New Ad Up in Montana on Background Checks

by Cowgirl

This morning the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC) has launched a new TV ad pressuring Max Baucus to support background checks for gun sales, something over 79% of Montanans support according to the post recent Montana-specific poll.

Starting tomorrow, the ad will run for a week in Montana, on broadcast and cable in the Helena, Missoula and Billings media markets. It will also run on cable in Washington, DC on MSNBC and CNN.

The PCCC’s initial expenditure is over $50,000 — and will increase with online fundraising from the group’s national membership–about one million members.  

You can see the ad here:

 The ad features Claire Kelly, a gun owner and grandmother  from Stevensville, who is one of the of 23,000 gun owners supporting sensible gun reform at

Lawmakers in the Senate have said background checks would come up for another vote this year, U.S. News’s Rebecca Metzler reports.  After the Progressive Change Campaign Committee’s full-page newspaper ads ran in 20 papers across Montana this past week, the NRA announced a newspaper ad last Thursday specifically attacking the citizen’s group and defending Baucus. As Greg Sargent at the Washington Post writes, this ad “suggests the NRA may still believe Baucus is gettable as a vote for Manchin-Toomey.”

Here’s the transcript of the ad:                                    

I’m a grandmother, a hunter and a gun owner.

I’ve been the victim of a home invasion.

I hid my girls in a closet, called for help, aimed my handgun at the door and waited.

Guns can protect us but we’re less safe with guns in the wrong hands.

79% of Montana voters support background checks.       

So why did Senator Max Baucus vote against us?

Senator Baucus, now that you’re retiring, please put Montana first.


115 Comments on "New Ad Up in Montana on Background Checks"

  1. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers. | May 1, 2013 7:00 AM at 7:00 AM |

    Background checks—————>Gun registration—————>

    CONFISCATION! bingo! end of story! end of second A.!

    Problem is twofold. Making CRIMINALS out of law abiding citizens. And background checks prevent NOTHING! This massive, unprecedented “gun control” push is actually coming from whom? I’d like to know, for I have YET to meet any real Montanans who go for this shit! And BTW, just WHERE the hell is all the ammo? Does capitalism work or not? The DEMAND for ammo is there, so, where is the supply? Inquiring, patriotic minds want to know!

    • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers. | May 1, 2013 7:02 AM at 7:02 AM |

      And really, using GRANDMA??? ExCUSE me while I vomit!

      • Whats the problem Larry??? She looks perfectly capable to still go hunting, in fact I’m still perfectly capable of hunting. Are you saying she nor I can hunt anymore because we’re over fifty.

        These remarks you making are Kinda anti feminist remarks, and more likely to spread with old white republican males, to take away the guaranteed rights of a woman’s, vote, body and mind… not to mention that of our daughters.

        The background checks in any state that has gun Safety Laws, have yet to take away a gun from anyone who is an upstanding citizen, why do you keep telling this lie Brother.

  2. Larry – Background checks only prevent criminals from getting guns. Not law abiding citizens. Only people who are already prohibited from buying guns – including felons, domestic abusers and the seriously mentally ill – need worry about background checks.

    • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers. | May 1, 2013 7:15 AM at 7:15 AM |

      Wrong, Ben. They prevent NOTHING! Look, I’ve seen the proposals that other states have come up with. You accidentally sell a gun to someone who can’t own one. TWENTY-FIVE YEARS IN JAIL! FOR WHAT?

      And person to person checks? The GOVERMENT doesn’t NEED to know what law abiding citizens are doing with guns. PERIOD!

      I have talked to these “grandma” types. They WON’T be happy unTIL guns are cigarettes! And the whereabouts of EVERY gun in the country are known! Like CARS, every gun is registered! Well, you know what I got to say about that.


      • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers. | May 1, 2013 7:18 AM at 7:18 AM |

        p.s. Tester is done, fini, outta there! He BARELY won last time simply because if the libertarian dude. He’s toast next time. Now, THINK about that, granma. Was is freakin’ WORTH it, you senile old fart??? Not to me! There’s BIGGER fish to fry! Like corporate fascism! And really, what you gonna shoot Nazis with? Your finger?????

  3. Gabby Johnson | May 1, 2013 7:26 AM at 7:26 AM |

    There’s rights, and then there’s responsibilities.
    It’s my responsibility as a gun owner to not transfer ownership of a weapon to a felon or a mentally unstable buyer. Universal mandatory background checks — including private sales — are a service to responsible gun owners. It should — and I believe will become — the law of the land.
    And if you’re worried about some master list of all American gun owners, it’s already sitting in an NSA computer, thanks to the Patriot Act.

    • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers. | May 1, 2013 7:36 AM at 7:36 AM |

      Bullshit. It is not! How could the NSA POSSIBLY have a list of “all” guns? They couldn’t. Have you never heard of untraceable guns? There’s ONLY about millions of them!

      But HEY,Gabs, I’m with ya! That’s a really swell idea! Let’s create a NOTHER entire class of criminals in this country. THE LAW ABIDING GUN OWNER!

      Look, we only have already 2.2 MILLION, or roughly two percent of our population behind bars now! And the prison industry in this country is lagging. It needs a boost. Drugs wasn’t enough. NOW, every corrupt cop can stash a GUN on a perp instead of drugs! Easy twenty-five year sentence! Gabs, DO IT FOR WACKENHUT! Jobs, baby! JOBS!

      Yes, we’ve REACHED that point in our country’s evolution where we NEED to lock up folks with guns, for they present a real danger! It’s kinda like Manifest Destiny. Manifest Insanity!

      “What ya in for, dude”?
      Forgot to register my gun!

      And seriously, a REAL gun guy probably can’t TELL you off hand how many guns he has! So, if he forgets the one under the seat of one of his cars, TWENTY-FIVE YEARS!

      I feel so much safer now.

      SUCK ON THIS GUN, GRANNY!….and then head your sorry ass back to Kalifornyeeha!

      • Seriously Larry I encourage you to note these facts about the additional rights this bill gives gun owners:

        It would allow us to buy handguns from out-of-state sellers, which is not allowed currently.

        It would explicitly prohibit the creation of a national gun registry, and make it a felony, punishable by up to 15 years in prison, to misuse records from the national database used for background checks.

        It would affirm that unloaded guns with a lock mechanism in place can be transported across state lines.

        And, it would immunize private gun sellers from lawsuits if a gun they have sold is used unlawfully, unless the seller knows or should have known that the buyer provided false information or was otherwise ineligible to buy a gun. Extending background checks to unlicensed sellers shouldn’t be cause for alarm. Background checks are already required for purchases from federally licensed dealers, whether at stores or gun shows, over the Internet or by mail. Finally, gun buyers would be exempt from background checks if they had a carry permit issued within the last five years.

        • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers. | May 1, 2013 9:14 AM at 9:14 AM |

          All bullshit that does NOTHING except to inure folks to more gubmint bullshit! Buh BYE, big jon! The great thing is that NOW we have a NOTHER wedge issue to get rid of pussy Dems!

  4. I sense a disconnect in the arguments that background checks will somehow make “law abiding gun owners” into criminals. If the “law abiding gun owners” comply with the LAW, then wouldn’t they continue to be “law abiding”?

    • Larry isn’t interested in either the truth or the actual wording of the law in question. He is tilting at this particular windmill with nothing but his own opinion. I pretty much ignore Larry on this subject. Luckily, there are enough people that have actually read the legislation in question and Larry’s prediction that Tester will fail his next election carries no more weight than Lizard predicting that Tester would lose his last one. Larry has gone off the deep end on this one.

