-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
MONTANA BEHIND THE POWER CURVE ON CARRY RIGHTS
- Thread starter IDAHO COWBOY
- Start date
IDAHO COWBOY
Regular Member
imported post
MT GUNNY wrote:
MT GUNNY wrote:
IDAHO COWBOY
Regular Member
imported post
MT GUNNY wrote:
from a friend in Virginia 257435
MT GUNNY wrote:
from a friend in Virginia 257435
MountainGator
Regular Member
imported post
Hey Idaho Cowboy...
While I relize that this thread has turned into somewhat of a Pi**ing contest, I do argee that removing the prohibition on carring CONCEALED in a restrauant that serves alcohol should be a top priority.It is rediciously funny (and absurd) that any woman can carry in her purse (not to offend any lady here) because of the luggage clasue, but that no man can carry IWB. Same for trains...
But you state "Another MT problem not allowed to have gatherings of armed men/women for such things like the IdahoOpen Carry picnic'sin parks with families." What is your basis for stating that?
Hey Idaho Cowboy...
While I relize that this thread has turned into somewhat of a Pi**ing contest, I do argee that removing the prohibition on carring CONCEALED in a restrauant that serves alcohol should be a top priority.It is rediciously funny (and absurd) that any woman can carry in her purse (not to offend any lady here) because of the luggage clasue, but that no man can carry IWB. Same for trains...
But you state "Another MT problem not allowed to have gatherings of armed men/women for such things like the IdahoOpen Carry picnic'sin parks with families." What is your basis for stating that?
40s-and-wfan
Regular Member
imported post
If the gathering of armed individuals was illegal as you stated, myself and several others on this forum would have been arrested already. We've met countless times and haven't had a problem with it at all. Even local LEO's know we've done it because I've talked to them about it. They haven't had a single problem with it. I think someone's blowing smoke when they say it's illegal for armed men/women to gather and/or meet. There's nothing illegal about it. The only way I can think of it being illegal is if we were meeting to participate in any kind of illegal activity.
If the gathering of armed individuals was illegal as you stated, myself and several others on this forum would have been arrested already. We've met countless times and haven't had a problem with it at all. Even local LEO's know we've done it because I've talked to them about it. They haven't had a single problem with it. I think someone's blowing smoke when they say it's illegal for armed men/women to gather and/or meet. There's nothing illegal about it. The only way I can think of it being illegal is if we were meeting to participate in any kind of illegal activity.
MT GUNNY
Regular Member
imported post
Ive beento three Tea Party's here in Kalispell "Armed Openly" with no problems.
Ive beento three Tea Party's here in Kalispell "Armed Openly" with no problems.
IDAHO COWBOY
Regular Member
imported post
MountainGator wrote:
>> Montana Constitution, Article II, Section 33. Importation of armed
>> persons. No armed person or persons or armed body of men shall be
>> brought into this state for the preservation of the peace, or the
>> suppression of domestic violence, except upon the application of the
>> legislature, or of the governor when the legislature cannot be convened.
>>
>> and
>>
>> 45-8-107. Purpose. The legislature recognizes every citizen's
>> constitutional right to express beliefs on any subject, to associate
>> with others who share similar beliefs, and to keep or bear arms in
>> defense of home, person, or property. Sections 45-8-107 through 45-8-109
>> are not intended to interfere with the exercise of rights protected by
>> the United States constitution or the state constitution. The
>> legislature finds that conspiracies and training activities in the
>> furtherance of unlawful acts of violence against persons or property are
>> not constitutionally protected, pose a threat to public order and
>> safety, and are subject to criminal penalties.
>>
>> 45-8-108. Definitions.
>> 45-8-108. Definitions. As used in 45-8-107 through 45-8-109, unless
>> the context requires otherwise, the following definitions apply:
>> (1) "Civil disorder" means a public disturbance involving unlawful
>> acts of violence by a group of two or more persons that causes an
>> immediate danger of or results in injury to the property or person of
>> any other individual.
>> (2) "Governmental military force" means:
>> (a) the national guard as defined in 10 U.S.C. 101;
>> (b) the organized militia of a state or territory of the United
>> States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or the District of Columbia not
>> included in the definition of the national guard; and
>> (c) the armed forces of the United States.
>> (3) "Law enforcement agency" means a department of public safety, a
>> police department, a sheriff's department, the highway patrol, or a
>> governmental unit of one or more persons employed by the state or
>> federal government or a political subdivision of the state or federal
>> government, for the purpose of detecting and preventing crime and
>> enforcing laws or ordinances, whose employees are authorized to make
>> arrests for crimes while acting in the scope of their authority.
