BREAKING: Sheriff, Legislators Take Refusal to Enforce Federal Law a Step Further

Tom Rummel (right)

Sheriff Tom Rummel (Right), Sanders County

By now, you’ve probably seen the newspaper and television coverage about Sanders County Sheriff Tom Rummel.

Rummel sent out an email with the subject line “letter to citizens” saying “he and his deputies will not enforce any federal regulations enacted by Congress or Executive orders of the President circumventing the rights of the citizens of Sanders County.”

Rummel’s letter, which KXLH published, was a reaction to President Obama’s call for reducing gun violence.

But what you may not know is that Rummell also sent out a second letter.  This letter also urges sheriffs around the U.S. to join him in defying federal laws. Then it goes on to encourage them to consider blocking federal officers from enforcing them either.

This second letter is signed not just by Sheriff Rummel, but by the chairs of both the House and Senate Judiciary Committees of the Montana Legislature too. Sen. Terry Murphy chairs the senate judiciary committee and Rep. Krayton Kerns chairs house judiciary.

In this letter Rummel, Murphy and Kerns added:

Some sheriffs go even further and declare that they will not permit federal officers to enforce any new federal gun control against citizens in their counties. If you wish to go that extra mile, more power to you. [emphasis added]

Ravalli County Sheriff Chris Hoffman has also signed a letter.

Screenshots: One, TwoThree, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, Nine.

UPDATE: Lee Newspapers has the story Friday AM.  You read it first here at the Montana Cowgirl Blog early Thursday evening. Follow @TheMT_Cowgirl on Twitter to get breaking news first.


128 Comments on "BREAKING: Sheriff, Legislators Take Refusal to Enforce Federal Law a Step Further"

  1. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | January 24, 2013 7:13 PM at 7:13 PM |

    Hmm. Wonder if these dipshit sheriffs will ALSO stop doing the unconstitutional SAFTEY checks?! I doubt it. They’re lookin’ to get their names in the paper is all. What a bunch-o LOSERS!

    • Couldn’t agree more, Larry. This is all a cheap publicity stunt that, once again, is going to paint all Montanans as slack-jawed yokels to the rest of the country. Nothing in the administration’s proposal is radical; no one is having their guns taken away.

    • Larry, what about the Kos acolytes, and their supporters and defenders like R. Kailey and Kurtz, that resemble many here?

      The only way we can truly be safe and prevent further gun violence is to ban civilian ownership of all guns. That means everything. No pistols, no revolvers, no semiautomatic or automatic rifles. No bolt action. No breaking actions or falling blocks. Nothing. This is the only thing that we can possibly do to keep our children safe from both mass murder and common street violence.

      • Craig, that was one person’s opinion. There is a DISCUSSION on Kos and other sites going on. This is a complex problem. Any Solution will be many faceted. EVERYONE in this country is entitled to his or her opinion not just gun owners. As long as you and others Parrot Ted Nugent and scream that there can be NO rules what so ever on ANY gun and we can’t even discuss it, more and more people will leave the NRA and the Republican party.

        • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | January 25, 2013 9:13 PM at 9:13 PM |

          No, not complex. Very simple. The Constitution is very specific. And we do NOT need to make ever more criminals out of law abiding citizens. THAT is the big issue. Feinstein is crazy, and even crazy Joe Biden is now backing off. The NRA is going nowhere, and in fact its membership is growing. The left will lose their ass over this, as they always do. And that is a very sad reality for me.

        • Lynn, start with the basics.

          What is a “solution”?

          How does banning certain firearm cosmetics represent a “solution?” For example, a turkey shotgun with a top rail for a scope and a pistol grip to make it more controllable for long periods of holding like a statue waiting for gobblers to come into range?

          Then what rules actually lend themselves to demonstrable solution?

          Treating lawful gun owners as criminals required to register and reveal their personal lives seems vindictive without solving anything. Given that there are self-important activists like Anonymous that hack govt databases, why would we set ourselves up for such nonsense?

          ANY proposed rule should address effectiveness rather than being just something thrown against the wall to see if it sticks. What’s on the table now strikes me as totally ineffective. When that is revealed, then the Feinsteins will be back to overlay even more burdens on lawful citizens until they strangle the 2nd amendment out of existence– the ultimate end game IMHO.

          • Craig, I don’t know what the solution will be, that’s what people are trying to figure out, the balance between responsible gun owners rights and the right of people to be free of the threat of being shot at the grocery store or mall.