  5. Drunks for Denny | May 1, 2013 9:05 AM at 9:05 AM |

    Larry is right. Background checks are nothing but a feel good liberal measure that won’t do anything to reduce crime rates. If someone wants to get a gun to commit a crime, background checks aren’t going to do squat. There are huge volumes of gun sales that will never go through background checks, because the transactions are between individuals and not through commercial enterprises.

  6. Drunks for Denny | May 1, 2013 9:08 AM at 9:08 AM |

    I own 13 guns at the present time. Of those 13, I only purchased two from sporting goods stores. The other eleven were acquired through various cash transactions and trades with friends, family, and acquaintances. If I were a criminal, pray tell, how would background checks stop me from getting those guns?

    • So why would you oppose them then?

      • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers. | May 1, 2013 9:17 AM at 9:17 AM |

        Simple. In THIS country, you innocent until proven guilty, NOT the other way around! He does NOT have to prove SHIT to you or anyone else! Get it?

      • What drunks is saying is that because background checks won’t solve all the worlds gun problems, they should be opposed.

        • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers. | May 1, 2013 9:23 AM at 9:23 AM |

          No, what he’s saying is that he is NOT guilty of anything! He has done nothing wrong! He does NOT need prove SHIT to YOU or to Granma or to the Gubmint or the arisKOCKracy! I’ll bet that you just LUV them “safety checks” where the cops stop you to make sure that you are a safe, compliant, orderly little gubmint SUCKass, Ooops! I mean citizen! But sorry, dude, that is NOT my country!

          Abbey on gun control. Pretty much says is all! A people that willingly disarm do NOT deserve to be free!

        • Drunks for Denny | May 1, 2013 10:58 AM at 10:58 AM |

          No, what I am saying, is since background checks (a) won’t do anything; and (b) expands a federal bureacracy that costs the taxpayers more money, why enact a law that won’t do anything?

          I oppose TSA for similar reasons, but that doesn’t make me a supporter of terrorism.

          • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers. | May 1, 2013 11:02 AM at 11:02 AM |

            JOBS, drunk dude! Every pervy perv that LUVS to feel ya up and look at you NEKKID in the scanner needs a job too! And shoot, EveryBODY needs a good cavity search now and then! Could be a little GUN up there! And that thing could accidentally go off! Gotta keep you safe, drunk dude!!

          • You are Larry keep maintaining that Universal Background checks won’t do anything to reduce gun crime but neither one of you has given any kind of data to support it. Since even with the current laws, tens of thousands of transactions are denied to those not legally capable of purchasing a gun, logic would suggest that increasing the scope of background checks would result in MORE illegal transactions being denied. No, this will not “solve” the problem with illegal gun transactions, but it will be a tool to make it harder for those who can’t legally purchase firearms to do so. That is a plus in my book. The other topics covered by this legislation which Ben Tully listed (some were slightly incorrect, but I won’t quibble at this point) are also pluses. I just don’t see Larry’s point because it is make believe in his own mind.

  7. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers. | May 1, 2013 9:26 AM at 9:26 AM |

    Edward Abbey

    If guns are outlawed
    Only outlaws will have guns
    (True? False? Maybe?)

    Meaning weapons. The right to own, keep, and bear arms. A sword and a lance, or a bow and a quiverful of arrows. A crossbow and darts. Or in our time, a rifle and a handgun and a cache of ammunition. Firearms.

    In medieval England a peasant caught with a sword in his possession would be strung up on a gibbet and left there for the crows. Swords were for gentlemen only. (Gentlemen!) Only members of the ruling class were entitled to own and bear weapons. For obvious reasons. Even bows and arrows were outlawed–see Robin Hood. When the peasants attempted to rebel, as they did in England and Germany and other European countries from time to time, they had to fight with sickles, bog hoes, clubs–no match for the sword-wielding armored cavalry of the nobility.

    In Nazi Germany the possession of firearms by a private citizen of the Third Reich was considered a crime against the state; the statutory penalty was death–by hanging. Or beheading. In the Soviet Union, as in Czarist Russia, the manufacture, distribution, and ownership of firearms have always been monopolies of the state, strictly controlled and supervised. Any unauthorized citizen found with guns in his home by the OGPU or the KGB is automatically suspected of subversive intentions and subject to severe penalties. Except for the landowning aristocracy, who alone among the population were allowed the privilege of owning firearms, for only they were privileged to hunt, the ownership of weapons never did become a widespread tradition in Russia. And Russia has always been an autocracy–or at best, as today, an oligarchy.

    In Uganda, Brazil, Iran, Paraguay, South Africa–wherever a few rule many–the possession of weapons is restricted to the ruling class and to their supporting apparatus: the military, the police, the secret police. In Chile and Argentina at this very hour men and women are being tortured by the most up-to-date CIA methods in the effort to force them to reveal the location of their hidden weapons. Their guns, their rifles. Their arms. And we can be certain that the Communist masters of modern China will never pass out firearms to their 800 million subjects. Only in Cuba, among dictatorships, where Fidel’s revolution apparently still enjoys popular support, does there seem to exist a true citizen’s militia.

    There must be a moral in all this. When I try to think of a nation that has maintained its independence over centuries, and where the citizens still retain their rights as free and independent people; not many come to mind. I think of Switzerland. Of Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland. The British Commonwealth. France, Italy. And of our United States.

    When Tell shot the apple from his son’s head, he reserved in hand a second arrow, it may be remembered, for the Austrian tyrant Gessler. And got him too, shortly afterward. Switzerland has been a free country since 1390. In Switzerland basic. national decisions are made by initiative and referendum–direct democracy–and in some cantons by open-air meetings in which all voters participate. Every Swiss male serves a year in the Swiss Army and at the end of the year takes his government rifle home with him–where he keeps it for the rest of his life. One of my father’s grandfathers came from Canton Bern.

    There must be a meaning in this. I don’t think I’m a gun fanatic. I own a couple of small-caliber weapons, but seldom take them off the wall. I gave up deer hunting fifteen years ago, when the hunters began to outnumber the deer. I am a member of the National Rifle Association, but certainly no John Bircher. I’m a liberal–and proud of it. Nevertheless, I am opposed, absolutely, to every move the state makes to restrict my right to buy, own, possess, and carry a firearm. Whether shotgun, rifle, or handgun.

    Of course, we can agree to a few commonsense limitations. Guns should not be sold to children, to the certifiably insane, or to convicted criminals. Other than that, we must regard with extreme suspicion any effort by the government–Iocal, state, or national–to control our right to arms. The registration of firearms is the first step toward confiscation. The confiscation of weapons would be a major and probably fatal step into authoritarian rule–the domination of most of us by a new order of “gentlemen.” By anew and harder oligarchy,

    The tank, the B-52, the fighter-bomber, the state-controlled police and military are the weapons of dictatorship. The rifle is the weapon of democracy. Not for nothing was the revolver called an “equalizer.” Egalite implies liberte. And always will. Let us hope our weapons are never needed–but do not forget what the common people of this nation knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny.

    If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military. The hired servants of our rules. Only the government–and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws.

    Tester is a good citizen. He volunTARILY committed politicide for the good of the aristKOCKracy! Not the BRIGHTEST nor courageous thing to do, but I’m sure that the Big Kockhs LUV them some jon jon!

    Sheesh. And THIS dude’s from Montana?? Must’s been sniffin’ too many of the farm chemicals up there in Big Sandy!

