
I think it's a sad day when several European nations allow people to hunt with sound suppressors citing hearing protection and reducing the impact on the environment as reasons while there are "free states" here that criminalize it.
Excellent points. If suppressed weapons are eeeevil, why aren't bows?
No it wasn't.
The way the system was designed is that you vote for Electors. The Electors are supposed to vote for whoever they want. Ostensibly, they're supposed to vote as indicated by the voters: If half of the voters choose Obama, half the Electors are supposed to vote for Obama. Only recently has it become a 'Winner-Take-All' system.
All the more reason why more states should go back this type of system. Atleast it would do a way with the prospect of having the presidential election come down to a few districts in battleground states like it does currently.
Excellent points. If suppressed weapons are eeeevil, why aren't bows?
And all the other states that have silencers legal for hunting... Why isn't poaching a big problem in those states? I'm sure all those states that just legalized it recently are having massive poaching problems now.
The - **** - that land owners should want to hear un-locatable shots from 3 miles away vs 2 miles, the crack is the sound that travels, and the crack is not mitigated by the suppressor. Montandave you should be embarrassed you wrote that. The truth is, you hear a shot, and you most likely don't do anything anyhow. That you would insist people not be able to use their legally owned safety devices because you have some grant fantasy about stopping poachers on your property is a tad bit shameful.
No it wasn't.
yes, it is the reason why we have a two party system. The system was designed as a winner takes all system, which leads to a 2 party system as the losers band together to become the winners next time.
Again, civics 101.
The way the system was designed is that you vote for Electors. The Electors are supposed to vote for whoever they want. Ostensibly, they're supposed to vote as indicated by the voters: If half of the voters choose Obama, half the Electors are supposed to vote for Obama. Only recently has it become a 'Winner-Take-All' system.
I am not sure what you are saying here. The electoral college is still "winner takes all". Obama only needed 50% + 1 of the electoral college to win the whole election.
And the electoral college only concerns the presidential election, btw. The myriad other elections we have are also all "winner takes all". You need just one more vote than 50% to have the complete election. We do not have any sort of proportional system.
ETA: if you meant that in a state, if Obama got 50% of the popular vote in a given state, he would be entitled to only 50% of the electors in a given state -- this is also false. The system did not specify how electors were chosen at all and each state could set up their own system. This is informative -- http://uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/INFORMATION/electcollege_history.php
--
montanadave
04-01-13, 08:52
After doing a little research over the weekend looking at the number of states which allow hunting with suppressed firearms, the number of poaching infractions, etc., I'll retract my earlier objection.
While I still don't see a compelling case for the use of suppressors, I guess I don't see a compelling reason to ban their use for those who wish to incur that additional expense.
The folks that can afford the suppressors are unlikely to be the ones ignoring the "Posted" signs and climbing the fence.
So, to quote Emily Litella, "Nevermind."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wznjAhZ0eWc
Montana, thanks for the 180* change.
If all the people thought like that, I'd have few and far between places to hunt. And yes, I do not poach. I ask permission and usually know all the people whose land I hunt off of. And when I tell them what I am using they usually want to put a few rounds through it. I call it hunting fee.:D
After doing a little research over the weekend looking at the number of states which allow hunting with suppressed firearms, the number of poaching infractions, etc., I'll retract my earlier objection.
While I still don't see a compelling case for the use of suppressors, I guess I don't see a compelling reason to ban their use for those who wish to incur that additional expense.
The folks that can afford the suppressors are unlikely to be the ones ignoring the "Posted" signs and climbing the fence.
So, to quote Emily Litella, "Nevermind."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wznjAhZ0eWc
Appreciated. very much. Now if the idiot governor could do even a touch of basic research this wouldn't be a problem.
MountainRaven
04-01-13, 11:50
yes, it is the reason why we have a two party system. The system was designed as a winner takes all system, which leads to a 2 party system as the losers band together to become the winners next time.
Again, civics 101.
I am not sure what you are saying here. The electoral college is still "winner takes all". Obama only needed 50% + 1 of the electoral college to win the whole election.
And the electoral college only concerns the presidential election, btw. The myriad other elections we have are also all "winner takes all". You need just one more vote than 50% to have the complete election. We do not have any sort of proportional system.
ETA: if you meant that in a state, if Obama got 50% of the popular vote in a given state, he would be entitled to only 50% of the electors in a given state -- this is also false. The system did not specify how electors were chosen at all and each state could set up their own system. This is informative -- http://uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/INFORMATION/electcollege_history.php
--
From wikipedia (which cites an offline resource, an article in the Harvard Journal on Legislation:
"The design of the Electoral College was based upon several assumptions and anticipations of the Framers of the Constitution:
Each state would employ the district system of allocating electors.
Each presidential elector would exercise independent judgment when voting.
Candidates would not pair together on the same ticket with assumed placements toward each office of President and Vice President.
The system as designed would rarely produce a winner, thus sending the election to Congress."
Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)#Original_plan).
The important one is bolded.