            No one gonna take your Turkey rifle, read the Bill.

            How many rounds do you need to get 1 turkey? ie does it fire 30 rounds at a time have detachable clips?
            I don’t think so.

            • Lynn, I wish people were just trying to figure it out. Sadly, they are not given the push to ban pushed by both Feinstein and Obama. Her bill has a ‘one feature’ test that would squarely impact pistol grip turkey shotguns and even thumb hole black powder rifles. Cosmetics over function to claim a symbolic victory over real substance. As to the clips, can’t understand how limiting would have any effect given the millions in possession now, and more importantly, changing one takes only about 2 seconds.

              • Cross-pollination:

                I think gun owners should be required to have insurance policies for each gun they own, with hefty premiums and then tax the devil out of ammo.


              • WHERE does it say their going to TAKE your GUN.!!!!! They just won’t make them anymore and if your any kind of a responsible Gun owner you’ll take care of it and it will last for the rest of your life. However idiot’s like this guy SHOULD lose the right to have a gun

                • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | January 26, 2013 6:31 PM at 6:31 PM |

                  On KOS.

                  • Larry, there is also the historic works that dripped from Feinstein’s own mouth, “If I could have banned them all – ‘Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns’ – I would have!”

                    • S/b words not works.

                    • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | January 26, 2013 7:20 PM at 7:20 PM |

                      They’ve turned us all into Vietnamese! The number of decent, law abiding, good citizens storing, caching, hiding guns is incredible! Every day I hear tell of even more people getting their armories ready. This does NOT bode well for the country.

                      For the life of me I can’t understand just what they hell is WRONG with the elitist, finkenstein, fernbar crowd! Don’t they get it? They really should take Clinton’s advice and DROP all this gun control talk like a hot dog turd! It will the be end of the Dim party for sure. I will personally NEVER vote for any asshole who broaches the subject of gun control. I may end up voting for some real inbreds, but I feel THAT strongly about the issue. And so do many others.

                    • Larry, Obama revealed his intentions when he was an Illinois Senator.

                      See also

                      Opposed bill okaying illegal gun use in home invasions
                      Hale DeMar, a 52-year-old Wilmette resident, was arrested and charged with misdemeanor violations for shooting, in the shoulder and leg, a burglar who broke into his home not once, but twice. Cook County prosecutors dropped all charges against DeMar.

                      In March 2004, the Illinois Senate passed Senate Bill 2165, a law introduced in response to DeMar’s case, with provisions designed to assert a right of citizens to protect themselves against home invasions, such that self-defense requirements would be viewed to take precedence over local ordinances against handgun possession. The measure passed the Illinois Senate by a vote of 38-20. Barack Obama was one of the 20 state senators voting against the measure.

                      Governor Rod Blagojevich vetoed the bill. On Nov. 9, 2004, the Illinois Senate voted 40-18 to override Blagojevich’s veto. Again, Obama acted against the bill.

                      On Nov. 17, the Illinois House voted overwhelmingly, 85-30, to override the governor’s veto and Senate Bill 2165 became law.
                      Source: Obama Nation, by Jerome Corsi, p.241-242 , Aug 1, 2008

                    • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | January 26, 2013 8:42 PM at 8:42 PM |

                      As I previously mentioned, the Dims have taken leave of their senses. Now, the only thing left to determine is why?

      • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | January 25, 2013 9:03 PM at 9:03 PM |

        Craig, they remind me very much of our assteemed former guv, mark ratco, who went on NATIONAL TELEVISION and said that the ONLY way to prevent forest fires was to CUT DOWN all the trees!, to an incredulous TV host, who ’bout laffed his ASS off publicly!, while trying his best to muffle his guffaws!

        Needless to say that this event finally proved that guv ratco was NOT ready for prime time national politics, and thus he to where he was best suited, STRAIGHT to sucking corporate koch, OOOPS!, I mean lobbying and working for the insurance/ENRON industry, and quickly running ENRON into the ground as fast as his little kochsucking abilities would allow!

        Whew! So yes, I see similarities. Did you really not notice that I’m not defending gun grabbers? Why do you keep implying that I do?! For you see, when the left unilaterally disarms, the results are always bad. I mean, take my guns and what will I kill NAZIS with???

        When guns are outlawed, only blackwater will have guns!

