Since the shooting and killing of 17 people at a high school in Parkland, Florida, on Feb. 14, the Montana chapter of Moms Demand Action For Gun Sense has been busy.
The group, which formed shortly after the 2012 school shooting in Sandy Hook, where 27 were killed, has seen a huge increase in people liking their Facebook page, commenting on posts and sending messages asking how to get involved. A first meeting of the group's Bozeman chapter last week had 80 people, said Kiely Lammers, the Billings chapter leader who is involved in the statewide organization.
A national movement, led by a strong-voiced and even stronger-willed group of high school students, is bringing a dialogue on changing gun laws to states like Montana. Over the past week and a half here, high school and college student groups have rapidly formed and added to the chorus of groups like Moms Demand Action, which has been involved in statewide legislative efforts for several years.
"People are typically outraged and interested and worried for about three to five days after a mass shooting or a school shooting, and then it really fizzes down," Lammers said. "But we're going on day 10 and people are just getting warmed up. This movement does feel different."
Lammers thinks that energy might make this the moment when her group switches from merely battling bills that expand access to firearms to advocating for what it calls stronger, sensible gun laws.
“Our state legislation, that’s a big focus for us,” she said. “(Last session) we fought guns in restaurants with alcohol. We fought permitless carry in Montana, and we won that. We fought guns in K-12 schools, and we won that."
A Lee State Bureau review of gun legislation introduced in Montana since 1999 shows most of the 94 bills dealing with the topic were aimed at loosening restrictions on concealed-carry permits, increasing the number of places guns are allowed, opening up the state's stand-your-ground laws, increasing shooting range funding and enshrining the right to hunt in the Montana Constitution. A high percent of the bills were brought by Republicans; only 17 of the bills were carried by Democrats.
Rep. Ellie Hill Smith, a Democrat from Missoula whose term ends this year, said legislation that would limit access to firearms is not a subject that’s often discussed.
Ellie Hill Smith, D-Missoula, makes a motion during a hearing in the House Judiciary Committee during the 2017 legislative session.
“This was not a question that was even on anybody’s agenda; people on both sides of the aisle ignored it,” Hill Smith said. “It was always a taboo subject that we talk about guns. Now a lot of people are talking about guns, a lot of moms, a lot of students, a lot of parents are asking people what they want to do about guns."
Five days after the Florida school shooting, state Sen. Margie MacDonald, a Democrat from Billings, announced she was asking for a bill to be drafted that would bring Montana into compliance with reporting to the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System.
It’s an idea that’s been around since 2014, when the Attorney General’s office brought to the attention of the Legislature's Law and Justice Interim Committee that Montana was not complying with federal law.
The state does provide data on criminal proceedings when individuals are found by a court to be mentally incompetent to stand trial; acquitted as not guilty by reason of mental defect; or guilty but mentally ill.
But Montana is not providing information to the federal database when people here are involuntarily committed for mental illness. The Department of Justice says it is prohibited by state law from sharing that information with the federal government.
MacDonald, who led the 2014 interim committee, said even though all that was proposed was bringing Montana into federal compliance, lawmakers couldn't find bipartisan support on drafting a bill.
Margie MacDonald stands in front of First Congregational Church in Billings.
Opposition came from veterans, mental health advocates and gun advocates. Points raised ranged from concerns about people who were unfairly adjudicated to objections to removing a person's rights to own firearms to fears that the bill could deter someone from seeking help for a mental health issue.
“It’s an even-Steven interim committee; interim committees are 50-50,” MacDonald said. “We didn’t bring it forward because we didn’t have a single Republican who would join us. It wasn’t the specifics of this issue in particular, it’s just that this would have in some way, shape or form limited somebody’s interpretation of gun rights.”
MacDonald said she's seen that kind of opposition to bills that are perceived as limiting access to guns since she joined the Legislature.