In other words, if two of Montana's Electors think that Obama would make a better president than Romney, that's how they're supposed to vote. Conversely, if half of California's Electors think that Ron Paul would make a better president than Romney or Obama, that is how they are supposed to vote. And nowhere in federal law or the Constitution has this been changed to what we have today. There is, to the best of my knowledge, only one Elector in recent history who has done anything but vote for the candidate the majority of the state voted for (and she, IIRC, abstains or abstained).
In other words, if the Electors voted the way the Founders intended them to, which is intelligently and independently, we could easily have a three- or four-(or more-)party system. We don't because someone decided - extralegally - to make the Electoral college winner take all.
If there are more than two parties at the federal level (who can win Presidential office) - because the Electoral college returns to functioning as it should - we will rapidly find that the smaller parties will do better at the state and local level as the smaller parties become more important and generate more revenue from donors and more of that revenue is worked down to the state level.
In other words, because the President can only ever come from one of two parties, those two parties will be the two most important parties all the way down to the local level. As it is, the two parties represent more facets than they can hope to represent: The GOP cannot represent libertarians, Evangelicals, and neo-conservatives without short-changing one or all. The Democratic party cannot represent socialists, liberals, and Blue Dogs without short-changing one or all.
It amazes me how much anger there can be over Blue Dogs supporting socialists and liberals when so many of those same people rage against any of the libertarians and Evangelicals who fail to support the neo-cons.
From wikipedia (which cites an offline resource, an article in the Harvard Journal on Legislation:
"The design of the Electoral College was based upon several assumptions and anticipations of the Framers of the Constitution:
Each state would employ the district system of allocating electors.
Each presidential elector would exercise independent judgment when voting.
Candidates would not pair together on the same ticket with assumed placements toward each office of President and Vice President.
The system as designed would rarely produce a winner, thus sending the election to Congress."
Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)#Original_plan).
The important one is bolded.
In other words, if two of Montana's Electors think that Obama would make a better president than Romney, that's how they're supposed to vote. Conversely, if half of California's Electors think that Ron Paul would make a better president than Romney or Obama, that is how they are supposed to vote. And nowhere in federal law or the Constitution has this been changed to what we have today. There is, to the best of my knowledge, only one Elector in recent history who has done anything but vote for the candidate the majority of the state voted for (and she, IIRC, abstains or abstained).
In other words, if the Electors voted the way the Founders intended them to, which is intelligently and independently, we could easily have a three- or four-(or more-)party system. We don't because someone decided - extralegally - to make the Electoral college winner take all.
If there are more than two parties at the federal level (who can win Presidential office) - because the Electoral college returns to functioning as it should - we will rapidly find that the smaller parties will do better at the state and local level as the smaller parties become more important and generate more revenue from donors and more of that revenue is worked down to the state level.
In other words, because the President can only ever come from one of two parties, those two parties will be the two most important parties all the way down to the local level. As it is, the two parties represent more facets than they can hope to represent: The GOP cannot represent libertarians, Evangelicals, and neo-conservatives without short-changing one or all. The Democratic party cannot represent socialists, liberals, and Blue Dogs without short-changing one or all.
It amazes me how much anger there can be over Blue Dogs supporting socialists and liberals when so many of those same people rage against any of the libertarians and Evangelicals who fail to support the neo-cons.
I am sorry, but your analysis is incorrect.
I am not sure why they say that it was designed that each state would employ the district system in allocating electors. There was no such design in the original plan. Each state was left to allocate their electors as they saw fit as people were worried about loss of state power in this federal system, and so it was not specified. (look at the link I posted earlier)
However, that is irrelevant. The Electoral System is still a winner takes all system, which is how US government at all levels is designed.
At the electoral level for president, the winner needs 50% + 1 of the electoral votes -- winner takes all.
At each other level of popular vote, the winner needs 50% of the votes + 1 to win.
The natural consequence of this is that the losers band together in order to try and become the winners next time. This is in effect a 2-party system. The parties may change, but there will never be more than 2 parties that have a major role and a chance of winning in US elections due to this.
WRT the electoral system: by allocating electors according to a vote system -- popular vote -- electors who don't come out to support a given candidate are unlikely to win, so they do come out in support of a given candidate. And they rarely (as you mentioned, it has happened only once) vote otherwise, or else they would be less likely to get support in the elector role the next time. Or they are faithful parties hacks who get the support initially anyway since you don't vote for the elector, you vote for the president, who then gets to specify the electors.
The US does not have a proportional system like some parliamentary systems are. Even in those, you very often see two (2) major parties come to the fore, with one or two smaller parties that have enough support to have influence greater than their vote totals as they are necessary to form coalitions and can act as kingmakers. (This is not always the case but is often the case). For example, in the UK you have the Conservatives (ie Tories) and Labor as the two main parties, with the Liberals the smaller party that gets to play kingmaker. In Germany you have the CDU/CSU Christian Democrats and the SDP Social Democrats with the LDP and Greens as the smaller parties who poll enough support to play a role. (And in former E Germany you get the former communists and the leftist radical social democrats who left the SDP who sometimes poll enough, though I forget what they are called.)
---
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.