        In other words, corporate fascists! Nuthin’ personal, but if you choose to ride with a corporate fascist, you DIE with a corporate fascist! The Iraquis figured this out long ago. And when they ain’t usin’ mercs for christmas ornaments off bridges, they’re quite good at it. As Abbey said, the rifle is the weapon of democracy! I like that.

        • Thank you, Larry, I was just coming here to post that. Since Craig wants to point out hypocrisy so badly, isn’t it funny how the right always ignores ‘judicial activism’ from their own?

          • My pleasure, Rob. We Dems need to learn to control the lexicon. “Gun control” should become “controlling gun violence” and “mental health” should be “behavioral health.”

            • I’m tired of people suggesting that all of the perpetrators are crazies. I heard one mental health expert state that the mentally ill are much more likely to be victims of crime than the perpetrators. Shortly after Sandy Hook, certain hosts of “The View” were waxing ineloquent about the murderous mentally ill. A guest came on who is a forensic psycho doc who has studied and interviewed mass murderers for his entire career was quick to point out that most are not nuts, that they make a “life choice” and make plans for exactly what they are going to do.

              • I agree. Good comment. The “wackadoodle” argument (as I’ve come to call it) is specious in the extreme, and meant only to signify ‘that other’ as a monster to be controlled, as opposed to non-monsters like “us”.

                It’s backwards thinking to enforce a circular argument. The only people who would do this are *insane*. Therefore, only the insane would do this. It’s no different than the claim that legal gun-owners don’t commit criminal acts of violence. Of course not. It’s a tautology. Only criminals perform criminal acts, therefore law-abiding citizens shouldn’t suffer because of criminals. I repeat what I’ve said and written about a thousand times now: Sideshow Bob (James Eagan Holmes) was a legal gun-owner until he used those guns to shoot up a theater in Aurora Colorado. If any of those lamenting that legal gun owning and obviously righteous turkey hunters with a semi-auto shotgun can posit a way to differentiate those good folk from psycho-criminals like Sideshow Bob I’d sure as hell would like to hear their plan.

        • Kurtz, you also need to control what your own ilk argue. Here’s a blast from the past: Funny that.

          Well, his so-called “recess nomination” to be U.N. Ambassador is unconstitutional, at any rate—at least in this writer’s humble opinion. And so is the recess appointment on Tuesday of Peter Flory to be Assistant Secretary of Defense—and most of the other “recess” appointments made by this President, and by President Clinton before him.

          The Bolton appointment, and others like it, was ostensibly made pursuant to the Recess Appointments Clause (Art. II, sec. 2, cl. 3), which provides that the President “shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.” The President purported to make the Bolton appointment during a current “Recess of the Senate” that allegedly began last Friday.

          There are two basic arguments as to why the Clause does not apply here. The first is discussed in great detail in several briefs that my co-counsel and I filed on behalf of Senator Kennedy in cases dealing with last year’s “recess appointment” of U.S. Court of Appeals Judge William Pryor. The most detailed of those briefs can be found here and here. The basic argument is that the term “the Recess” refers solely to recesses between “Sessions” of the Senate, and not to intra-session adjournments, such as the one the Senate began last Friday.

          As to prof. Lederman see:

          Georgetown Law Professor Martin Lederman was a principal author of the Justice Department memo that provided legal justification for the Sep. 30 killing of U.S. citizen Anwar Al-Awlaki in Yemen, according to Obama administration officials quoted in a recent New York Times article. That report has sparked criticism of the Law Center professor and a broader debate over the constitutionality of assassinating Al-Awlaki, a New Mexico-born imam who allegedly supported Al-Qaeda attacks on his own country.

          Prof. Lederman, who declined to comment for this article, served as a Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Justice Department from 2009 to 2010. As an attorney in the Office of the Legal Counsel, Lederman was responsible for providing legal advice to the Executive Branch.

          • Just spit-balling here, but It strikes me that there is a significant difference between a blogger, a law professor and a sitting federal judge when it comes to a discussion of “judicial activism”. One of these things is not like the others.

          • Craig, you deserve some kudos for straggling in here to defend the tenets of your once-proud but now drain-circling party. Email me with the phone number of your favorite place of imbibebihood and i’ll buy you one.

      • I told you before, Craig. You have no f’ing idea what I want, hope for or believe. That doesn’t stop you from a stupid attempt to pigeonhole me, now does it? You are truly a dumbass.