“I’ve been in the Legislature since 2009 and frankly if there was a bill that in any way made our communities any safer from gun violence I don’t recall what it is, and I sit on the Judiciary Committee every year,” MacDonald said. “I’ve seen bills that increase the presence of guns.”
Those same bills that Hill Smith and MacDonald feel they've fought against are viewed as successes for Gary Marbut, president of the Montana Sports Shooting Association, and are listed as such on the website he maintains for the group.
Marbut said his association has gotten 68 pro-gun bills through the Legislature and enacted into law since 1985. He highlighted adding the right to hunt and fish into the Montana Constitution, a shooting range development and protection act, and the mandatory concealed weapons permit issuance statute as a “huge step in the right direction.”
There are still things on his wish list, such as arming educators or loosening restrictions on concealed-carry permits.
“There’s still more to be done to give Montana what I think is a good legal infrastructure for firearms ownership and use,” Marbut said.
Gary Marbut, president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, was one of two supporters testifying in favor of House Bill 385, which would allow concealed carry on school grounds during the 2017 session of the Montana Legislature.
-
{{title}}
{{start_at_rate}}{{format_dollars}} {{start_price}} {{format_cents}}{{term}}{{promotional_format_dollars}}{{promotional_price}}{{promotional_format_cents}} {{term}} - {{html}}
Thanks for being a subscriber.
Sorry, your subscription does not include this content.
Please call 800-523-2272 to upgrade your subscription.
You have free articles remaining.
In schools
One of the bills Marbut spoke in support of during last winter's legislative session was to allow educators and other school employees with concealed-carry permits to carry concealed handguns in school. While Montana already allows school districts to allow people to carry firearms in schools, it's rarely used. Only Lima, Belfry and Custer schools having staff members who carry a gun.
State Rep. Seth Berglee, a Republican from Joliet, said if he retains his seat he plans to bring a similar bill in 2019.
“It may look a little bit different,” Berglee said. “I don’t know yet. It’s a hard thing to tackle just because there are some nuances. But I think something along those lines is a good thing in light of the recent shooting.”
Berglee said in Montana, a majority of the legislation he’s seen and supported has more to do with expanding concealed-carry laws, and he sees that as the best path to safety from gun violence.
He emphasized that his bill isn’t about making every teacher carry a gun.
“A lot of people come in and say, ‘I don’t feel comfortable around guns’ or ‘I’m around little kids or always giving hugs.’ And it’s not about giving every teacher a gun,” Berglee said. “It’s about saying every school in Montana, or most schools in Montana, have somebody who is comfortable with firearms, and I know several schools who have people who are extremely proficient with firearms.”
Berglee said that in his district, there’s a superintendent who is a gun owner who participates in competition shooting and is a former law enforcement officer.
“These are the people I have in mind when I’m looking at this legislation,” Berglee said. “It’s not that every teacher needs a gun. … If we trust cops in a school with a gun, then we should trust gun owners who are competent."
A little over 30 Helena students gather Wednesday evening for the first gathering of Helena Youth Against Gun Violence. The group shared opinions about gun violence, discussed their ideological platform and begun to plan a march in March.
Berglee said if things continue as they are going now, it's likely someone will bring a bill that has more regulations or limits access to guns, but he thought not many in the state would support those proposals.
“We’ve gone about it differently in Montana. If the current climate continues and someone is calling for it, I could see that,” Berglee said. “But I don’t see it going anywhere in Montana.”
Berglee said he would prioritize legislation first that would support "individual freedom."
“If we’re proposing a solution that is curtailing a freedom, it’s a legitimate problem,” Berglee said. “For me, when I start getting down to it, it’s looking at how effective things are. Is there a need for it? If we make a law, does it actually address the need?”
Berglee added he’s not heard from many of his constituents after the recent shootings and would have concerns about the type of legislation MacDonald is proposing, even in the wake of the Florida shooting.