>> (4) "Peace officer" has the meaning given in 45-2-101.
>>
>> 45-8-109. Civil disorder -- prohibited activities -- penalties --
>> exceptions.
>> 45-8-109. Civil disorder -- prohibited activities -- penalties --
>> exceptions. (1) A person is guilty of a crime if, with one or more other
>> persons, the person purposely or knowingly assembles for the purpose of
>> training in, instructing in the use of, or practicing with any technique
>> or means capable of causing property damage, bodily injury, or death,
>> with the purpose of employing the training, instruction, or practice in
>> a civil disorder.
>> (2) A person convicted of violating the provisions of subsection
>> (1) is guilty of a felony and shall be imprisoned in the state prison
>> for a period not to exceed 10 years or be fined not to exceed $50,000,
>> or both.
>> (3) Subsection (1) does not prohibit:
>> (a) an act protected pursuant to Article II of the Montana
>> constitution;
>> (b) an act of a governmental military force;
>> (c) an act of a peace officer performed in the lawful performance
>> of the officer's duties;
>> (d) an authorized activity of the department of fish, wildlife, and
>> parks; the department of corrections; a law enforcement agency; or the
>> law enforcement academy;
>> (e) training in nonviolent civil disobedience techniques;
>> (f) lawful self-defense or defense of others or an activity
>> intended to teach or practice self-defense or self-defense
>> techniques; or
>> (g) a facility, program, or lawful activity related to firearms
>> instruction or training intended to teach the safe handling and use of
>> firearms or activities or sports related to recreational use or
>> possession of firearms.
>> (4) Sections 45-8-107 through 45-8-109 do not apply to an employer
>> or employees involved in a labor dispute.
MountainGator wrote:
Most or nearly cities / towns from what I am told and have checked on do not allow OC or CC in city parks.
>> Montana Constitution, Article II, Section 33. Importation of armed
>> persons. No armed person or persons or armed body of men shall be
>> brought into this state for the preservation of the peace, or the
>> suppression of domestic violence, except upon the application of the
>> legislature, or of the governor when the legislature cannot be convened.
>>
>> and
>>
>> 45-8-107. Purpose. The legislature recognizes every citizen's
>> constitutional right to express beliefs on any subject, to associate
>> with others who share similar beliefs, and to keep or bear arms in
>> defense of home, person, or property. Sections 45-8-107 through 45-8-109
>> are not intended to interfere with the exercise of rights protected by
>> the United States constitution or the state constitution. The
>> legislature finds that conspiracies and training activities in the
>> furtherance of unlawful acts of violence against persons or property are
>> not constitutionally protected, pose a threat to public order and
>> safety, and are subject to criminal penalties.
>>
>> 45-8-108. Definitions.
>> 45-8-108. Definitions. As used in 45-8-107 through 45-8-109, unless
>> the context requires otherwise, the following definitions apply:
>> (1) "Civil disorder" means a public disturbance involving unlawful
>> acts of violence by a group of two or more persons that causes an
>> immediate danger of or results in injury to the property or person of
>> any other individual.
>> (2) "Governmental military force" means:
>> (a) the national guard as defined in 10 U.S.C. 101;
>> (b) the organized militia of a state or territory of the United
>> States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or the District of Columbia not
>> included in the definition of the national guard; and
>> (c) the armed forces of the United States.
>> (3) "Law enforcement agency" means a department of public safety, a
>> police department, a sheriff's department, the highway patrol, or a
>> governmental unit of one or more persons employed by the state or
>> federal government or a political subdivision of the state or federal
>> government, for the purpose of detecting and preventing crime and
>> enforcing laws or ordinances, whose employees are authorized to make
>> arrests for crimes while acting in the scope of their authority.
>> (4) "Peace officer" has the meaning given in 45-2-101.
>>
>> 45-8-109. Civil disorder -- prohibited activities -- penalties --
>> exceptions.
>> 45-8-109. Civil disorder -- prohibited activities -- penalties --
>> exceptions. (1) A person is guilty of a crime if, with one or more other
>> persons, the person purposely or knowingly assembles for the purpose of
>> training in, instructing in the use of, or practicing with any technique
>> or means capable of causing property damage, bodily injury, or death,
>> with the purpose of employing the training, instruction, or practice in
>> a civil disorder.