    • Larry, The writing’s on the wall, and the gun nuts (which I guess includes yourself) wrote it: We will have a more repressive government. The only question is who’s gonna be in charge of it. If you (all) can’t let go of the Wild West fantasy that bigger, faster guns are going to make you (feel and only feel) safer, then you(all) are in the driver’s seat of the concentration-camp-bound train hauling us all over your far-right edge of the world (just south of Darby). This isn’t about your hurt feelings. This is about kids being shot down by easily-aquired massive firepower. Why should some hopelessly-confused Montanan’s false pride trump those kids in Newtown? As a parent, I want to see an effort and yes, the background checks are milquetoast, and the rabid reaction against it from the gun strokers is gonna make the inevitable gun control measures that do get passed a stick to beat us over the head with rather than the beginning of sane public policy. The “shooters” just wanna be in charge of that stick, and that’s what’s written on the wall, in blood, by the gun nuts. All over the world, as a matter of fact, and I do mean nuts.
      By the way, IRT “real Montanans”: just cuz kittens are born in an oven doesn’t make them kittens. But if that oven is located in Montana that makes those kittens native Montanans. I’m the dad of four real Native Montana kittens, and I’ve also been here over thirty years, so that makes me real enuff for any sane person to hear this : I don’t wanna see just background checks. I wanna see an end to the legal sale of assault weapons and mega-round clips. My reasoning? If you’re a bad enuff shot you gotta have twenty rounds for every REAL Montanan’s one, you’re just a foot soldier in the wing nut Culture-of-Death wars, and NOT a real Montanan at all.

      • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers. | May 1, 2013 10:09 AM at 10:09 AM |

        Pure liberal BULLSHIT!

        I don’t care HOW long you’ve been here! I AIN’T about anyone’s feelings! It’s about history and the fact that libs are some of the BIGGEST dumbasses around!

        The guys that killed Jacobo Arbenz, Allende, and every OTHER democratically elected leader around the world, are the EXACT SAME F*CKIN’ DUDES that killed Kennedy in OUR coup! Don’t you get it?! Are you REALLY that freakin’ dense! We had a COUP, dude! A third world style COUP! And we are fast becoming a third world nation! We’re nearly a third world country now! When will you wake up???? THAT is the only question that need to be asked!

        The forces of evil are STILL calling the shots in this country, and they would love NOTHING better than to disarm the country! Wake the f*ck UP, dude! Some of them folks you malign so vigorously down in the Bitterroot are right! The government can NOT be trusted, because the corporate fascists ARE the government in all intents and purposes now!

        Guns are a non-issue! And now, the corpos are gonna wield it like every other non-issue, to gain even MORE control!!

        So, while you granma types are gonna slobber about guns, the corporate fascists sit back and watch the show! If you REALLY want to stop the violence, go to the source! The corporate fascists and the COUP that stole your country, dude! Anything less is pissin’ up a rope!

      • Bill, my brother and I have had one argument you bring up at least a dozen times. We are both shooters, he more for sport and myself more for hunting and useless fun. Kenneth has made terrific arguments for the efficiency of highcap mags and other “assault” accoutrements for sport shooting. I can’t and don’t disagree with him, save this much: the same things that make rifles efficient for sport make them efficient in a theater or classroom full of unwitting targets. I’m a BIG believer in one shot, one hit, lots of power. That’s the hunting ethic. What my brother and I share is the idea and certainty that legal and responsible gun owners should not be prohibited from their weapon (toy) of choice just because of someone else’s view of the point behind efficiency. That is precisely why we both strongly favor enhanced background checks, and not prohibition.

        • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers. | May 1, 2013 7:06 PM at 7:06 PM |

          ME TOO! That’s why I fucking LUV my Sprinfield .45-70 Trapdoor! What a firearm! THIS is the caliber that fucking ELIMINATED the buffalo from the plains! A fucking MONSTER of a gun! This is ALSO the gun that got Custer fucking KILLED a Little Big Horn!

          And Rob, you wanna know sumthin’? This is my personal weapon of choice for KILLIN’ Nazis!

          Now, why would I say this? Well, simple answer. Because as MUCH as the libtards whine, THIS gun is perfecting fucking LEGAL! Anyone can own it!

          Thas right! Made in 1889, it’s an antique, and therefore not SUBJECT to granny’s lips! Suck on THIS, granny! This is my rifle, this is my gun. This is for shootin’, this is for fun! You up for some FUN, granny????


          Suck on THAT gun, granny! I OWN one of the most efficient killing machines EVER invented, and your sorry, old, dufus, Alzheimeric ass can’t TOUCH this! It’s an antique, granny, and hence, consider by your fucking gubmint, a curio! Hey, granny, the problem IS as I see it that a fucking .45-70 CURIO will kill your dumbass as easily as a Kar 15! Problem is, as I see it, libs are some really, really, REALLY stoopid fuckers when it comes to guns!

          JUMPIN’ JESUS libs are some dumb sumbithces! Leave the gawddamned GUN shit alone and try actually WINNING a fucking election for a change!

    • Gun Laws work Larry, and they take no one’s right to own a gun law away.

      The second Amendment isn’t touched and no one has knocked on my door in black suits, sunglasses, or black helicopters to take my guns away. Not in California, not in new York and certainly not here.

      Sorry your arguments are lost on me! Gun safety laws do keep people safer!

  8. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers. | May 1, 2013 10:36 AM at 10:36 AM |

    THIS Is your reality, billy boy! Either man up to it or stay the hell in your little FERN bar world!

    Now, take your little .22 and turn it in to the aristKOCKracy if you want to. But I won’t!

  9. Larry is right —
    The whole point of the changes to the check system were, and are, about getting non-commercial transactions back on paper 4473s. Crispy fresh. The gun haters want new paper records for the day when there’s another bloodbath and a few more Bloomberg millions for ads like this to pump up the emotionalistic environment that bad laws need for passage.
    What should happen in a rational world is record improvements and better enforcement of the exisiting system — so that failed checks are followed with actual prosecutions.
    Nuts and felons (determined formally and legally to be so) trying to get guns should be punished, not simply denied.
    Geeze — me and Larry agreeing. What is wrong with this picture? In this case, nothing.

    • You are making the same mistake Larry is making – you are commenting on a law you haven’t read. Your entire argument is completely and totally fantasy. The proposed legislation makes it ILLEGAL for the government to keep registration records. Please do some research before you blather here.

    • I would also add that the law to “punish” people who fraudulently attempt to purchase firearms already exists. Some states are better than others at actually pursuing procecution. Montana ranks 42 in the nation on that score.

    • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers. | May 1, 2013 6:42 PM at 6:42 PM |

      Dave, you and I probably share a lot MORE views. It’s just that you dudes have YET to figure out just WHO the real enemy is! My hope is that you folks do some day. THEN, when we’re all on the same page, WATCH OUT!

  10. I fail to see how background checks will take my guns away. As stated, background checks and Manchin-Toomey don’t impede my right to own guns regardless of the paranoia. And as Drunks and Ben have noted, private sales between individuals are exempt under the bill (at least for now but keep dragging it out and who knows).

    To get guns away from the criminal/insane element, which background checks alone won’t stop, how about fully funding the ATF and local law enforcement so they can investigate and prosecute illegal gun dealers and arms merchants?

