Logout|My Dashboard

Montanans will not obey any new federal gun restrictions - Hagadone Corporation: Hungryhorsenews

Montanans will not obey any new federal gun restrictions

Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Sunday, January 6, 2013 11:35 am

Editor’s note: The following was sent to Montana’s congressional delegation on behalf of the Montana Shooting Sports Association.


Because there is much discussion among gun owners of Montana about proposals by Sen. Diane Feinstein and others for Congress to enact various types of gun control, I though you would appreciate knowing what I hear from Montanans about this.

I speak to you as a person intimately familiar with firearms, with public policy about firearms, as a person accepted in state and federal courts as an expert on firearms, firearms safety and use of force, and as the president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, Montana’s primary organization asserting the right to keep and bear arms, also affiliated or associated with the National Rifle Association, Gun Owners of America, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and the Second Amendment Foundation.

On behalf of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, I wish to express our unequivocal opposition to any ban on any class or type of firearms, any new registration requirements on any class or types of firearms, any restrictions on manufacture, sale or possession of ammunition feeding devices of any configuration or capacity, and any government intrusion into firearm transfers between private citizens. Any congressional actions in any of these areas would be an infringement upon the rights the citizens of Montana have reserved to themselves.

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article II, Section 12 of the Montana Constitution — these sections of these foundational documents are not government permission to keep firearms. They are statements whereby the people have reserved these rights to themselves specifically from government interference.

These statements do not create any rights, but simply recognize preexisting “natural rights” which are restricted from government interference. As you consider whatever “gun control” (actually people control) may be offered by Sen. Feinstein or others, I hope you will keep these facts clearly in mind.

“Gun-free zones” are a terrible failure of public policy. Virtually all mass shootings, including the one in Connecticut that has sparked the current wave of media hysteria, happen in places where public policy has incorrectly assured people that they are safe, but where the policy has actually created risk-free zones for madmen, and pools of defenseless victims conveniently offered up for slaughter by failed policy.

Former police officer Ron Avery says, “The only way to check violence in progress, where the victim can neither hide nor flee, is by equal or greater force in a timely manner.“ If Congress feels compelled to “do something” in the wake of the Connecticut shooting, it should repeal the pretense of all federally-mandated or federally-inspired “gun-free zones.”

For any inside the Beltway who actually believe in the effectiveness of “gun-free zones,” I recommend that the White House, the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House, the U.S. Supreme Court and all federal courthouses be declared “gun-free zones,” and that all armed guards and protective personnel in those places be removed. If “gun-free zones” are effective for our kids, they’re good enough for our servants.

Various gun bans, licensing or registration schemes, and/or bans or restrictions of ammunition feeding devices will fail. I won’t bother you with discussion of the fact that any such restrictions will have no effect on criminals or madmen. I believe you already know that.

I do hope to inform you about how strongly the gun owners of Montana feel about their right to keep and bear arms. I have asked around among a considerable number of friends, acquaintances and contacts in Montana. I have not learned of anyone who would comply, for example, with a new federal law requiring them to register or surrender their semi-auto rifles to authorities.

Let me be very clear: Montanans will not comply with any new federal restrictions. The most any such restrictions would do would be to create a huge, new, armed, outlaw class of citizens. And I very much doubt that most Montana law enforcement personnel would cooperate in enforcing any such federal restrictions.

Clearly, the vast numbers of citizens who have bought new firearms in the past month, especially the hundreds of thousands of expensive semi-auto rifles, did not buy these new firearms simply so they’d have them available to surrender if Congress should pass a law demanding they do so.

Since Montana law enforcement personnel are unlikely to enforce any such restrictions, the effect of passage of such restrictions would ultimately be for federal officers to come to Montana to enforce them. Because most Montanans will simply not comply with any new federal restraints on a right they have reserved specifically from government interference, the obvious result would be armed conflict between Montanans and federal enforcers. (I offer this not as a threat or a challenge, but simply as an observation.)

I certainly hope you would not set Montana on the path to an armed conflict with federal enforcers by aiding or supporting passage of any new federal restrictions. That would not be in the best interest of your constituents.

Instead, if you feel compelled to pass some actually corrective legislation in response to the media hysteria over the Connecticut shooting, I highly recommend that you get rid of those dangerous and illusory “gun free zones.”

Gary Marbut, of Missoula, is the president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association.

  • Discuss

Welcome to the discussion.


  • David Llanes posted at 1:44 am on Fri, Dec 19, 2014.

    David Llanes Posts: 20

    If people keep protesting like this then it would become so much difficult for the government to impose any kind of law for ensuring security in the country. They all have to understand that such a decision is being taken for their well being. If you feel the need to own firearms for your personal safety issues then follow the right procedure for obtaining that. You can find firearms at a great price at ClarkeArms.com.

  • Robert Stevens posted at 3:50 am on Thu, Dec 11, 2014.

    Robert Stevens Posts: 21

    In many places people are protesting against the gun restriction law, they do have reasons to make such protests. Given the high rate of crime people need to have access to firearms to keep themselves protected. It is best to undergo gun training courses available at firing range near me Weddington to stay prepared.

  • David Llanes posted at 2:34 am on Mon, Dec 8, 2014.

    David Llanes Posts: 20

    Not just in Montana but in other regions as well people are not happy about gun restrictions. Although they are concerned about the recent events that have shaken the entire nation, they are not ready to give up their rights. The business organizations could access armed and unarmed security for hire, but for personal security needs one must have access to firearms.