“You have people who say if you’re a veteran, you’re unstable, or if I go to counseling and say, ‘Hey I’m dealing with some issues, I have PTSD or whatever,’ … if you have legislation that if you are attending counseling for mental health issues and you won’t be able to have a gun, you won’t get any support for that,” Berglee said. “People are really hesitant to embrace that type of legislation because of that.”
The House Judiciary Committee holds a hearing during the 2017 legislative session.
Campaigns
MacDonald said the time is right to try for something like bringing Montana into compliance with federal background check laws because the growing sense of outrage over the most recent school shooting has changed the mood. She expects the issues to meet legislative candidates on doorsteps around the state as they campaign in the primary election. All 100 seats in the state House and 25 in the Senate are up this year.
Hill Smith is equally excited about trying to capture the moment.
“If you want to change gun violence policy in the state of Montana, then you have to change the faces at the table,” she said. “You can change the faces at the table and you become the majority.”
Meanwhile, Berglee said he doesn't expect the issue of guns and gun legislation to come up a lot during campaigning. Instead he expects to hear about jobs, the economy and taxes.
“I feel like a lot of this is more emotion- or agenda-driven than it is reality,” he said. “Especially in Montana, we have way more kids in Montana that are killed through drunk driving or drug and alcohol abuse... You’re not going to have people who want to talk about it. You’re not going to have people not voting for candidates because they won’t ban AR-15s.”
Lammers said she's noticed that people are more comfortable about discussing the issue, even if they don't agree. And her group is also planning to work hard to elect candidates it has determined, through questionnaires, are willing to advocate for "common-sense gun legislation."
“People have shied away from speaking up about whether or not they’re gun-sense candidates, even if they are,” she said. “But I think now people want to know. I think that’s going to be really helpful to empower candidates.”
Post a comment as
Report
Watch this discussion.
(37) comments
“Consider the FBI’s analysis of active shooter scenarios from 2000 to 2013: “Law enforcement suffered casualties in 21 (46.7%) of the 45 incidents where they engaged the shooter to end the threat.” These are people trained to do this kind of thing full time, and nearly half were wounded or killed. Teachers with limited training would very likely fare much worse.” - By German Lopez | February 26, 2018 1:30 pm
Best news in this article is that this is Elie Hill Smith's last term. Maybe her friends over at Al Jazeera will give her a job?
People are typically outraged and interested and worried for about three to five days after a mass shooting or a school shooting, and then it really fizzes down," Lammers said. "But we're going on day 10 and people are just getting warmed up. This movement does feel different.cao hồng sâm hàn quốc
This shooting was a failure of GOVERNMENT.
LAW ENFORCEMENT, from the local sheriff, to the FBI, had 39 chances to prevent this shooting. They knew the kid was violent, the knew he was insane, he had a restraining order keeping him off campus, had assaulted students and teachers, had brought weapons to school, had TOLD people he was planning a shooting. LAW ENFORCEMENT failed to put any of that--much of which would have kept Cruz from owning firearms--into the system.
The school resource officer SAW Cruz enter the campus, with a duffel bag containing his gun, and did NOTHING to enforce the restraining order barring Cruz from campus.
Then, FOUR deputies hung around outside, and let the shooter keep killing, till he was good and ready to stop. This information became public, due to the outrage of members of another police department.
Gun control is not the issue here. Not enough laws is not the issue here. Complete and utter abject failure of law enforcement to enforce laws ALREADY IN PLACE is the issue here.
Notice how when this is brought up the socialists change the subject?
We've been told for decades by the NRA and the right wing that ALL WE NEED is more guns and THEN we'll be safer. The NRA used scaring the gullible that Obama was coming for their guns to grow by 150% in 8 years...so we should have been 150% safer by their stilted math...but of course we are not. The trends directly show that NOT to be true. And we have well over twice as many guns in the US than in the 60's before that.