  11. You guys know Larry is crazy right?

    • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers. | May 1, 2013 6:54 PM at 6:54 PM |

      Jack, look closely at this clip. You’ll see Professor Larry right in there! You see, amigo, this truly IS no country for old men, for we STILL know SHIT from the Shinola that is being STUCK up our ass by grandma types! But you see, problem is that GRANDMA don’t know shit! She shouldn’t HAVE to! Not her duty. Not her realm. Not her responsibily! Protecting the Tribe is the province and duty of the warriors, dude. Either your a warrior or a fern bar hero! And I’m seein’ LOTS of fern bar heroes here, dude!

      Enjoy the clip, amigo.

      And for you young dudes that read this site, if you TRULY want to recognize SHIT from Shinola, read your Ken Kesey, Abbey, and K. Ross TOOLE! Everything else is simply shit!

      • Larry I actually agree with you on gun control for the most part. But you are crazy.

        • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers. | May 2, 2013 6:11 PM at 6:11 PM |

          Jack, we BOTH know that crazy is a very relative term! And therefore, I accept your constructive criticism, amigo. But Jack, please feel free to call me whatever you like, exCEPT never call me normal! For you see, normal in the contemporary American sense is a fat, obese, lardassed, uneducated, fox-luvin’ MORON!
          And I am none of those. You see, Jack, it’s Biblical, dude. One of my favorite passages. Read it. And maybe you’ll understand. I’ll pray that you do!

          “And do not be conformed to this [a]world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may [b]prove what the will of God is, that which is good and [c]acceptable and perfect.”

          I live this, Jack.

    • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers. | May 1, 2013 7:37 PM at 7:37 PM |

      Um, sorry, Lynn, you know I luv you like a sister, but I gotta call bullshit on this. For you see, unLIKE many of the folks posting here, my family was actually fucking MINING coal in Colorado and Montana when THIS occurred! When the fucking GOVERNMENT has guns and the people don’t, bad shit happens!

      ONLY the stupidest amongst us don’t understand that! The miners had NO chance until they got guns! And hell, it wasn’t that long ago!

      • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers. | May 1, 2013 7:38 PM at 7:38 PM |

        SUCK ON THAT, GRANMA! Learn your history, you stoopid old prune!

        • Larry – You know that we’ll always be friends, so I ask you to make your points without suggesting that this grandma suck on anything. That is all.

          • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers. | May 1, 2013 7:53 PM at 7:53 PM |

            Criticism noted, and criticism heard. Sorry to offend, Cgirl. But you see, I too get greatly offended when someone resorts to granma! I find that very, very, VERY sexist. And disturbing! I’m a grandpa and I do NOT believe that ANY granma exists who loves her grandchildren more than I do. It’s just that I would, personally, myself, NEVER attempt to play the freakin’ GRADMA card in this debate.

            Again, sorry to offend granma, but her opinion carries NO more weight than anyone else’s! Here’s how I view the granma/nanny state!


            And again, sometimes the TRVTH might possible offend the libs on this site, but the TRVHT must be told regardless!

            • Fair points – and thank you : )

              • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers. | May 1, 2013 8:23 PM at 8:23 PM |

                This is what they DON’T teach in high school history class! This is where Dave Skinner and I intersect. Woody knew the score, and granma don’t!


                p.s NO ONE was allowed to go into the National Guard from a small mining town in Colorado during WWII. They would have got their asses kicked. The boys from them small mining towns went into the real military, NOT the Kockh patrol National Guard! True story. The miners hated the National Guard, for they knew that they were simply a Kockh brothers type organization, much like blackwater. HEY, remember our motto, blackwater dudes. RIGHT BETWEEN THE RAYBANS!

          • As has been noted here, many times, the Goverment is not going to take your guns, Background Checks are a needed regulation, just like West Fertilizer needed to be regulated.

  12. Drunks for Denny | May 1, 2013 9:47 PM at 9:47 PM |

    Hmmmm……thus far the only relevant comments I see against my anti-background check position are:

    1. “You fail to provide any evidence that increase background checks will not decrease gun violence”

    …to which I say, I have not seen any data from your side that it would.

    To make an analogy, lets look at the Clean Air Act. The Clean Air Act did an amazing job of reducing health problems from foul air. Probably saved tens of thousands of lives annually. Then, the Clean Air Act Amendments were passed, Costs to implement are way higher, but now it saves hundreds to thousands of lives nationwide, Okay, we get it. Then EPA has new rules that costs hundreds of millions of dollars to implement, and save tens to hundreds of lives, mostly the infirmed who would die in 2 years rather than one. Hello?

    But I digress. Reason 2:

    2. If we don’t throw a bone to the anti-gun liberals, we risk total banning of hunting and blah blah blah.

    Sorry, the Neville Chamberlain defense does not work for me.

    • That is a lame argument. The data that background checks prevent illegal sales already exists and has been quoted many times. I cannot help that you refuse to see it. The Universal Background Check bill would simply close the “gun show” loophole, ensure that the Federal Government will not establish a gun registration database and provide confidentiality to gun ownership records (as well as few other minor things that gun advocates pushed for). Your argument fails until you can prove that additional background checks won’t increase the number of people caught attempting to purchase illegally.

      You really need to lay off the sauce, Drunks. It is really effecting your ability to make an argument.

      • Drunks for Denny | May 2, 2013 2:30 PM at 2:30 PM |

        I may be on the juice, but at least my reading comprehension skills remain sharp, unlike some posters. I am posting “increasing background checks will not decrease gun violence”, you are posting “background checks prevent illegal sales”, which I agree with. Apples and oranges.

        • And you don’t see the corellary here? They are NOT apples and oranges. Yes, there are criminals that – when denied due to a background check – will find another means to obtain a gun. Sadly, because of the LACK of Universal background checks, that is relatively easy. If the loopholes were closed (at least a few of them) it is logical that they may not be able to obtain a gun – or at least it will be harder and more costly.

          There is no way to present the data you are asking because of the current prohibition on studying gun crime. One of the parts of the bill under discussion was the creation of an entity to do exactly that.

          You are blowing smoke (or more accurately – you are repeating the NRA punchline).

  13. Ken,
    I read the bill, and I also read Senate Amendment 730, which you have not.
    Yes, there are prohibitions on records, but guess what? Congress can, and often does, change laws in certain crises.
    So, I’m with Larry on this one. The point is not to check backgrounds at all, right now federal law is not enforced. The point is to get records re-instated for millions of firearms that have flown the coop and are no longer owned by the original purchaser. The point is to have these records available for when and if the law is changed to allow DBXing the entire mess into a central computerized repository where the numbers and patterns and types can all be “studied” and cross-correlated so that “evil” firearms and owners with “too many” guns can be picked out of the herd.
    One doesn’t need to have a clue about firearms in order to understand the political strategy of eventual confiscation. Dianne Feinstein and Charles Schumer are shining examples of this reality. So —
    Molon Labe.

    • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers. | May 2, 2013 6:14 PM at 6:14 PM |

      WELCOME ABOARD, DAVE! Now, you need to learn a few MORE things about real libs! Next lesson: this is shit, and this is shinola!


      Just teasin’. There are more libs that agree with you than you know.

    • As usual, you are blowing smoke out your ass. You have no idea what I have read or not read. Fact is, I have read the Harkin-Alexander amendment. What is your point?

      You are just as paranoid as Larry is. If it were up to you two (and the NRA mind slaves like you), nothing would be done about gun crime because it might, somewhere in the future, bite you in the ass if you do something illegal. It is as simple as that. You can continue to flap your lips all you want – it just makes you look even dumber. I can’t say that I am surprised, though, that you have bought into the NRA partyline. You never were very smart to begin with.

      • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers. | May 3, 2013 3:48 AM at 3:48 AM |

        “If it were up to you two (and the NRA mind slaves like you), nothing would be done about gun crime because it might, somewhere in the future, bite you in the ass”

        EXACTLY! Crime is crime, and there is NO such thing as “gun crime”! Crime is crime. How’d that war on drugs thingy work OUT for you??? More stupid laws means more criminals! That’s all.

        • Nice try, Larry but you are wrong on many fronts.

          1) Yes, crime is crime and it will continue to happen as long as humans suffer from rage, greed, passion etc. That said, the amount of crime can effected. Gun crime did decrease over the last two decades – in part because of the stiffer penalties for committing a crime with a gun. No matter what we do as a society, there will be some crime, but it only makes sense that we do what we can to prevent those with a proven disposition toward to crime from having guns to do it with.

          The War on Drugs is a false equivelency. In short, the war on drugs is a type of prohibition and it was doomed to fail from the start. The lion’s share of those behind bars are there because of the victimless crime of drug use. I agree that most of the drug laws (especially those that deal with marijuana) are “stupid” and counter-productive.

          I also agree that we have too many laws on the books and that our legal code is the primary reason that the US has more people behind bars than any other country in the world. That doesn’t change the fact that I believe strongly in the idea of denying guns to those that have proven they shouldn’t have them. Nothing you have said has even begun to address that simple idea. You have plastered this page (and others) with your paranoid rantings about “Guvment comin ta take ya guns” but you have failed miserably to address the idea of keeping them out of the hands of the people who have proven they can’t be trusted with them.

          • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers. | May 3, 2013 1:27 PM at 1:27 PM |

            ” but you have failed miserably to address the idea of keeping them out of the hands of the people who have proven they can’t be trusted with them.”

            No. I did address that issue. For you see, it’s like voting, I think that EVERY person in this country should have the right to vote! And EVERY person has the right to a gun if they want one! Bar none! Why not?

            You see, Kenneth, what part of “shall not infringe” don’t you understand? This gun argument is the EXACT SAME ONE they use to PROHIBIT ex-felons from voting! Why? Because they’re all black! Works great for the fascists, esPECIALLY since any cop worth his salt can put away ANY black dude for a really, really long time! Happens all the time!

            And now days, EVERY thing is a felony!

        • So now we are equating pick pocket, behaviour, and graft with shooting to death a man in the streets…. because he didn’t have any money in his wallet when he was robbed at gunpoint????

          Pedestrians who illegally cross the street in Mid block are filed with the same reckless Rage and “Crime” as a nutcase who kills for sniper shootings on the Highway?

          OMG LArry….. You’re really reaching here bud. Your pro-gun Argument is truly stretched to the breaking point here.

        • Drunks for Denny | May 3, 2013 9:34 AM at 9:34 AM |

          You tell’em, Larry. We need less laws, not more.

          • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers. | May 3, 2013 1:39 PM at 1:39 PM |

            Hell, THAT’S why I can’t STAND to see the Lege meet! Them morons conTINually attempt to see just WHO can get the “toughest on crime”! WTFaaaaaaaa? Is THAT really why we send these morons down there to Helena? To f*cking arrest even MORE of us?? No license. PRISION! No insurance. PRISION! Didn’t pay your fines from bullshit offenses. PRISION! Drank a beer in your car. PRISION!

            It’s insane!

            The law enforcement industry is the current biggest cash cow OUT there!

            The cop industry has gone off the charts! There’s very little money left out there in the public to squeeze anyway, but by GOD there gonna try to get every last DIME outta the poor slobs while they can!

        • I know, Larry, that you’re all about gun culture. I suppose it doesn’t bother you that a five-year-old boy, using a weapon called “His First Gun,” killed his two-year-old sister.

          I suppose you think people who are bothered by that kind of thing are just libral wusses. They need to “suck on it” (meaning, I suppose, the barrel of a gun).

          We need to get to ’em young. Giving little boys guns makes them feel manly. It’ll get ’em ready to go to war with Obama’s secret army of negroes.

          That’s the mentality of the gun culture you’re so in love with.

  14. All you gotta do here Larry is look at the number of commentors here regarding Gun Safety, to see most Montanans want Universal background checks,. you are sadly and intelligently outnumbered.

    Most Montanans do want their families protected by stricter gun Laws.

  15. Ken, you may have read the bill and because you support gun control by any means, including invasion of privacy, treating a right as a crime, scrutinizing a “class” as criminals, etc etc, you have no objections, it’s all peachy fine because you don’t see yourself on the edge of the cliff.
    Fine. You vote your way, I’ll vote mine. And if I don’t like the vote — who knows?

    • What’s that supposed to mean, Dave? If you don’t like the vote, you’ll what? Come out guns blazing? You’re having fun signaling that you’re potentially dangerous. This is Ruby Ridge fantasy on your part, of course. Talk is cheap.

      • Gee, I KNEW that would get a rise from the sensitive….
        Don’t break out in a rash, Turner. Get some Desenex.

        • Yes, I’m sensitive about armed psychos. Both real ones and those posing as armed psychos.

          • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers. | May 3, 2013 9:30 PM at 9:30 PM |

            Um, turner, I’m sorry to be so blunt, but you DON’T KNOW YOUR ASS on this one! Ever been to a gun show, dude? Just WHAT is your background with the gun culture? You see, the ONLY shootin’ that I see ’round here is you shootin’ off your mouth and misfiring out your ass!

            Look, dude, REAL gun enthusiasts are the MOST law abiding, decent, honest, good citizens that I know! You do NOT need to worry about them. AT ALL! So STOP attempting to make criminals out of them! That’s just sick and it ain’t right! And THAT is exactly what this boils down to! You see, liberal moron, you morons have absolutely NO idea what you’re doing! In this country, you do NOT go after good people in the hopes of apprehending some bad ones! That’s just pure BULLSHIT! And PUHHHHHLEEEZE don’t give me this bullshit argument that, “well, if it saves one life, it’s worth it”. For you SEE, dufus, what YOU and your mononic lib wusslibs are proposing will save NO lives! What it WILL do is only endanger our liberty! And yes, them’s fightin’ words, dude, as Dave as so inarticulately pointed out.

            I view this ENTIRE gun bullhsit debate as a diversionary tactic by the corporate fascists. Oh, look, over there, a gun! While they conTINUE to put the Big Kockh up your stupid ass!

            Wake the f*ck UP, dude! Do it for your country!

            You’re ignorant, dude. And misfiring out your ass is still misfiring.

          • Im loving this crazy WACO Texas type conversation by the right, and self absorbed gun nitwits who think that in a couple of years they’re gonna have to do something about the Majority of us americans growing up, and embracing a more Guandi approach to governing.

            If you all remember the waco incident, they thought like you gun nuts did, that they could carry around any gun they wanted … Hell, they even had Guns like the M240s big ass machine guns on turrets on the compound

            You remember those guys don’t you Larry, with a stockpile of a million rounds of ammunition? An NRA’s wet-dream. Anyone remember how that turned out?? Cause all I see is tiny little wacos all over the country with the same finish as Goofy David Koresh and his tiny little banana republic had.

            That guy spoke for God too, swore god wanted us all to have guns to defend ourselves.

            What your saying is you’re gonna shoot Americans if they don’t agree with you. Just who the fuck are you??? The Majority in this country rules Larry not the Wackos, not the Minority, not even you. Are you really ready to shot your neighbor just so you can own a gun, or because of the ACA?? Really??? I think not.

