get it home page promo

House green lights concealed carry without permit

2011-02-21T13:51:00Z House green lights concealed carry without permitThe Associated Press The Associated Press
February 21, 2011 1:51 pm  • 

HELENA - The House has endorsed a gun rights proposal that would allow people to carry concealed weapons in urban areas without a permit.

House Bill 271 would allow anyone eligible for a concealed weapon permit to carry without actually applying for a permit. Concealed carry is already allowed in rural areas without a permit. The bill moved forward Monday by a 55-45 vote.

Republican Rep. Krayton Kerns of Laurel argues it's important to restore gun rights that he says have been legislated away.

Opponents argue the bill would make it difficult for law enforcement to determine who was legally carrying a gun and the measure could put guns in places they don't belong.

The bill faces one more usually procedural vote before heading to the Senate.

Copyright 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

(17) Comments

  1. billyboy
    Report Abuse
    billyboy - February 24, 2011 10:04 am
    hb 271 great new idea! A" pistol in every pocket" so to speak.Maybe this is how my son will get his gun back from our elected Gun Rights Protectors.Keep this in mind, if you are not connected to the "right people" in your city or county,and you are anywhere near a crime scene and have a firearm ,you could very well lose it.Anyone who is close to where a shooting crime within ,say 10 min.after the shooting ended would have their firearms seized.You were there to help and detained the suspect?don't matter.So take your guns to town son and when enough guns are seized, someone with the right "pull" will start a suit for violation of their rights.Maybe then we can get our sons hunting rifle returned.Our Attorney General and Governor don't appear to be supporters of our sons gun rights.Its all political and who you know.We'll be checkin our guns with Miss Kitty at the longbranch when we hit town.Need to have 1 or 2 left that we can use if we're asked to go to the aid of authorities again.
  2. TrustButVerify
    Report Abuse
    TrustButVerify - February 22, 2011 2:28 pm
    In response to "Tired2".

    Perhaps you are right with respect to my ignorance of tea party beliefs. However, I thought the TP movement was primarily about emphasizing states rights over federal rights; that they would prefer a weak central government as opposed to a strong one . . . a confederation of states as opposed to a union of states.

    Prior to the session, I always thought the Tea Party folks recognized the authority of the voters, however, the effort to overturn various recent "initiative" & local/state wide
    votes via "nullification" bills seemingly indicate that championing of the rights of the individual are quite selective. Nothing to be defensive about, we all tend to interpret the Constitution or the Bible to our own liking.
    Check out Thomas Jefferson's "Bible", for example.
  3. tired2
    Report Abuse
    tired2 - February 22, 2011 12:43 pm
    TrustButVerify said theTea Party Republicans want to re-fight the Civil War.

    My G you have no idea as to what the Tea Party stands for. Please take a little time to annualize the TP’s stance's before you babble.
  4. Tri-pleX
    Report Abuse
    Tri-pleX - February 22, 2011 10:56 am
    I suppose the only reason to jump through the hoops and get a actual permit if this passes would be the reciprocity agreements where some other states honor a MT permit. If you wanted to carry in one of those states you would need to be carrying an actual MT CWP card.
    But I still don't understand how the current requirement for a permit holder to have some sort of training could be validated or ignored should this bill pass? Would it only be an issue if you were caught conceiling while comiting some other crime? A speeding ticket?
    There's a half opened can of worms here that should really be sealed up before the bill is finalized.
  5. TrustButVerify
    Report Abuse
    TrustButVerify - February 22, 2011 7:02 am

    I regret not being clearer, T-Repubs or T-Pubs. is a term used to distinguish between main stream Republicans and Tea Party Republicans. Tea Party Republicans seem to be very big on Nullification efforts and want to re-fight the Civil War. I'm guessing there are cooler heads in the Republican Party, who are not ready to secede from the Union, forming the United Counties of Montana!
  6. Gods_Infidel
    Report Abuse
    Gods_Infidel - February 21, 2011 9:59 pm
    What are T-Repubs, I'm outta that loop I suppose. As far as the bill goes, it says anyone eligible for a concealed permit can carry without applying. How does one know they're eligible unless they apply? Or are there just certain exclusions? I suppose I could do a minimal amount of research and find out how one finds out if they're eligible? I dunno. I'm all for weapons rights, believe me. It just seems that the application process is the filter for those whom are responsible enough to carry a weapon, and also concerned enough about that right to possibly use it in the eventuality that they are faced with that situation. I think true concern should lead to action, and if you're eligible, but unable to take action to get the permit, are you going to take the action to save my life when presented with that? I doubt it.
  7. nictar78
    Report Abuse
    nictar78 - February 21, 2011 7:36 pm
    What's the point of even having a permit if they refuse to enforce it?
  8. farside
    Report Abuse
    farside - February 21, 2011 6:31 pm
    I can tell you that the only reason I felt that cetain requiremnts to have a concealed weapons application under some guidelines is because there should be some assurance that they even know how to handle a gun, thru some kind of training/etc. If you can't meet this as a minimum guideline, you have no business coming around a public place with a gun,,, you did this to drive on the roads? Besides, what happens to all the monies they lose from not having applications and renewals!
  9. meadowlark
    Report Abuse
    meadowlark - February 21, 2011 6:01 pm
    I support anything that preserves maximum gun rights. I would hope people use common sense though. Even in frontier days, sometimes a cowboy had to check his gun before hitting the saloons!
  10. Helena Pedestrian
    Report Abuse
    Helena Pedestrian - February 21, 2011 5:03 pm
    Isn't it a felony to discharge a firearm in the city? Is there an exception for self-defense or stopping a crime? How does this work? You can carry but it's a felony to pull the trigger unless you have a very good reason? I'm just curious.
  11. lanebru
    Report Abuse
    lanebru - February 21, 2011 4:32 pm
    House Bill 271 would allow anyone eligible for a concealed weapon permit to carry without actually applying for a permit.