Why doesn't anyone ever question why the gun right is always wrong on this issues, represent a much smaller minority that those that don't own guns - but are given carte blanch to conveniently interpret the constitution while continually lying to the public that more guns is the answer. The only group its the answer for is the NRA that sells more guns to get more contributions from manufacturers to buy more politicians to fight any sensible movement to have sensible gun control (and no, nobody is coming for your guns). You don't build a sprawling new 100 million dollar building and another facility for 30 million in new Mexico working to help Law Enforcement limit guns and death - you get it making sure guns get sold no matter what.
Even though a full 57 percent of us household own no guns, we have more than 1 gun per citizen in the country - that's twice as much as any other country per 100 people (yemen is next). We have 5% of population, but holds 31% of global mass shooters. We have nearly six times the gun homicide rate of Canada7 times more than Sweden, and nearly 16 times Germany.
And now they follow up that lie with the ideas that we're still not safe enough because we need even more guns in more hands everywhere, we need to loosen regulations not toughen them, and we need to arm teachers to stop the guys who the NRA have worked to arm..?!?! How does that ever make sense...? So it didn't work for the last 20 years, or the last 8 even more so, but it will now? Doesn't anybody on the right ever call BS on these lies?
It doesn't because studies have shown in countries that increase gun ownership leads to what everybody knows in their heart - more gun deaths. Harvard's 2013 study found that 1 percent increase in gun ownership correlated with a roughly 0.9 percent rise in the firearm homicide rate at the state level. So we increased gun ownership massively over the last 9 years -how's that working out? Exactly like you'd expect.
There was an armed policeman on the FLA school campus and he couldn't/didn't stop the shooter...but the english teacher who's deliberately underpaid will be able to do so?
Want a good example of a country that drastically lowered it's homicide rate like we'd like to? Australia...they instituted strict firearm restrictions on certain assault weapons, established a comprehensive registering and licensing system and even a gun buy back system. How loud would the NRA and the gun nuts scream that would NEVER work...?
Sure but it did of course... gun homicide rate dropped by about 42 percent in the seven years after the law passed, and its gun suicide rate fell by 57 percent. Researchers have found that buying back 3,500 guns per 100,000 people correlated with up to a 50 percent drop in firearm homicides and a 74 percent drop in gun suicides.
"Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please." Mark Twain
“Trump said that if Democrats win back control of Congress "they'll take away your 2nd Amendment."
In order to "take away your 2nd Amendment," two-thirds of the House and Senate would need to approve of a proposed Constitutional amendment to repeal the 2nd Amendment. If that happened, the proposed amendment would go to each of the 50 state legislatures, where it would face an up-or-down vote. Three-quarters of those states -- 38 -- would need to approve of the amendment repealing the 2nd Amendment. If they did, the 2nd Amendment would be gone.
Two-thirds of the House and Senate would never agree on this. And even if they did, there is a 0% chance that 38 state legislatures would OK such a plan. Republicans currently have majorities in both the state House and state Senate in 32 states. Thirty-two!”-
(CNN)
Does a Constitutional Convention, Conference of States ring any bells?
How will adding more guns to the equation reduce the potential for gun violence?
Why is it easier for a potential terrorist to own an assault rifle than it is for them to fly on a plane?
That doesn’t make sense.
It's not.
Sadly, half of those Florida students who were rushed to the hospital and died could've been saved had it not been for assault-weapon fire, which pretty much pulverized the vital organs beyond repair -- the doctors stated as such, who've treated bullet wounds many times. No one but law-enforcement has any business owning assault weapons.
And don't give me this nonsense about "home protection," because if you can't take down a home intruder with either a 6-shot revolver or 15-clip automatic handgun, that means you can't aim worth a darn, which means you have no business whatsoever possessing a firearm. I've had my .44 Magnum for over 20 years, and I'm rated Expert on the shooting range. I don't even keep a speedloader, because if I have a home intruder, 2 shots at the most is I'll have to use, as opposed to you Rambo wanna-bes, who couldn't hit the broad side of a barn with a lousy .38. You people are truly pathetic.