        • Pot to kettle. I wish a had a $1 for every one of your stupid attempts to pidgeonhold me and others. You doth protest far too much for the very tactic you frequently employee. Now, get over yourself.

          • I’ll take your bet. I have never held you account for anything I haven’t clearly pointed out that you’ve written or logically attempted. You, right here, have accused me of “supporting or defending” the interest of a Kos post calling for a gun ban. Put your fucking money on the table and prove it, asshole.

          • Bet???? Here you go again cupcake. It was an observation of how often you employ the tactic and how if I had a $1 for every time you did it, I would be very happy. Get over yourself. Now, going forward when you attempt to define how I or others want, hope for, believe, think, etc., I’m simply go to point to your tantrum here over the very tactics you whine about. Should be fun.

  2. So basically the Chairmen of the Montana Judiciary committees are encouraging people to block federal officers who try to enforce federal law. These guys are giant pieces of trash. I’ll bet they considered it a national tragedy when the National Guard sent troops to the Little Rock, Arkansas elementary school in 1957 to force the school to allow black kids to attend classes.

  3. I wonder where these so-called law enforcement jerks were when the medical marijuana patients, citizens of Montana now mind you,right were being crushed by Federal Laws and Law enforcement. What a bunch of fakes running around trying to be Barney Fife!

  4. Looks like the battle cry for secession will drown out the calls for booze and adultery over at the Capitol…

  5. What a timely article you’ve posted Lynn! Sen. Tom Facey (D-Missoula) is presenting his bill tomorrow to force legislators who go on ALEC-funded junkets to disclose this. The bill is SB 163 and it will be heard in Senate State Administration at 3:00pm tomorrow January 25.

    As I wrote in a recent post, the list of the Montana junkateers who are still in office includes:

    Elsie Arntzen R-Billings
    David Howard R-Park City
    Lee Randall R-Broadus
    Llew Jones R-Conrad
    Cary Smith R-Billings
    Wendy Warburton R-Havre
    Scott Sales R-Gallatin County
    Jesse O’Hara R-Great Falls
    Tom McGillvray R-Billings
    Roger Koopman (now on the PSC)
    Verdell Jackson R-Kalispell
    Jeff Essmann R-Billings
    Debby Barrett R-Dillon
    Rick Ripley R-Wolf Creek
    Bob Lake R-Hamilton
    Krayton Kerns R-Laurel

  6. For shame – the state is being run by junior high boys. Opposing their dysfunctional worldview might require extraordinary courage from ordinary people.

  7. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | January 24, 2013 9:31 PM at 9:31 PM |

    UH oh! I hope that Gov. Bullock’em’up inHERITED Brian’s branding irons! He’s gonna need them! Like a giant circus train only more colorful, the crazy train has arrived once again in Montana! Complete with and abundance of elephants and horse’s asses!

  8. Steve Bullock needs to issue, and issue pronto, a statement pointing out what these letters are: evidence of a conspiracy to not enforce the laws of the land.

  9. Our constitutional republic protects individual rights even when demonized by a majority. The Constitution is not subject to change by opinion poll. Congress and the president have no right to call for a violation of constitutional rights. Obviously many Americans are not equipped with the facts thanks to public schools.

    The giant pieces of trash are those that violate their sworn oath to support and defend the Constitution. At least a few sheriffs understand what that oath means and have made their position known.

    • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | January 25, 2013 5:44 AM at 5:44 AM |

      AGREED! I think those “few pieces” are the ones conducting the unconstitutional TRAFFIC stops! Don’t you, Ian? Do you have your knickers in a knot about those too? Just wondering. For you see, they are blatantly unconstitutional, yet these pieces of trash keep DOING them!

      Geez, this new format is kinda weird.

  10. Let’s see, Sheriff’s interpreting and enforcing only the laws of their choosing? What could possibly go wrong? And with these wise elected county officials, why do we need a Legislature to enact laws? Or courts to uphold them? We have sheriffs after all.

  11. The gun-rights crowd makes quite a big noise that mental health issues are at the root of gun violence. Mr. Howard certainly provides a very compelling case . . .

    • Excuse me, but a major Montana newspaper emphasizes not Sheriff Rummel’s deranged thinking, but Sheriff Howard’s (Powell County). The difference? Rummel opposes compliance with federal law [he finds objectionable] while Howard is more focused on potential gun restrictions. Please, Cowgirl, give us the skinny on what gives?