            Lot of hot air and bullshit coming from your side Larry, get over it. Richard has it right, and in this instance you’re wearing the tin foil hat!

            • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers. | May 4, 2013 7:14 AM at 7:14 AM |

              Waco is a perfect example! The government SLAUGHTERED a whole bunch of innocent people who had done nothing wrong! Why? The people in the compound shot no one, Norma. Or did you forget? You see, in THIS country, you’re STILL innocent until proven guilty! Right? Or wrong? Apparently you choose WRONG!

              And Ruby Ridge. Did the government REALLY have to set that guy up, and THEN murder his wife and kid? Why? Do you whiney libs REALLY feel that much safer now that those innocent folks are wiped off the face of the earth? Do you SERIOUSLY want YOUR government going around SLAUGHTERING people you disagree with on your behalf? Just like in Iraq? I don’t!

              Nope, murder is murder, Norma, whether YOU pull the trigger or your hired thugs do it FOR you!

              So please, let us DO have the Waco conversation! It’s about time. I’ll surely give up my guns when the government gives up theirs! Nothing wacko about that argument, and in FACT it’s exactly what the Founders had in mind!

              And don’t worry, Norma. The “gun nuts” aren’t going to shoot you. I THEENK you’re confusing gun nuts with militia types. BIG mistake, amiga. Gun enthusiasts, as I mentioned, do NOT want/intend to overthrow the government. They simply do NOT want to be turned into criminals overnight capriciously! It’s a privacy issue. Ever heard of it? The government does NOT need to know shit about every time your shit! Or anything else! The Founders provided us with a blueprint for a free, democratic society, a country FREE from an abusive government! And you whiney libs want to give it ALLLLLLL away to the AristKOCKracy in the name of feeling safer!

              Again, I hear that N. Korea is very safe this time of year! Try it. You might LIKE safety!

              • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers. | May 4, 2013 7:19 AM at 7:19 AM |

                p.s. How is government murder any different than insane man murder? People are still just as dead! Only the insane man has an excuse. He’s insane! The government murder is premeditated! First degree! For sure! When folks want to be left alone, LEAVE THEM THE HELL ALONE! What were the capital crimes of Waco and Ruby Ridge? I would suggest that you re-think your position in light of NO evidence!

                Now, when the government has a license to MURDER, why SHOULDN’T the citizenry be armed?

                • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers. | May 4, 2013 7:54 AM at 7:54 AM |

                  p.s. And Norma, your faith in the government is admirable! And laudable! And laughable! It’s what the fascists LUV. That way, all dissent is treason! THIS is what the AristKOCKracy wants!

                  But what happens is that when THEY get total control, we’re f*cked! Then enviros become terrorists, JUST as the righties have tried to do in the past, MANY times over! Anyone who protests the mindless destruction of the earth is a terrorist! Or as we like to say, a terraist! And that’d be me! SOME times, people in the past have resorted to arms to stop evil against the earth!

                  • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers. | May 4, 2013 8:01 AM at 8:01 AM |


                    This is a fantastic site. Check out ALL their enviro videos. Check it out before the fascists shut it down! Don’t want no resistors now, DO we?! Free market fascism must survive,,,,,,even though YOU won’t! It’s a trade off. God save the Big Kockhs! Hell, destroying a full THIRD of Alberta for the King Kocks ain’t such a bad trade off! We must have royalty! The King Kock Kollar! Get one for you!

                    • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers. | May 4, 2013 8:10 AM at 8:10 AM |

                      p.s. I view this entire gun debate as a diversionary tactic. The major topic of the day becomes, quick! Look over there! An insane man with a gun!, in STEAD of, quick! Look over there! Two insane KOCKS ripping up one third of Alberta in the biggest environmental crime in the history of the earth!

                      I choose to focus on the latter, for if you REALLY want to stop crime, go to the source! The fascist bastards destroying your country and the world! That simply makes more sense.

                • Sounds like you and Timothy McVeigh are soul-mates, Larry. Except he actually acted on his anti-government hatred while you’re just a poser.

                  • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers. | May 4, 2013 9:45 AM at 9:45 AM |

                    Oh really?


                    You need to get out more!

                    • Larry four ATF Officers died first but the waco group didn’t use any guns???? WHat are you smoking???? Your claims are complete BUllshit!!!

                      Besides having an Armory that was not legal under US LAW, Koresh’s group had numerous statutory rape claims and physical abuses of children claims. Enough claims of illicit Behavior were filed with enforcement authorities for any Law enforcement group to investigate, and when officers tried to investigate they were shot to death.

                      Your a fucking Idiot for not telling the truth here, and that doesn’t further your cause!

                      And you haven’t answered my Questions, as an American, are you willing to shoot other Americans to keep your Guns????

                    • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers. | May 4, 2013 10:48 AM at 10:48 AM |

                      Yeah, yeah, yeah. Same old tired, worn out, trite argument. The dude has TEN THOUSAND ROUNDS OF AMMO! Well, big deal! That’s like saying that the dude had ten thousand rubbers! Doesn’t really matter now, does it? Rubbers, bullets. You can ONLY shoot one at a time! Unless you know something I don’t know!

                      Bottom line. The government MURDERED those folks at Waco. They had committed NO crime! The government was the aggressor! They could have apprehended Koresh any time they wanted to! But instead, the state sponsored terrorism sent a clear message to the country. Resistance is futile, and you do NOT have to commit a crime, for the state is above the law!

                      Anybody go to jail for that botched raid? Nope. As LONG as one is wearing a uniform of the state, they are above the law!

                    • So what your saying is you dont care 4 Officers were murdered, that their were charges of stautory Rape and child abuse and Molestation going on… not to mention they were agregglessly flouting the fact that they had an Illegal weapons cache and Illegal weapons????

                      Why because it doesn’t fit your storyline??? They wouldn’t be Innocent than would they??

                      Your speaking on behalf of Child rapers Larry? Your telling me you like Woman rapists as well.

                      Stop blowing smoke up everyone’s else ass….
                      And you still haven’t answered my Question:

                      As an American, are you willing to shoot other Americans to keep your Guns????

                    • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers. | May 4, 2013 2:13 PM at 2:13 PM |

                      “Your speaking on behalf of Child rapers Larry?”

                      You mean like Pope John Paul? And Pope Bennet the Dick? One is headed to sainthood, while Koresh is in the ground! Explain THAT! Why can’t we beatify Koresh too, for he would have made a great pope! Dude seemed as deluded as the REAL popes! And he was a god in his own mind! ‘Sides, St. Koresh has a certain RING to it, no?

                      Child rapers come in many forms. I didn’t see the ATF invading the Catholic CHURCHES in the country, did you?!

                      Norma, I’ll answer your question. A person that comes for your guns relinquishes their right to not be fired upon! What part of “shall not be infringed upon” DON’T you understand? Seems pretty clear to me!

                      And really, MAN sheriffs around the country get it. The will NOT enforce gun confiscation. Are you gonna do a citizens arrest on them?? Answer the question! Yes, just answer the damn question! Will you SHOOT them if they don’t enforce the law? Answer my damn question!


                      How to have fun with libs, or TRVTH 101. Things AIN’T as simple as some liburls like to think it is!

                      All this granma shit is ridiculous. And again, I can’t understand who’s funding it and why? To me, it looks like AristKOCKracy propaganda to MAKE people willingly give up their guns! Sumthin’ real fishy goin’ on here.