Boy that is a productive way to make your case John! I own several AR platform guns and none of them are for home defense, I use either a shotgun or my .45 ACP W/12 round magazine with 230 grain hollow points, I also have a .357 that is loaded with hollow points that is readily available for home defense sitting here on the end table by the couch.
Two of my AR rifles are .30 caliber models that gets used for deer hunting and both my wife and I have put meat in the freezer the last couple of year, other AR rifles I have are for coyotes, I have AR rifles for National Match and Long distance Match shooting, I have a couple that are used in 3 gun competitions.
There are lots of different uses for AR if someone takes the time to read up and find out all of the various things they are useful for
Unfortunately the Main Stream Media likes to say they are only good for killing people, but that is so far from the truth, that I have to say we are circling the Fake News when they do it.
I do a lot of reloading for my .223 guns and can tailor the load to the specific type of use that I will be doing, not all AR rounds are designed to cause traumatic injury, there are a wide range of powders as well as bullets designed for target shooting, hunting, shooting competitions, just about the same wide variety that I use for my other hunting and long range guns when I shoot match competition.
I also own Ruger 10/22 semi auto rifles that are used for a wide variety types of shooting and hunting, have also a couple of Ruger Mini 14's that shoot the .223 round, in addition to a couple of M-1 .30 caliber carbines. Just picked up a Remington 742 Woodmaster in 30-06 which will be a great little semi auto for brush hunting, which I do quite a bit of depending on the season, but heavy enough to easily take elk in the tree's
So there are a lot of different uses for the semi auto guns, besides what the press likes to harp on.
The primary difference between children and adults is that children react based 100% on emotion, adults (most anyway) use logical thought to assess issues. I am certainly saddened at what happened in Florida but if you think I'm going to listen to Constitution bashing and suggestions of taking away my firearms rights by teenagers you're nuts. This is the generation that caused Tide to have to put “DO NOT EAT” warnings on bags of laundry detergent pods. The bottom line is that the children at the high school were failed multiple times by law enforcement- when the shooter’s long history with law enforcement and mental health issues were not accessible during his purchase background check (something that does need to change NOW), when FBI bungled the phoned-in warnings they received, when the local sheriff's department met with him 39 times, when the local police received 18 calls from the public about his violent behavior and lastly when an armed, on site sheriff’s deputy stood outside for 4 minutes listening to the shooting and did nothing. If anything needs to be changed its law enforcement procedures, not the US Constitution. If any local, state or federal politician thinks jumping on this emotional bandwagon is a great idea, they will soon find that the adults voting in their next election will express their displeasure accordingly.
The primary difference between children and adults is that children react based 100% on emotion, adults (most anyway) use logical thought to assess issues. I am certainly saddened at what happened in Florida but if you think I'm going to listen to Constitution bashing and suggestions of taking away my firearms rights by teenagers you're nuts. This is the generation that caused Tide to have to put “DO NOT EAT” warnings on bags of laundry detergent pods. The bottom line is that the children at the high school were failed multiple times by law enforcement- when the shooter’s long history with law enforcement and mental health issues were not accessible during his purchase background check (something that does need to change NOW), when FBI bungled the phoned-in warnings they received, when the local sheriff's department met with him 39 times, when the local police received 18 calls from the public about his violent behavior and lastly when an armed, on site sheriff’s deputy stood outside for 4 minutes listening to the shooting and did nothing. If anything needs to be changed its law enforcement procedures, not the US Constitution. If any local, state or federal politician thinks jumping on this emotional bandwagon is a great idea, they will soon find that the adults voting in their next election will express their displeasure accordingly.
Shall NOT be infringed.
Debra, are you ignoring the "well-regulated militia?" Who is that militia and who regulates it?
2008 District of Columbia vs. Heller, a 5-4 majority ruled that the language and history of the second amendment showed that it protects a private right of individuals to have arms for their own defense. That means militia is out of the question for individuals.
Clay,
The Militia is the People.