  12. Looks like Scott Howard (who I personally like) has jumped on the bandwagon too.

    At least their making their selective enforcement positions public, so at least it’s transparent.

  13. For all that are outraged, shocked, angered, and horrified over the sheriffs, just where were your voices when Obama’s Justice Department announced that it would not enforce DOMA?

    When the Justice Department et al. refused/turned a blind eye to immigration laws and frustrated states like Arizona attempting to enforce such laws?

    When the Obama administration told defense contractors to not issue WARN notices, tied to sequestration cuts, before the election?

    When federal officials in charge of enforcing federal law cherry pick the laws they wants enforced, just maybe state and local officials are following the example set by cheerless leader.

    • Yet sheriffs are more than happy to abridge cannabis rights as they receive Bureau of Prisons revenue: more red state failure from the Moores and Skinners.

    • Craig, you are so focused on finding hypocrisy that you continually make stuff up. The Administration did not direct the Justice Department to “not enforce” DOMA, because there is nothing for them to enforce. The Directive was this: the administration will not use DOJ resources to defend the Constitutionality of the DOMA. There is a not so very subtle difference between your description and fact. This is not the first time, by a long shot, that an administration has given such a directive, and it certainly won’t be the last. Administration agencies (like the IRS) still follow the law.

      Further, Arizona passed a law encumbering the federal government (INS) to state statute. That is unConstitutional, the Administration said as much and refused to cooperate in that farce. It was up to Arizona to prove the Constitutionality of their law. So far, they have failed, but maybe not so much as long as they can sucker people like you into believing that states have the right to force the hand of the Federal government.

      You’re trying to compare apples and hammers, thinking people aren’t informed enough to tell the difference. You should be a talking head on FAUX news. But when you attempt such a silly thing in order to call people hypocrites at a website favored by those you accuse? You can pretty much bet that we’re better informed than you give us credit for. So, Craig, you can offer that we’re a bunch of hypocrites. I counter offer that you’re looking pretty stupid for claiming so.

    • Norma Duffy @Ilikewoods | January 28, 2013 10:24 AM at 10:24 AM |

      Holder has a pres executive order not to enforce DOMA Craig, stop worrying about the Justice Department on that score and ask rather why a lot of Bankers aren’t in Jail when they crashed the economy instead! Thats what real Liberals are mad about! DOMA is dead, and will be even further dead when the supreme court finishes with it!

      • Norma, I know that you are likely to take this comment the wrong way. I sincerely hope that you won’t.

        Still, I respectfully request that you quit deciding for others what “real” liberals are mad about.

  14. Nullification. It’s a long time Confederate reaction that Lincoln could have solved by handing the crackers over to the former slaves after the Civil War. If only…

    Now the Confederates are everywhere and outside of the old south, they’re concentrating in the “American Redoubt”:

    BTW: Love the new look, Cowgirl.

  15. I thought the Constitution said something in it about being the ‘supreme law of the land.’ If these folks hate the United States of America so much that they want to ignore the Constitution, I suggest they move elsewhere so we true Patriotic Americans can continue our lives lived by the law.

  16. I’m a citizen of Sanders County and I’m ashamed of Rummel’s ignorance and lack of knowledge of American government. He went in the Sanders County Ledger saying any new gun lawsbare unconstitutional, but he doesn’t get to make that decision. As a county sheriff he is a law enforcer, a member of the executive branch of our government. Only a judge can interpret laws because they are members of the judiciary branch. That is simple 10th grade high school education knowledge. You can’t just pick and choose which laws to enforce, you either engorce all of them or none at all which is anarchy.

  17. Astounding. I guess we can shut off EVERY dollar of federal aid these counties get, right? These officers – I shudder to even contemplate that – are bound to serve both the MT and US Constitutions? Would these sheriffs also interfere with universal background checks, which I must say, is the VERY least we can do, and I say that as an NRA member and veteran?

  18. Since no new federal gun law has been approved by Congress and signed by the president, these five sheriffs are a bit ahead of themselves.
    They can sit fat and happy in their warm offices and express their disrespect for the law that might be enacted.
    It’s their deputies who have to go out and face paranoid nuts who also disrespect the law and who open fire at traffic stops or blast away when an officer is serving papers because, in their delusions, Obama’s at the door to take their guns away.

    • Twin Spin.

      Sometimes ya just gotta pick a side.