                    • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers. | May 4, 2013 2:17 PM at 2:17 PM |

                      Oops. Should read “many” sheriffs around the country.

                      Again, Norma, are you gonna ARREST AND FIRE UPON the recalcitrant sheriffs?

                      Not me!

                    • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers. | May 4, 2013 2:27 PM at 2:27 PM |

                      Saint Pope John, and NO St. David Koresh? One DEFINITELY lived out his faith to the end with a bang! Does that not count for something? And just WHY didn’t the ATF go after a few of the ROBE wearing child rapers??

                      I don’t get it, Norma. It’s all so confusing. I know. Let’s just turn in all our guns! Let’s be like the granma in the picture. Dumb as dogshit and proud OF it! p.s. Just LUV that worried look on her face. Reminds me of the time I had to take a terrible dump and could NOT find a sufficient outhouse close by! Yikes!


  16. By the way sorry to be so blunt…..

    • it needed to be said

    • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers. | May 4, 2013 2:28 PM at 2:28 PM |

      I was thinking more obtuse than blunt.

      JUST KIDDING, NORMA! Hey, it’s OK to be wrong sometimes. Libs have left critical thinking behind in many ways just as have the wingnuts!

  17. Jeez Larry your pretty screwed up Buddy. Its gonna take more than just drinking beer and shooting at empty cans to help you.

    Sorry at this point, I gotta say, your man issues are your own. See they don’t let women be popes, or spiritual leaders… so religious law is a manifestation of Man Fantasies not us.

    As for American Law, you have, and your state has promised to follow the constitution on how it is written and explained Later by the supreme court.

    In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), the Supreme Court ruled that “The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government.”

    In United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the amendment “protects arms that had a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”. This ruling has been widely described as ambiguous, and ignited a debate on whether the amendment protected an individual right, or a collective militia right.

    In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment “codified a pre-existing right” and that it “protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home” but also stated that “the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose”. They also clarified that many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court are consistent with the Second Amendment.

    Post Heller Cases have sided mostly with the government:

    In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.

    D.C. Circuit
    Heller v. District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 08-1289 (RMU), No. 23., 25 On March 26, 2010, the D.C. Circuit denied the follow up appeal of Dick Heller who requested the court to overturn the new District of Columbia gun control ordinances newly enacted after the 2008 Heller ruling. The court refused to do so, stating that the firearms registration procedures; the prohibition on assault weapons; and the prohibition on large capacity ammunition feeding devices were found to not violate the Second Amendment.[185]

    First Circuit
    United States v. Rene E., 583 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2009) – On August 31, 2009, the First Circuit affirmed the conviction of a juvenile for the illegal possession of a handgun as a juvenile, under 18 U.S.C. § 922(x)(2)(A) and 18 U.S.C. § 5032, rejecting the defendant’s argument that the federal law violated his Second Amendment rights under Heller. The court cited “the existence of a longstanding tradition of prohibiting juveniles from both receiving and possessing handguns” and observed “the federal ban on juvenile possession of handguns is part of a longstanding practice of prohibiting certain classes of individuals from possessing firearms — those whose possession poses a particular danger to the public.”

    Second Circuit
    Kachalsky v. County of Westchester, 11-3942 – On November 28, 2012, the Second Circuit upheld New York’s may-issue concealed carry permit law, ruling that “the proper cause requirement is substantially related to New York’s compelling interests in public safety and crime prevention.”

    Fourth Circuit
    United States v. Hall, 551 F.3d 257 (4th Cir. 2009) – On August 4, 2008, the Fourth Circuit upheld as constitutional the prohibition of possession of a concealed weapon without a permit.

    United States v. Chester, 628 F.3d 673 (4th Cir. 2010) – On December 30, 2010, the Fourth Circuit vacated William Chester’s conviction for possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9).[189] The court found that the district court erred in perfunctorily relying on Heller’s exception for “presumptively lawful” gun regulations made in accordance with “longstanding prohibitions”.

    Fifth Circuit
    United States v. Dorosan, 350 Fed. Appx. 874 (5th Cir. 2009) – On June 30, 2008, the Fifth Circuit upheld 39 C.F.R. 232.1(l), which bans weapons on postal property, sustaining restrictions on guns outside the home, specifically in private vehicles parked in employee parking lots of government facilities, despite Second Amendment claims that were dismissed. The employee’s Second Amendment rights were not infringed since the employee could have instead parked across the street in a public parking lot, instead of on government property.

    United States v. Bledsoe, 334 Fed. Appx. 771 (5th Cir. 2009) – The Fifth Circuit affirmed the decision of a U.S. District Court decision in Texas, upholding 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6), which prohibits “straw purchases.” A “straw purchase” occurs when someone eligible to purchase a firearm buys one for an ineligible person. Additionally, the court rejected the request for a strict scrutiny standard of review.

    United States v. Scroggins, 551 F.3d 257 (5th Cir. 2010) – On March 4, 2010, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the conviction of Ernie Scroggins for possession of a firearm as a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The court noted that it had, prior to Heller, identified the Second Amendment as providing an individual right to bear arms, and had already, likewise, determined that restrictions on felon ownership of firearms did not violate this right. Moreover, it observed that Heller did not affect the longstanding prohibition of firearm possession by felons.

    Seventh Circuit
    United States v. Skoien, 587 F.3d 803 (7th Cir. 2009) – Steven Skoien, a Wisconsin man convicted of two misdemeanor domestic violence convictions, appealed his conviction based on the argument that the prohibition violated the individual rights to bear arms, as described in Heller. After initial favorable rulings in lower court based on a standard of intermediate scrutiny, on July 13, 2010, the Seventh Circuit, sitting en banc, ruled 10–1 against Skoien and reinstated his conviction for a gun violation, citing the strong relation between the law in question and the government objective. Skoien was convicted and sentenced to two years in prison for the gun violation, and will thus likely be subject to a lifetime ban on gun ownership. Pro-gun rights editorials have sharply criticized this ruling as going too far with the enactment of a lifetime gun ban, while editorials favoring gun regulations have praised the ruling as “a bucket of cold water thrown on the ‘gun rights’ celebration”.

    Moore v. Madigan (Circuit docket 12-1269) – On December 11, 2012, the Seventh Circuit ruled that the Second Amendment protected a right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense. This was an expansion of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Heller and McDonald, each of which referred only to such a right in the home. Based on this ruling, the court declared Illinois’s ban on the concealed carrying of firearms to be unconstitutional. The court stayed this ruling for 180 days, so Illinois could enact replacement legislation. On February 22, 2013, a petition for rehearing en banc was denied by a vote of 5-4.

    Ninth Circuit
    Nordyke v. King, 2012 WL 1959239 (9th Cir. 2012) – On July 29, 2009, the Ninth Circuit vacated an April 20 panel decision and reheard the case en banc on September 24, 2009. The April 20 decision had held that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments, while also upholding an Alameda County, California ordinance that makes it a crime to bring a gun or ammunition on to, or possess either while on, county property. The en banc panel remanded the case to the three-judge panel. On May 2, 2011, that panel ruled that intermediate scrutiny was the correct standard by which to judge the ordinance’s constitutionality and remanded the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.On November 28, 2011, the Ninth Circuit vacated the panel’s May 2 decision and agreed to rehear the case en banc. On April 4, 2012, the en banc panel sent the case to mediation.[212] On June 1, 2012, the en banc panel dismissed the case, but only after Alameda County officials changed their interpretation of the challenged ordinance. Under the new interpretation, gun shows may take place on county property under the ordinance’s exception for “events”, subject to restrictions regarding the display and handling of firearms.