>> (2) A person convicted of violating the provisions of subsection
>> (1) is guilty of a felony and shall be imprisoned in the state prison
>> for a period not to exceed 10 years or be fined not to exceed $50,000,
>> or both.
>> (3) Subsection (1) does not prohibit:
>> (a) an act protected pursuant to Article II of the Montana
>> constitution;
>> (b) an act of a governmental military force;
>> (c) an act of a peace officer performed in the lawful performance
>> of the officer's duties;
>> (d) an authorized activity of the department of fish, wildlife, and
>> parks; the department of corrections; a law enforcement agency; or the
>> law enforcement academy;
>> (e) training in nonviolent civil disobedience techniques;
>> (f) lawful self-defense or defense of others or an activity
>> intended to teach or practice self-defense or self-defense
>> techniques; or
>> (g) a facility, program, or lawful activity related to firearms
>> instruction or training intended to teach the safe handling and use of
>> firearms or activities or sports related to recreational use or
>> possession of firearms.
>> (4) Sections 45-8-107 through 45-8-109 do not apply to an employer
>> or employees involved in a labor dispute.
40s-and-wfan
Regular Member
imported post
Okay, I've got to say that I'm impressed with all the subject-matter that you copy and paste. It's relevance seems so far out there.
I just got off the phone with a Mr. Mark Fowler from the Montana Attorney General's office regarding the legality of gathering together as a body of armed individuals for the purpose of socializing and gathering for a non-violent purpose and he has verified just what I thought was the case. It is NOT illegal for a group of people to gather for said-purpose.
We're not looking to import any trained vigilantees, or to train any vigilantees ourself for any purpose. The only thing that would make any of this illegal is to gather in a place that we're not allowed to.
As for the restriction on not gathering in a park or someplace like that, the legality of that would fall under the category of the local law enforcement or that jurisdiction! If The Kalispell Parks and Recreation doesn't want us gathering in such a manner, then we would move to either Flathead County Parks and Recreation or that of the city of Columbia Falls or Whitefish. There's nothing wrong with us getting together like this. I hae already been in contact previously with said local departments for the same purpose. I was wanting to do this same thing this last summer but met little interest in the idea. I'd still like to do it. Again, there is nothing wrong with any of us gathering like this, whether we carry openly, concealed or don't carry at all!! Mr. Fowler has told me I'd be hearing from him again later on in the week regarding this matter to verify what he has already told me. His professional opinion, as well as his research has encountered no restrictions. We are allowed to peacably assemble. Even organizations like the KKK would be allowed to assemble, even though they're as despicable as they are. The city of Kalispell allowed a Gay-Pride march down it's main street, regardless of the opposition that came about. Why would they bar us from meeting?!
Interest in this matter would be great. If anyone is interested in something like this I'd greatly appreciate any feedback from you at all!!
Okay, I've got to say that I'm impressed with all the subject-matter that you copy and paste. It's relevance seems so far out there.
I just got off the phone with a Mr. Mark Fowler from the Montana Attorney General's office regarding the legality of gathering together as a body of armed individuals for the purpose of socializing and gathering for a non-violent purpose and he has verified just what I thought was the case. It is NOT illegal for a group of people to gather for said-purpose.
We're not looking to import any trained vigilantees, or to train any vigilantees ourself for any purpose. The only thing that would make any of this illegal is to gather in a place that we're not allowed to.
As for the restriction on not gathering in a park or someplace like that, the legality of that would fall under the category of the local law enforcement or that jurisdiction! If The Kalispell Parks and Recreation doesn't want us gathering in such a manner, then we would move to either Flathead County Parks and Recreation or that of the city of Columbia Falls or Whitefish. There's nothing wrong with us getting together like this. I hae already been in contact previously with said local departments for the same purpose. I was wanting to do this same thing this last summer but met little interest in the idea. I'd still like to do it. Again, there is nothing wrong with any of us gathering like this, whether we carry openly, concealed or don't carry at all!! Mr. Fowler has told me I'd be hearing from him again later on in the week regarding this matter to verify what he has already told me. His professional opinion, as well as his research has encountered no restrictions. We are allowed to peacably assemble. Even organizations like the KKK would be allowed to assemble, even though they're as despicable as they are. The city of Kalispell allowed a Gay-Pride march down it's main street, regardless of the opposition that came about. Why would they bar us from meeting?!
Interest in this matter would be great. If anyone is interested in something like this I'd greatly appreciate any feedback from you at all!!