      Quote: In a January 18 article, People’s World, an official publication of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA), declared that “the ability to live free from the fear or threat of gun violence is a fundamental democratic right — one that far supercedes any so-called personal gun rights allegedly contained in the Second Amendment.”

  19. Flathead County Sheriff Chuck Curry breaks with Rummel, et al, on whether the feds are coming to confiscate privately owned firearms:

    • See, the man reads instead listening to Fox, Limbaugh and making a fool of himself

      • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | January 26, 2013 6:26 PM at 6:26 PM |

        “While certainly I would never support removing guns from law-abiding citizens, no one, to my knowledge, has suggested that even could possibly occur”


        Does the name diane finkstein and daily kos ring a bell, dude?

        How ‘BOUT them there “traffic stop saftey checks, deputy dog????k

        I call bullshit on ANY deputy dog who goes along with ANY unconstitutional shit! For if they violate it once, they’ll do it again!

        Apparently SOME in law enforcement know what would actually happen when they come for guns. MANY would view this as a delcaration of war on the citizens of this country, and THAT would mean that the bad guys would be very easy to identify. Needless to say that I would not want to be wearin’ a uniform under those circumstances.

        It amazes me that there are STILL lefties out there that don’t get it. Clinton was absolutely right. Lay off all this feinstienian gun control shit. There is no good to come of it. Hell, you ain’t seen crazy until you start making it a law to register guns. I know these folks. They are my people. They will NOT go gentle into the nazi goodnight! And I don’t blame them one bit. A jury of there peers will understand completely.

    • Norma Duffy @Ilikewoods | January 27, 2013 12:17 PM at 12:17 PM |

      This will be real interesting when these sheriffs have to talk to the grieving members of families who lost Family members to Gun violence in there counties. Should these particular Sheriffs be allow to even head investigations of gun deaths with this attitude??? I think Not!

  20. Norma Duffy @Ilikewoods | January 27, 2013 12:08 PM at 12:08 PM |

    Guns Dont sell Guns Folks, People sell Guns! Get rid of the Gunshow Loophole!

    • Why pound a myth and expect that no one will notice?

      Ah, yes, the eeeee-vil gun-show loophole. Time for a reality check . . .

      1. There is no such animal as a gun show loophole
      2. Fewer than one percent of criminals obtain their guns at gun shows
      3. If there were such an animal, New York state closed it eleven years ago

      Every law that applies outside gun shows applies inside the doors. Federal Firearms Licensees (a.k.a., gun dealers or FFLs) at a gun show must fill out their ATF Form 4473s and do their FBI background (NICS) checks just as if they were at their shops (or their homes for that matter).

      The purported loophole that Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand seeks to close: private firearms sales between private individuals. Not dealer to customer, or customer to dealer. Private citizen to private citizen. A transaction which does not require a Form 4473 or a NICS background check.

      Another part of the loophole myth: a large percentage of people with tables at gun shows—somewhere between 25 and 50 percent—are unlicensed dealers and traders. They’re unlicensed because they aren’t selling guns. They sell ammo, accessories or books or memorabilia.

      Expanding on Point 2, according to the ATF, 93% of criminals obtain their guns – wait for it – illegally! Yes that’s right, criminals don’t obey the law. Who’d-a thunk it?

      • Norma Duffy @Ilikewoods | January 27, 2013 12:33 PM at 12:33 PM |

        Pesky answers, that are totally wrong.

        A twitter friend of mine bought a gun in Colorado’s guns show just a week ago with out a Background check. Within 15 minutes he bought a shiney new gun upon entering the show, just to see if what you spent the last 10 minutes writing about was true. Sorry, your full of shit!

        • Form 4473 and a NICs check is an insult. We do not need permission to exercise our rights. Only subjects, employees, slaves and children need to ask their superiors for permission.

          And do tell who verified the background and integrity of those running the background checks on we the subjects? These sworn oath breaking overseers that can’t balance the budget, cheat on their income taxes, profit from influence & inside trades, party with hookers on your dime and run guns illegally into Mexico to help murder countless people including our own boarder patrol. If anything, they prove that background checks are a joke.

          Try a little more freedom, yeah it’s scary, but you will be living your own life as your creator intended.

  21. Ah, “twitter friend.” Are you related to Manti Te’o?

    Facts don’t exist in such stories. Here’s more from a person of credentials and a real name.

    The term “gun-show loophole” was created by those opposed to private commerce in firearms to describe the sale of firearms between private individuals at gun shows in states where such sales are legal.