The militia act of 1792 is one of the acts passed that set the militia up in the United States, it has been updated and expanded over the years.
Militia Act of 1792
Ben and Don, thanks for the information. Unless we harden the target we can just accept a certain amount of collateral damage.
The militia is the people. That has always been the case
Heather, how are they “we regulated?”
Clay in several rulings on the Militia act, the well regulated statement does not actually apply to the firearms in the amendment, well regulated Militia which is established as the people will be well regulated in so far as they are subject to the Presidential call by the President of the United States to defend the United States. The People's right to the weapons mentioned in the Militia Act and the 2nd shall not be infringed. In fact owning a firearm, based on the Militia Act is a requirement, as well as all the items to keep it functional for no less than 6 months for each call the President makes.
So the right of the People is the part of these discussions that have always been the hard part, in the DC v Heller, the court found that the People have the right to own firearms and that will not be infringed.
The little sticker in the 2nd is what was the language structure at the time the document was wrote and what does the comma between the well regulated and the people actually mean.
Well it would seem, that we have a well regulated Militia based upon the 1792 Act and we have the People which has the right to own firearms, of course the People are the important part of the Militia as the Militia is the People.
The court rarely takes a case about gun rights, but if you are to read the opinions of the various cases they have actually taken since the formation of this country, most of the time, you will come away like most, confused and still wanting more information.
The Court hates 2nd amendment cases because of that comma and the confusion it has created for the last 250+ years!
Anyway, this would seem to be the case, based on the last two major rulings on the 2nd by the Supreme Court.
If the Secret Service, a highly-trained cadre of individuals whose sole purpose is to prevent the injury or death of the president, failed to protect president Reagan and James Baker, how do you think a poorly-trained teacher with sidearm in a locked box, whose tertiary duty is fire back, will do against a gunman with multiple assault weapons and sidearms?
colt, I don't know. Maybe as good as two female store clerks.
https://www.themaven.net/bluelivesmatter/news/video-female-clerks-win-insane-gunfight-with-armed-robber-PnKPc2DR-Eu1uQZxYPAbow?full=1
Maybe it is time to replace some teachers with veterans.
John, isn’t it interesting that so few teachers are vets?
After terrorist attacks involving airplanes, the feds didn't simply arm the pilots and the flight attendants, they created the TSA and set up their heavy security at airports. Why aren't they doing that for the schools?
Clay I agree with you on this point, why are the schools not a hardened target? I mean during the hey day of the gang wars in LA all the schools were hardened and it did stop a lot of the school violence that was happening because of the gangs.
My biggest wonder is how in the heck does anybody walk past others going into a school with a rifle and it not raise an alarm?
Based on what keeps being released about this last one, an Uber driver dropped the kid off, he walked across a court yard in full view of the school resource officer and the school resource officer did nothing to stop him, even through the school had legal protection order against this individual and the officer knew it.
Those are some of the questions that really need to be answered because it seems this school had put some effort into making it more difficult for a shooter and that the officer for some reason failed to do what he was assigned to the school to do.
I have no problem with a teacher carrying a concealed firearm is they are trained, keep up to date on that training and have the proper level of skill in an active situation. That said, it should be a choice between the teacher and the school administration on and if that should become part of the job.
If the school admin and the teachers don't want that, then they need to look at ways to harden the schools more. As to the weapons, I went through mass shooting incidents since 1949 last night, because everybody keeps saying the AR is the preferred weapon, but it really is not the case if we look at the history of mass shootings, in 8 of the shooting events, the criminal carried only pistols, those mass shooting events claimed 144 lives by pistol only.
Most of the others were either shotgun/pistols or various weapons.
Average Americans defend themselves with firearms between 500,000 and 3 million times per year, according the report Obama had the CDC put together after Sandy Hook. Plainly, plenty of us are capable. Next specious question?