40s-and-wfan
Regular Member
imported post
IDAHO COWBOY wrote:
Leisure Island Park, Woodland Park, Presentine Bar, Wayfarers Park, Heron Park, Lawrence Park, Lion's Park. These are just a few of the parks in the Kalispell area that I can think of off the top of my head that have no prohibitions on the carry of firearms, either openly or concealed, within them. Some of the parks do state that it's illegal to discharge a firearm within them, but don't say anything about prohibiting the carry of a firearm. Some of these parks are avid hang-outs for transients and/or homeless people and I feel the local jurisdictions know that, otherwise they would say something about it.
Truth be told, each one of these parks is a separate entity and could therefore restrict on a one-by-one basis. Thankfully this isn't the case.
With all due respect IDAHO COWBOY, you're reaching into an area of discussion that either has no bearing on the subject or doesn't even apply! The part that I quoted above doesn't even hold any truth in the research I've done. Missoula, Great Falls, Kalispell, Whitefish, Columbia Falls, Bigfork, Billings, Bozeman, Butte, Anaconda, Havre, Lewistown, Shelby, Lakeside. Shall I go on?! Believe it or not, I've spend a few days calling each of these jurisdictions. My results: None of these cities restrict the carry of firearms, concealed or open, within parks in their jurisdiction. I think it's unanimous. No truth! Sorry!!
IDAHO COWBOY wrote:
Leisure Island Park, Woodland Park, Presentine Bar, Wayfarers Park, Heron Park, Lawrence Park, Lion's Park. These are just a few of the parks in the Kalispell area that I can think of off the top of my head that have no prohibitions on the carry of firearms, either openly or concealed, within them. Some of the parks do state that it's illegal to discharge a firearm within them, but don't say anything about prohibiting the carry of a firearm. Some of these parks are avid hang-outs for transients and/or homeless people and I feel the local jurisdictions know that, otherwise they would say something about it.
Truth be told, each one of these parks is a separate entity and could therefore restrict on a one-by-one basis. Thankfully this isn't the case.
With all due respect IDAHO COWBOY, you're reaching into an area of discussion that either has no bearing on the subject or doesn't even apply! The part that I quoted above doesn't even hold any truth in the research I've done. Missoula, Great Falls, Kalispell, Whitefish, Columbia Falls, Bigfork, Billings, Bozeman, Butte, Anaconda, Havre, Lewistown, Shelby, Lakeside. Shall I go on?! Believe it or not, I've spend a few days calling each of these jurisdictions. My results: None of these cities restrict the carry of firearms, concealed or open, within parks in their jurisdiction. I think it's unanimous. No truth! Sorry!!
IDAHO COWBOY
Regular Member
imported post
40s-and-wfan wrote:
You can call the AG Office all you want, does not mean squat to me. As I have stated before, unless the MT AG himself issues an AG opinion in writingand posts the official MT AG in writing opinion on the MT AG web site, does not mean squat to me, anyone else including a judge, jury, etc. in the end an AG opinion is just that an opinion and is not law. Go back through your many posts on calling the AG ask them to write an AG opinion, have the AG himself sign it, then post on their web site - let me know then I will take a look at it and help spread it around.
When you check these Missoula, Butte, Helena, Bozeman, and/or Billings, did you check with PD or Attorney?
Drop MSSA Gary Marbut in Missoula a phone call and/or e-mail, I am moreinterested in his opinion much more than I am an AG staffer.
Also, if you would please ask the AG to put correct and positive information on their web site about open and concealed carry rather than just negative information on conceal carry along with the posting implications of the new law HB 228, in regard to open carry, self defense, use of force, etc
40s-and-wfan wrote:
You can call the AG Office all you want, does not mean squat to me. As I have stated before, unless the MT AG himself issues an AG opinion in writingand posts the official MT AG in writing opinion on the MT AG web site, does not mean squat to me, anyone else including a judge, jury, etc. in the end an AG opinion is just that an opinion and is not law. Go back through your many posts on calling the AG ask them to write an AG opinion, have the AG himself sign it, then post on their web site - let me know then I will take a look at it and help spread it around.
When you check these Missoula, Butte, Helena, Bozeman, and/or Billings, did you check with PD or Attorney?
Drop MSSA Gary Marbut in Missoula a phone call and/or e-mail, I am moreinterested in his opinion much more than I am an AG staffer.
Also, if you would please ask the AG to put correct and positive information on their web site about open and concealed carry rather than just negative information on conceal carry along with the posting implications of the new law HB 228, in regard to open carry, self defense, use of force, etc
40s-and-wfan
Regular Member
imported post
You just can't be satisfied, can you?! They day I decide to cater to your every whim and wish is the day I voluntarily vote for a foreign national for president. My desires and curiosities have been satisfied by talking to Mr. Fowler.