  • marvinvinn posted at 5:30 am on Fri, Oct 17, 2014.

    marvinvinn Posts: 29

    All gun restriction laws should be more restrictive and they should contain also more severe penalties if someone violates the law. Every person who wants to have a gun should give a lot of physical, mental and psychological exams to obtain it. For instance in Florida, a Florida Concealed Weapons Permit is necessary to use a gun! Everyone who doesn't have a permit should be punished.

  • negruvoda posted at 3:27 am on Fri, Oct 3, 2014.

    negruvoda Posts: 26

    Why not? Any new federal gun restrictions are meant to be better than the previous ones, to improve the legislation and the gap that the previous law couldn't cover. Furthermore, only responsible and mentally healthy people should have a gun. Also, they should keep this gun in a case or a safe. They will find quality cases specially designed for weapons at www.casesbypelican.com.

  • Holly posted at 8:37 am on Fri, Jan 11, 2013.

    Holly Posts: 80

    correction - I want to clarify that my two comments are directed to billyocracy, not Marbut.

  • Holly posted at 8:23 am on Fri, Jan 11, 2013.

    Holly Posts: 80

    If a person wanted to research what is happening in CA they could simply do a little research - and verify - look up what is happening San Bernardino - it's not simply a case of foreclosure - or Bell, CA - the whole town is invaded with illegals - claiming funds for themselves, that American's have earned. Many many many people are moving from CA because they don't want to pay for the illegals. Just talked to two retired firefighters - since their home isn't under prop 13 - their tax will be around $7,000 a year - who can afford this - they can't on their retirement. CA citizens are paying for illegals and the illegals think it's funny.

  • Holly posted at 7:58 am on Fri, Jan 11, 2013.

    Holly Posts: 80

    @Mr. Marbut - for my work I service all of South SanDiego - right along the border (as well as OR and WA) I know exactly what I'm talking about. clients range from INS agents, to firefighters, police - and they are also concerned. If a person is not directly involved with the illegals they haven't a clue.

  • Sct1886 posted at 12:17 pm on Thu, Jan 10, 2013.

    Sct1886 Posts: 1

    Billocracy: Are willing to fight and die for those ideas? Are you willing to bust in doors and search and confiscate. I sincerely doubt it. I can hit the 600 yard bullseye 9 of 10 shots how about you? At the end of the day you and your Liberal filth will need another planet to live upon if you push too hard.

  • billyocracy posted at 10:50 pm on Wed, Jan 9, 2013.

    billyocracy Posts: 1

    Mr. Marbut, You don't get to just decide that your group doesn't have to obey the law. There is no such thing as pre-existing natural rights. Your rights are social agreements, you only have them as long as enough people or people with disproportionate power consent to allow them. For "gun rights" the end is in sight. This right has cause too much collateral damage.

    Also, Holly, have you ever been to Southern California? It is a relatively nice and safe place. Yes, San Bernardino has taken the brunt of the foreclosure crisis, but it is hardly the lawless no-mans-land that you make it out to be.

  • JoeJack posted at 12:08 pm on Tue, Jan 8, 2013.

    JoeJack Posts: 1

    Grandstanding politicians may get more than they bargained for in their attempt to take advantage of a media driven crisis. County Sheriffs are elected officials sworn to uphold the constitution. Their duty, therefore, is to the protect the citizens, not the government.

    Sheriff Richard Mack and "Oath Keepers" have plenty to say about their responsibility which includes protecting their constituents from federal government.

  • robertsgt40 posted at 8:50 am on Tue, Jan 8, 2013.

    robertsgt40 Posts: 1

    Folks need to understand we have lost the rule of law. There is a direct assault on your liberties(what's left of them). If the 2nd Amendment is lost, all is lost. History shows(Hitler, Mao, Stalin) an unarmed citizenry is the last step to a totalitarian state. As a Vietnam vet, I have seen first hand what brute military force can do. I don't want it here.

  • BSUjack posted at 6:06 pm on Mon, Jan 7, 2013.

    BSUjack Posts: 35

    How can this administration write new laws when they don't enforce their own existing laws ? They openly are contradictory ,breaking their own laws by allowing the sale of thousands of Guns to The Mexican Drug Cartels (Fast and Furious) ??How about that for Background Checks. Mr. Obama came to prominence as a Community Organiser in Chicago's the Political arena where they kill almost 1.8 people a day. Those guns were not Montana guns nor were they mine or my neighbors.[sad]

  • Holly posted at 9:57 pm on Sun, Jan 6, 2013.

    Holly Posts: 80

    it's so important to stand strong. since this is happening right now, it's something else to be considered: SanBernardino CA just went bankrupt, the crime, killings, looting has skyrocketed. the city officials asked it's citizens to lock their doors and arm themselves - the city could not be counted on to respond. Many many cities of CA are bankrupt. illegals make up more then half of the population - illegals have set up corrupt network to drain the system (or citizens) - and bring their cartel crime to US. right now our President warns on a daily basis America is on a fiscal cliff. And of course the US has trillions of debt. AND illegals are overtaking OR, WA, MI, IL, on on on. I would not count on any government protecting your family if what is happening in CA happens in your home town. they won't.
    American's can take action to stop some of the crime and invasion:
    Join Numbers USA. They are for ENFORCING our immigration laws, lowering the work visas, anchor babies, mandatory use of e-verify, etc. They rate each candidate on immigration issues and they have free faxes that you can send to the White House, your Congress & Representatives. It’s easy & free, please join!!!
    Check out Numbers USA.
    Feel free to repost.