Permitless concealed carry of firearms now legal in Montana

[Escape]

View attachment 1903520

that's right up there with. Guns don't kill people. Whet socks kill people.

I had a lot of fun and I hope everyone ales did as well. If anyone got twisted, lighten up. Its all BS anyway. Have a great weekend.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A Handbook of Civil War Bullets and Cartridges - Grab it through Amazon!

[metrotec]

And then the left would ban "powder". Leave it alone. We have gotten to where we are by the Declaration and the Constitution. I don't care if it's and old piece of paper written by a bunch of old white men. It's the best 2 documents ever contrived/written in the History of The World.
Of course you can make your own stash of black powder & caps.
Ban automobiles; they kill about 45,000 humans a year, not counting wild life, etc. OH I forgot ; automobiles are driven by humans.

 

[RTR]

These 5 words all you need to know on the topic ... period !!!

 

[sprailroad]

User stupidity has nothing to do with it. If only flintlocks were legal I think there would be less shootings of all kinds. Daniel Boone never had a problem with them. Often good ideas are looked upon with skepticism at first.. Hunting would be more of a challenge for one thing and you would have no problem making you own ammo.

...and we should also get rid of the inter-net and smart phones and people would need to write letters again which would really slow down all the crap people like to put out there in order to make themselves think they are somehow smarter then everyone else, ehh Escape?....I could go on and on....but why bother.

 

[sprailroad]

Utah is working on getting rid of the permit so you can conceal carry without one.

I think it was just today that Utah has now done so. Yep, just now looked, in the EPOC TIMES that 21 & older may now carry a concealed firearm in a public area without a permit. As of Dec. 2020, there had been 718,218 concealed carry permits. I'm talking Utah here.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

that's right up there with. Guns don't kill people. Whet socks kill people.

I had a lot of fun and I hope everyone ales did as well. If anyone got twisted, lighten up. Its all BS anyway. Have a great weekend.

Your right they are the same, guns don't kill people, people do, wet socks do kill people, put on a pair of wet socks then go outside in dead of winter in Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, North Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin Michigan and see what happens.

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

Right now, where I live, I use a firearm for non-hunting purpose almost weekly. We raise chickens, used to raise sheep, and EVERYTHING eats chickens and lambs. I don't like posions because I can't control who may eat it or eat what had eaten it. Leg traps - no - had a HORRIBLE event with an elderly neighbor's cat 40 years ago and do not want to repeat that (cat survived with just some nasty skin loss and I paid a week's wages to a vet).

When there's a ruckus in the hen house I head out armed. Coyotes, raccoons, weasels, fishers, opossums & skunks (egg thieves but mostly innocuous unless there are chicks about) and plain 'ol rats. Have four live traps . . . but when it is a varmint it still needs a five second head start and a solution when let out of the trap.

And I conceal carry a 9mm around otherwise (home & town) because when seconds count the police are 20 minutes away.

 

[Phil]

I always find it amusing when people exercise their 1st Amendment right to explain why the guardian of the 1st Amendment (2A) should be abolished.

 

[crashbandicoot]

So 1st amendment would only apply to newspapers printed by hand on hand presses, there was no TV, radio, internet, CD, DVD so they are not protected by 1st amendment. Freedom from unlawful searches wouldn't apply since they did not exist.

Beat me to it.

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

Here's a hard truth to think on:

While it is true that some people should not be allowed to have guns; it is even more true that some people should not be allowed to have children.

Guns are inanimate and have no good or evil qualities. They are just useful tools. But all murders EVER are committed by someone's child. Was that because an unfit parent did not instill a sense or moral duty or at least minimal social norms in the child?

So if you want to control crime you have to control the people. Not the items they have available.

Breeding licenses? Manditory parenting education and screwer's permits? Eliminate the child tax credit and instead increase taxes for every child? I don't know a solution but the problem is obvious.

 

[releventchair]

User stupidity has nothing to do with it. If only flintlocks were legal I think there would be less shootings of all kinds. Daniel Boone never had a problem with them. Often good ideas are looked upon with skepticism at first.. Hunting would be more of a challenge for one thing and you would have no problem making you own ammo.

Have you been introduced to flintlocks?
I've enjoyed them along with other blackpowder arms. Ans you should not lighten the perceived ability.

In regards to early times around the time our constitution was coming into being , you did not want to get hit with a one ounce ball.

Did not Boone get shot by another hunter? Buckshot at the end of it's range if Boone is recalled as being involved correctly.
He was also shot in the ankle in 1777 defending Boonesborough from Chief Blackfish and his Shawnee.
I wouldn't claim he never had a problem with firearms.

In terms of what arms were being referred to back then , it has nothing to do with unknown arms. It was not speculation.
It was being equally armed. Meaning being armed with whatever any threat would present/bare against them/us.
That would include not being restricted on ownership . By type or number ect..
Equal to any contesting party by being armed in equivalency.

My hunting is just fine with my pet rifle.
And yes I've used blackpowder to hunt successfully on multiple game types. Don't kid yourself on efficiency.