I see no need to worry about holding any kind of get-together where armed or unarmed men/women may be in attendance. As I said, there are no parks that I have come across so far that have any restrictions. I have found no jurisdictions on a city or county level that have any restrictions either. The calls I made were to people in the know, whether at the city or county level. If you don't believe the answers given by the State Attorney General's office, that's not my problem. I was not put on this earth to satisfy your desire so if you have any questions, concerns, requests, quieries or anything else, make the calls yourself.
You're awfully quick to tell someone else that they need to contact Gary Marbutt or have a letter written by the Attorney General himself or anyone else along those lines. Why don't you take your own advice and do it yourself?! Don't try to push it off on someone else, do it yourself. Have the letter written at your own request. See if you'll be allowed the chance to talk to the Attorney General, see if he'll write the letter for you and let us know what he says. I'll bet I already know the answer!! I'll bet it's the same thing as Mr. Fowler told me yesterday. After all, he does work for the Attorney General!
You see, I don't get on this forum to start or continue already going arguments. I get on here to post facts as I know them. I try my damnest to post only proven, researchable facts and I think I have done a good job in doing that. Everything I have put on here has been researched and has been found to be factual! I will not lead anyone astray when it comes to a subject that I'm passionate about, such as this. I see no need to argue about any of it. I know what I'm saying is true, if you don't believe it, research it yourself and see what you come up with!
Just out of curiosity, you said something about how you're a part-time resident of Montana. Where else is it that you call home? My posts all have my home town on them. Why are you so hesitant on telling us where you're from or where you call home? I'm curious, only due to the fact that I tend to doubt someone who tries to hid stuff. Everyone on here at least has their state listed. What's yours, the state of confusion?!
You just can't be satisfied, can you?! They day I decide to cater to your every whim and wish is the day I voluntarily vote for a foreign national for president. My desires and curiosities have been satisfied by talking to Mr. Fowler.
I see no need to worry about holding any kind of get-together where armed or unarmed men/women may be in attendance. As I said, there are no parks that I have come across so far that have any restrictions. I have found no jurisdictions on a city or county level that have any restrictions either. The calls I made were to people in the know, whether at the city or county level. If you don't believe the answers given by the State Attorney General's office, that's not my problem. I was not put on this earth to satisfy your desire so if you have any questions, concerns, requests, quieries or anything else, make the calls yourself.
You're awfully quick to tell someone else that they need to contact Gary Marbutt or have a letter written by the Attorney General himself or anyone else along those lines. Why don't you take your own advice and do it yourself?! Don't try to push it off on someone else, do it yourself. Have the letter written at your own request. See if you'll be allowed the chance to talk to the Attorney General, see if he'll write the letter for you and let us know what he says. I'll bet I already know the answer!! I'll bet it's the same thing as Mr. Fowler told me yesterday. After all, he does work for the Attorney General!
You see, I don't get on this forum to start or continue already going arguments. I get on here to post facts as I know them. I try my damnest to post only proven, researchable facts and I think I have done a good job in doing that. Everything I have put on here has been researched and has been found to be factual! I will not lead anyone astray when it comes to a subject that I'm passionate about, such as this. I see no need to argue about any of it. I know what I'm saying is true, if you don't believe it, research it yourself and see what you come up with!
Just out of curiosity, you said something about how you're a part-time resident of Montana. Where else is it that you call home? My posts all have my home town on them. Why are you so hesitant on telling us where you're from or where you call home? I'm curious, only due to the fact that I tend to doubt someone who tries to hid stuff. Everyone on here at least has their state listed. What's yours, the state of confusion?!
LeMat
Regular Member
imported post
40s-and-wfan wrote:
I happen to work for County Parks. Maybe I could just ask the boss.
We have signs up with park rules, one of which addresses the "discharge" of firearms, but I don't believe there is anything in regards to wearing them.
40s-and-wfan wrote:
I happen to work for County Parks. Maybe I could just ask the boss.
We have signs up with park rules, one of which addresses the "discharge" of firearms, but I don't believe there is anything in regards to wearing them.
40s-and-wfan
Regular Member
imported post
Your signs are exactly what I have already come across. Drop me a PM when you get some feedback on your inquiries! I'm interested to know...
Your signs are exactly what I have already come across. Drop me a PM when you get some feedback on your inquiries! I'm interested to know...