    Sorry dude its all there in Black and White. You gotta follow at least federal rules.

    And no one is taking away your right to own a gun, you just can’t own the ones the federal government bans as military style.

    • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers. | May 5, 2013 7:39 PM at 7:39 PM |

      “And no one is taking away your right to own a gun, you just can’t own the ones the federal government bans as military style”

      Well, actually Norma, I think I’ll own whatever type of firearm I want. Again, I’m seriously concerned that this entire gun control thing is a plot to finish OFF the libs in this country for good! Over nothing! Shit, I can’t believe it! But hey, you like beer. I’ll bet you a CASE of your choice that jon tester is done next election. The dude shot himself in the ass. He will NOT win re-election. I guarantee it! So, accept my bet! I need the beer.

      BTW, our NEXT senator, Schweitzer, agrees completely with me! Gun control. “You control yours and I’ll control mine”! I like that! But then, I have always liked Schweitzer. He’s as plain spoken as I am.

    • Actually, Norma, there is no existing federal law that prohibits Larry from purchasing a military style rifle nor is there likely to be one in the near future. Making statements like that not only confuses the issue of Universal Background Checks, it gives some minor credence to Larry’s “pass background checks and the next thing you know, they will be passing stricter gun control acts and an AWB”. There is NO connection between the two. Yes, a majority of the country wanted/wants to see Universal Background Checks pass. There is NO majority that wants to see another Assault Weapons ban. Frankly I don’t give a damn what President Obama said to gain voter support right after Sandy Hook happened. What matters is what the majority wants and right now, that happens to be something I agree with – a method designed to make it harder for those that shouldn’t have gun to get them. You lose me if you try to go any further. My idea of gun control is hitting what I aim at. Gun control has a real financial impact on me (as a gunsmith) and I will resist ANY legislation that limits my legal ability to purchase the firearms I prefer to use.

      And Skinner, the idea of calling me an advocate of gun control is so completely insane, it is almost laughable. I have been an advocate of the individual right of gun ownership since before it was vogue. I have been involved in shooting sports since I qualified sharpshooter in the military (back in 1978, BTW) and competed in many forms of competition since then. You know nothing about me, you moron, so stop attempting to act as if you did. I will support common sense legislation that is aimed at keeping firearms out of the hands of people who have proven dangerous with them, I will support stiffer penalties for those that break the law involving firearms, and I will support the idea of credible studies being done on gun violence and how to reasonably address it – that is IT. I will never support any law that target’s legal gun ownership (such as a new Assault Weapons Ban, or a limit on magazine size etc) – EVER. Get your head out of the NRA’s ass and wake the hell up.

      • Let me clarify my statement than, We did have an assault weapons Ban before, and it didn’t hurt People’s 2nd amendment rights…. you know People who wanted 10 round semi Automatic hunting rifles. And with any luck as far as I am concerned we will have it again. It does work on keeping guns out of the hands of criminals more effectively.

        I look forward to Universal Background checks. doesn’t bother me…. far better to have that than a national gun registry.

        Montana hasn’t been a part of that so called sport weapons ban. but it hasn’t hurt people in states who do have it. if thats what their particular state wants I applaud them for it.

        Lastly does this make me some sort of scary person to the NRA, gosh I hope so.

        My family has been serving this country for over a hundred years. Men and woman in my family all have done service for the USA government, either in a service or civilian role. We all believe(d) in gun safety, we only want what is good for our family, and community.

        Under federal law currently
        • It is illegal and punishable by up to 10 years in prison for the following people to receive, possess, or transport any firearm or ammunition I want to see this strengthened:
        Someone convicted of or under indictment for a felony punishable by more than one year in prison, someone convicted of a misdemeanor punishable by more than two years in prison, a fugitive from justice, an unlawful user of any controlled substance, someone who has been ruled as mentally defective or has been committed to any mental institution, an illegal alien, someone dishonorably discharged from the military, someone who has renounced his or her U.S. citizenship, someone subject to certain restraining orders, or someone convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor.

        I would like to see a new federal Law that prohibit members of Domestic terrorist organizations from purchasing or possessing firearms or explosives, or people on terrorist watch lists. Believe it or not we have no Law like that on the books… Any of these people named above can go through the extra paper hoops, and legal ropes to prove their innocence. Standards are already in Place to prove these people are trouble. I’d rather we spend our money on extra areas like this than conception police in Bedrooms.

        • Regardless of whether you want a ban on military style weapons or not, it isn’t going to happen anytime soon nor does that have anything to do with background checks. Connecting them makes Larry’s arguments for him. Further, there is NO data to indicate that banning military style weapons or magazine capacities greater than 10 rounds has any effect on gun crime. Zero. You can make those statements all day long but that doesn’t make them true. The Justice Department was very clear in their testamony before Congress when the 1994 ban was about to expire. The moves to ban military style rifles and magazines greater than 10 rounds was a knee jerk reaction to what happened at Sandy Hook without any kind of factual basis whatsoever. Moreover, without closing the loopholes in the existing law on things like internet sales and gun shows, any such ban is unenforcable.

          I will fight tooth and nail to prevent another Brady Act. Make no mistake, they are useless and do not address gun crime. At best, they are “feel good” measures for those that are afraid of the big bad scary black rifles.

          As far as your “Domestic Terrorist” act, there is no way I would support such a thing because the Federal Government is notorious for deeming groups like the SCA as a paramilitary group. No one knows if a group is a “Domestic Terrorist” group until such time as they actually do something. Most domestic terrorist acts were the work of a single person, not a group. In fact, most Domestic Terrorism – as it is defined by the US Government – has occured by ultra religous Christian extremists. Do you want Christians to be deemed “Domestic Terrorists” and disarmed?

          • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers. | May 7, 2013 3:59 PM at 3:59 PM |

            “Do you want Christians to be deemed “Domestic Terrorists” and disarmed?”

            No, Moorcat. The AristKockracy is HELLBENT on purposely blurring the lines between dissent and terrorism! Period! THAT’S why every cheesedicked rightwing slimeball legislator in Congress has consistently attempted to make all MANNER of environmental protest into terrorism! Seriously!

            And the bottom line is that when folks like Norma and the granny in the pathetic commercial FINALLY figure out that the much BIGGER threat to their grandchildren than gun violence is Big KOCKH violence done through environmental degradation, THEN they just might act upon it! Like all the indigenous peoples throughout the world are already doing! Dead kids are dead kids! Don’t matter if it’s bullets of poisoned water! Dead is dead!

            And the AristKOCKracy MUST have in place their domestic terrorism laws so that they can TASER granny’s ol’ prune ass before dumping her in the can!

            Yes, it is all going according to plan. Taser the prunes and dump’im in the big house to KEEP your country free! Ain’t America grand?

            Granny in jail———->JOBS!

            And that’s how free market freedom works!

  18. Obama never said he was going to take your hunting rifles or handguns away. He said he wants universal background checks, a ban on high-capacity magazines and a ban on assault weapons (a ban that every Republican President in the last 30 years, including Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush has supported).
    So, when you share these pictures, acting as if you’re “getting at liberal ignorance,” all you’re really doing is spreading an image around the internet that showcases how you–and any other Republican who sees it and thinks “EXACTLY!”–don’t know a damn thing about which you’re speaking……

Comments are closed.