Make my own ammo? How do you mean?
Making gunpowder at home is going to raise eyebrows in this climate. You may hazard a guess as to what I'd be labeled for doing so.
Running ball by casting lead? That'll go over well on your front porch.... But hey , I'm in. Four dozen .62 balls please. If you could roll the sprues flush after , that'll help me load faster.

How about you go out tomorrow and acquire some flint , and then knap some flints up for me? Start with a dozen 3/4 inchers for my "musket" please.
You'll likely have time to whip up a pound of powder too. FFg please.
Then I can breath a sigh of relief knowing I'm equally armed against any opposing force.

 

[Trezurehunter]

All I can say, is I have a right to carry my Sig Sauer 9 MM, and I do so. I have conceal carry permits for Illinois and Utah, and I carry everywhere the permits allow me to. Glad to hear Montana is loosening the belt. Hope more states follow.

 

[newnan man]

The sheriff of our county (Brevard) has a video on their website encouraging his citizens to obtain a CC permit and tells us to carry at all times. He acknowledges that the police cannot be everywhere or get there instantly.

 

[malenkai]

If you want to kill a "mass" of people there are many other very effective ways.

I think we should ban pressure cookers They were effectively used as a weapon of mass killing in the Boston Marathon. Come to think of it, the Bill of Rights does not confer the right to bear pressure cookers.

Pretty much any object can be used to injure or kill, and many objects can be used for mass killings. Take away guns, and something else will come up, or, as others have said, the bad guys will still have guns anyway. One nuance tho -- try defending your family with a pressure cooker or even a baseball bat. Don't bring a knife to a gunfight.

That said, I think the gun debate is a bit or a red herring. Here is the real issue, IMHO. There is a group of people, by their nature, who wish to control others (that would be called "tyranny"). There is another group of people, by their nature, who wish not to be controlled by others (that would be called "liberty"). That is the real debate; guns are only a symbol of it. The Founding Fathers, as do I, lean towards the latter group. Take away the guns (not something I am advocating here), and nothing much changes on the philosophical side. Something else will pop up. The real challenge, and real fight, is to explain why liberty is a better idea than tyranny. I believe the gun debate, and I could be wrong, but I don't think I am, has distracted many from the core debate. Mass shootings, for example, while evil, have nothing to do with the core debate, but have been effectively used as a distraction, IMHO anyway.

 

[Duckshot]

Under the second amendment I think the right to bear arms should only apply to what was used when the amendment was written. Musket rifles and black powder hand guns. Possession of any other type would result in a mandatory 19 year prison sustenance. This way everyone would still have the right to bare arms. How cool would that be? Not everyone likes firearms so we should also allow sabers and swords and legalize dueling. It will make the other person think twice about dishonoring you in some way.

That's like saying under the right to privacy the abortionists should be limited to coat hangers.

 

[pepperj]

That's like saying under the right to privacy the abortionists should be limited to coat hangers.

What a sick reference to make-seriously.

 

[Duckshot]

What a sick reference to make-seriously.

Maybe accuracy ain't your thing.

It's not a coat hanger problem, it's a violence problem.

What if we used the same logic for the first amendment as some do for the second?

"A well stocked library, being nesecary to the education of a free state, the right of citizens to keep and read books shall not be infringed"

But then the book grabbers would come along and claim that books must be limited to ten pages, must not use pronouns or adjectives, and require the use of illustration, plus be limited to non-religious or non-political topics.

 

[Tesorodeoro]

Maybe accuracy ain't your thing.

It's not a coat hanger problem, it's a violence problem.

What if we used the same logic for the first amendment as some do for the second?

"A well stocked library, being nesecary to the education of a free state, the right of citizens to keep and read books shall not be infringed"

But then the book grabbers would come along and claim that books must be limited to ten pages, must not use pronouns or adjectives, and require the use of illustration, plus be limited to non-religious or non-political topics.

No need to argue about ignorance. That’s not intended to be a slight.

There just needs to be some historical perspective looking at the horrific evil things that have occurred in the not so distant past. Just one lost generation.
Going back thousands of years....likely to the beginning. It’s human nature.
To think we have evolved past this in such a short time or that thousands of innocent deaths even come close to TENS OF MILLIONS is...well that is ignorant of history and REAL sacrifice that fathers, mothers, sisters and brothers that lost young loved ones can only appreciate.

Maybe I should post up a link to the historical article documenting the children tags that were recovered recently having to do with the Jewish holocaust...wait they would have been WELL off and thankful towards the end of with just musket guns. Not so long ago folks. Stop and do some thinking.

 

[Duckshot]

And just how did they round up those tens of millions of innocents?

Oh, right.

With guns....

 

[Tesorodeoro]

And just how did they round up those tens of millions of innocents?

Oh, right.

With guns....

Exactly! We are on the same page.
If one wants to get emotional about violence...refresh the memory of what occurred not so long ago...the before that...and before that...and...

Blows my mind “educated” people don’t appreciate history.
Better study up before it’s changed.

Ok over and out. Thank you veterans.