NEWS HEADLINES:
“The NRA spent $34.5 million in ads against Democrats”
“In one of his early acts as president, Trump signed a measure passed by the Republican-led Congress that repealed an Obama-era regulation designed to block some mentally ill people from buying guns.”
“White House refuses to release photo of Trump gun law repeal”
The Florida school shooter (executioner) was previously trained by the NRA; for accuracy, speed and familiarity that led to his AK “un-lead-ing.” 17 dead in 6 minutes.., exactly what this AK is designed to do. The "NRA trained" shot the "Coach" 7 times, 31 injured.
( snopes nra trained florida shooter )
[AK Rifles are not designed for the occasionally shooting of a ’Wascly Wabbitt’]
ian wrote, “The NRA spent $34.5 million in ads against Democrats”
Planned Parenthood spent more just so they could continue killing 652,639 (2014) children.
http://dailysignal.com/2016/11/03/planned-parenthood-arms-spend-over-38-million-to-elect-democrats/
ian wrote, “In one of his early acts as president, Trump signed a measure passed by the Republican-led Congress that repealed an Obama-era regulation designed to block some mentally ill people from buying guns.”
Such a poorly written law even the ACLU was against it. If you needed help with your finances they considered you mentally ill.
ian wrote, "“White House refuses to release photo of Trump gun law repeal”
Why should he? Just so you can use it against him. By the way Obama gave a secret speech. Why won't he release it?
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/02/so_what_was_obamas_secret_speech_for_the_sports_conference_all_about.html
ian wrote, "The Florida school shooter (executioner) was previously trained by the NRA; for accuracy, speed and familiarity that led to his AK “un-lead-ing.” "
Fake story and a lie. They used air rifles, commonly referred to as BB guns.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-florida-shooting-suspect-nra-grant-20180216-story.html
ian wrote, "[AK Rifles are not designed for the occasionally shooting of a ’Wascly Wabbitt’]"
AR-15, not AK. And where exactly in the Constitution is it written that we can only own guns for shooting rabbits? NOWHERE. Because that is not what the 2nd amendment if for you fool.
Ian,
Breaking News, the NRA is not even listed among the top 50 lobbying groups in the country, Drug companies spend the most amount of money most years and they contribute far more in dollars to elect or defeat candidates that hold their position or are against their positions.
NRA is but a blip on the screen when it comes to money contributed to campaigns.
As far as the E/O that Trump rolled back, virtually every single civil rights organization and attorney in the US had already stated that the Obama E/O was wrong and was discriminatory and was an illegal E/O and extremely overreaching in Presidential power. Several civil rights cases had been prepared and were in the process of being filed when Trump took office.
It is easy to take a headline and make a blanket statement about it, but it takes some research to actually dig into things to find out their meaning and implications.
[AKs, and bump-stocks, do and did exactly what they are manufactured and sold to do!]
NRA supports these to the end..,
Good thing for the NRA, and the NRA sponsored politicians, dead students don't
VOTE.., ooooh.., wait..,,,, concerned parents do..!!!!!!
ps.
[This is not about NRA constitution protections...
This is about NRA profits for their coffins.., er.., Coffers.]
By the way Ian, the rifle use in this last incident was not an AK, it was a modern AR-15 semi automatic sporting rifle, as far as the bump stock, there has only actually been the Las Vegas incident that it has been confirmed as being used, these stocks have been available for several years now and were reviewed and approved by the regulating agency, the BATF or better know as the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms agency, now the act of being able to bump fire a semi automatic rifles is as old as the semi automatic rifle (introduced in 1885) you do not need a bump fire stock to bump fire a semi automatic rifle, I can do it with no outside accessories.
These school shootings have been happening in schools where legal guns are "prohibited". meaning only the people who are NOT the problem obey these gun free zone rules. If you truly want "gun free zones" you have to institute the means to enforce them.
If schools are not "Gun free zones" then an adult with a concealed carry permit could bring a gun to school. This could, depending on the state, include 18-year old students. In Montana it's 18.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.