    A few states do require all gun sales at gun shows to go through licensed dealers, but most states do not. Private sales of guns (outside of gun shows) are legal in every state, just as it is perfectly legal to sell one’s car or house to another person without going through a dealer or agent. Gun shows are subject to all gun laws without exception. There is no loophole that allows any gun laws to be circumvented at gun shows…

    Many media stories give the impression that gun shows are where criminals prefer to get guns. Turns out, gun shows come in last.

    According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, almost 80 percent of guns used by criminals are obtained by street/illegal sources or friends or family. Only 8.3 percent are from retail stores, and a measly 0.7 percent from gun shows.

    Certainly, 0.7 percent is much ado about not much. There is a reason why criminals tend to stay away from gun shows: the police. Most gun shows have uniformed police officers at the entrances and exits checking people as they come in and leave, and undercover law enforcement officers (federal, state and local) are often there, too. Crooks don’t like those odds, so they stay away from gun shows.

    The so-called gun-show loophole makes it sound as if gun shows are where criminals go to bypass laws that apply outside of gun shows. That is false – twice. First of all, criminals tend to avoid gun shows, and, second, gun shows are not exempt from any gun laws at all. There really is no loophole.

    • Norma Duffy @Ilikewoods | January 28, 2013 10:35 AM at 10:35 AM |

      JEsus Craig you are Grossly wrong! I can not believe why you feel it is so important to lie about this. it is a loophole and it will be shut down. How much is the NRA paying you to tell these horrendous lies????
      The ATF says that gunshows are the second leading source of crime guns. Although 17 states have taken action to partially or completely close this loophole, 33 states have not! It is time for ALL states to close it.

      • No lies, just the facts. You are pulling a Kailey here with your outburst. Now, if you really believe this is vital, then get Bullock to introduce a special bill in this session that will require universal background checks on all ammunition and firearm transfers in Montana.

        You do understand that the phrase, “gunshow loophole” is mere code for private transactions whether a part of a show or not to create the emotional knee-jerk to constrict all private transfers and put everyone into the database?

        • Name corrected.

        • I’ve never been to a gun show. Can someone tell me what sorts of weapons are sold at them. Could someone buy an M16 there?

          • Turner, perhaps you mean a full automatic firearm as opposed to semi-autos like the AR15 type firearms. The purchase, sale, and possession of full autos is heavily regulated and taxed. One cannot just walk out with one. See

            • You didn’t answer Turner’s question, Craig: have you ever seen fully automatic weapons at gun shows?

              History tells us that prohibition doesn’t work: urge your congressional delegations to allow states to go into the ozone and raise excise taxes from Sen. Feinstein’s list.

          • For the most part, Turner, gun shows carry a wide range of legal firearms, accoutrements like stocks, sights, lights and clips, a droolingly enticing array of blades, sometimes military memorabilia, outfitters looking to drum up business, ammunition vendors, and the bottom feeders whose stock is based on $10 ‘military style’ knives with a compass in the hilt that rarely works, knock-off military style patches and cheap butterfly knives. There are sometimes makers of high-end custom stocks for many standard types of rifles and usually a gun-smith or couple hawking threaded silencers and compensators. There are almost always the antique firearms dealers offering product I would love to be able to afford. And sporting goods, always with the sporting goods.

            I’m most familiar with gun-shows in Bozeman, and compared to the two I’ve been to in Missoula, they seem more up-scale. Go where the money is, I guess. In direct answer to your question, only once have I encountered an open dealer of automatic firearms. Their focus was on gun-range owners, or potential gun range owners. They even had a WWII issue 50 cal. It’s not a surprise that the only product I saw them sell was a manual on how to get a Class 3 license, though lots of folk wanted pictures of themselves holding an UZI in Rambo pose. That table was all above board, as far as the observer would see, and very popular.

            However, I have several times encountered those who would and did sell informative articles on how to turn a semi-automatic into a full automatic. A couple of times, there are those who intimated that they could or would sell a device, just a thing, that (if *illegally used*) could turn a semi-automatic into an automatic. Of course, no one would ever buy such a thing. We all know that only criminals have illegal firearms.

            No. No one can buy an M-16 at a gunshow without a class 3 and full regulation. At least not legally.

        • Oh please do define what “a Kailey” is supposed to be, other than someone who points and laughs at your non-sequiturs, poor conclusions and silly Straw Man expectations.

Comments are closed.