    Does this mean your 18 and not a felon, do you have to attend the class still, can you be on a horse or just on foot? I appologize for my laziness, some articles explain a few details. Surely someone will clear this up.
  12. ndnman
    Report Abuse
    ndnman - February 21, 2011 4:29 pm
    I am a big advocate for gun rights and that each citizen should be able to carry a gun if they can legally own one. But even in hunter's safety they teach you not to drink and use guns. This bill is stupid to allow people to take guns into bars-- common guys wake up!!!
  13. TrustButVerify
    Report Abuse
    TrustButVerify - February 21, 2011 4:12 pm
    I am disappointed that the T-Repubs. did not amend the bill to require that all such concealed weapons be equipped with silencers. If there is so much concern about protecting the ears' of hunters, I would surely think there would be as much concern for the hearing of us urbanites.

    Thank God for the Senate, surely they will stand tall and add the silencer amendment. I certainly don't want communion in church interrupted by loud gun fire.
  14. Longinus
    Report Abuse
    Longinus - February 21, 2011 3:23 pm
    Well put GPAC. For once we agree.
  15. SpikeTag
    Report Abuse
    SpikeTag - February 21, 2011 2:48 pm
    Arbitrary lines mean nothing to criminals, all they really protect the criminals while they commit their crimes and leave the law abiding defenseless. It has been proven time and time again that more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens reduces crime. Don't beleive me then look up Kennesaw Georgia which said each household should have at least one firearm, and Chigacago Illinois which further criminalized ownership of private weapons. Kennesaw now has one of the lowest crime rates, while Chicago is a cesspool of violence.
  16. GivePeaceAChance
    Report Abuse
    GivePeaceAChance - February 21, 2011 2:30 pm
    There has been free carry of guns outside of cities and sheriff's have not sounded any alarms that there is a problem in those areas so I do not know why anyone would expect a problem just because the same people crossed an imaginary line into a city. Cops just don't like losing authority over people.
  17. fotonut
    Report Abuse
    fotonut - February 21, 2011 2:27 pm
    Geese people, a person who is going to commit a crime will carry a weapon no matter if he's legal to carry one permit or not. It just takes our rights away from the people who want to carry a gun for self protection along a trail, out for a ride, work late at night, etc. Hitler had a same plan of gun control

Civil Dialogue

We provide this community forum for readers to exchange ideas and opinions on the news of the day. Passionate views, pointed criticism and critical thinking are welcome. Name-calling, crude language and personal abuse are not welcome. Moderators will monitor comments with an eye toward maintaining a high level of civility in this forum. Our comment policy explains the rules of the road for registered commenters. If you receive an error after submitting a comment, please contact us.

If your comment was not approved, perhaps:

    1. You called someone an idiot, a racist, a dope, a moron, etc. Please, no name-calling or profanity (or veiled profanity -- #$%^&*).

    2. You rambled, failed to stay on topic or exhibited troll-like behavior intended to hijack the discussion at hand.

    3. YOU SHOUTED YOUR COMMENT IN ALL CAPS. This is hard to read and annoys readers.

    4. You have issues with a business. Have a bad meal? Feel you were overcharged at the store? New car is a lemon? Contact the business directly with your customer service concerns.

    5. You believe the newspaper's coverage is unfair. It would be better to write the editor at This is a forum for community discussion, not for media criticism. We'd rather address your concerns directly.

    6. You included an e-mail address or phone number, pretended to be someone you aren't or offered a comment that makes no sense.

    7. You accused someone of a crime or assigned guilt or punishment to someone suspected of a crime.

    8. Your comment is in really poor taste.

    9. Don't write a novel. If your comment is longer than the article you're commenting on, you might want to cut it down a bit. Lengthy comments will likely be removed.
Add Comment
You must Login to comment.

Click here to get an account it's free and quick


Follow the Independent Record

Great Helena Businesses

Clipped From The Newspaper