Missoula Passes Private Sale Background Checks

I am interested in this, my wife and I plan on moving to Montana in 2 or 3 years.

Never thought Montana would get on this bandwagon ,

This may get shut down by the state Attorney General:

http://missoulian.com/news/local/mo...cle_77372767-b7e6-5ee6-b33a-53c18cf76fbc.html

45-8-351. Restriction on local government regulation of firearms. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2), a county, city, town, consolidated local government, or other local government unit may not prohibit, register, tax, license, or regulate the purchase, sale or other transfer (including delay in purchase, sale, or other transfer), ownership, possession, transportation, use, or unconcealed carrying of any weapon, including a rifle, shotgun, handgun, or concealed handgun.
(2) (a) For public safety purposes, a city or town may regulate the discharge of rifles, shotguns, and handguns. A county, city, town, consolidated local government, or other local government unit has power to prevent and suppress the carrying of concealed or unconcealed weapons to a public assembly, publicly owned building, park under its jurisdiction, or school, and the possession of firearms by convicted felons, adjudicated mental incompetents, illegal aliens, and minors.
(b) Nothing contained in this section allows any government to prohibit the legitimate display of firearms at shows or other public occasions by collectors and others or to prohibit the legitimate transportation of firearms through any jurisdiction, whether in airports or otherwise.
(c) A local ordinance enacted pursuant to this section may not prohibit a legislative security officer who has been issued a concealed weapon permit from carrying a concealed weapon in the state capitol as provided in 45-8-317.


Seems pretty clear to me. This clown and his council lackies really stepped in it.

Cities in states w/ preemption like to ignore this fact. PA has a massive problem w/ it. It doesn't surprise me when a city passes laws like this. The "city" part is all you need to know as to why it happened.

This is silly, even if one thinks that UBCs are the greatest thing since sliced bread. Two city residents can drive to the first parking lot over the city line (which isn't far in Missoula) and legally sell whatever they want in accordance with Fed/MT law. It's just symbolic.

Similarly, a local city council is considering whether to declare the city a '2nd Amendment Sanctuary City', which is also a symbolic empty gesture.

I wish they would both focus their attention on their jobs, like fixing potholes or whatever. The job description isn't 'Grandstand as you see fit'.

This stuff has gotten slapped down decisively in Ohio. There are actual penalties too.

We have a similar issue with some of the state universities in Utah. We have full preemption, but the University of Utah, specifically, still says that they have the "right" to ban the carry of guns by students who possess a CFP. By Utah State Law, Utah residents with a utah resident CFP can carry, either concealed or openly, on state school property and state school buildings, whether they're K-12 or colleges/universities.

They've been slapped down a few times and they're to the point that if you open carry, they'll tell you that your "Concealed Firearms Permit" requires you to conceal and threaten arrest if you don't.

As bainter1212 pointed out, the AG has been asked to issue an opinion on the legality of the local law in light of the state's full preemption statute. Our AG here in Utah is really quick to point out the error of local laws, regulations, and policies. Most of those get changed post-haste. Most of them are simple oversights, like signs at parks that have "no firearms" clauses, but there's an occasional city or school that gets too big for their breeches and has to get smacked-down.

The one thing that we're missing (at least last time I checked) is actual personal penalties for the people (mayors, city/county council members, school boards, etc) involved with blatantly passing laws that violate the preemption law. ( "personal" isn't the word I'm looking for, but it escapes me at the moment.) The laws will be struck down, but I think financial pain or a couple of days in jail for those that keep passing them would go a long way toward compliance.

Matt

The one thing that we're missing (at least last time I checked) is actual personal penalties for the people (mayors, city/county council members, school boards, etc) involved with blatantly passing laws that violate the preemption law. ( "personal" isn't the word I'm looking for, but it escapes me at the moment.) The laws will be struck down, but I think financial pain or a couple of days in jail for those that keep passing them would go a long way toward compliance.

Matt

Click to expand...

As I mentioned before, Frank, in a stricken post, Montana needs what Florida has had since 2010 . Heavy fines for cities and politicians for every breach of state pre emption.

Exactly what Matt is suggesting. Montanan's should start lobbying to have these penalties enacted.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...tute&URL=0700-0799/0790/Sections/0790.33.html

(c) If the court determines that a violation was knowing and willful, the court shall assess a civil fine of up to $5,000 against the elected or appointed local government official or officials or administrative agency head under whose jurisdiction the violation occurred.

Click to expand...

Well, you could piss and moan about it or you could push a recall on the council. I was in Colorado when Evie Hudak, Angela Giron and John Morse were replaced with pro-gun repubs.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/11/27/antigun-colorado-lawmaker-evie-hudak-resigns-to-avoid-being-recalled-n1754179

Orcon said:

Well, you could piss and moan about it or you could push a recall on the council. I was in Colorado when Evie Hudak, Angela Giron and John Morse were replaced with pro-gun repubs.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/11/27/antigun-colorado-lawmaker-evie-hudak-resigns-to-avoid-being-recalled-n1754179

Click to expand...

.... and then 13 months later those replacement candidates were replaced with Democrats very similar to the people that were recalled. The recall worked because it was a special election, with different rules, and a very low turnout. The next regular election things went back to normal.

As to the Missoula - All levels of government chaff at the reality that they can be overruled by the next higher level of government. The ordinance in Missoula will be overturned but that won't keep cities, counties and states from passing feel good laws that will be overturned when challenged in court.

I can't disagree. Somebody mentioned a statute that tied these shenanigans to pocket books. That sounds like a great idea. I volunteer to be a petitioner so we can get that on the ballot.

Florida's 790.33 has been on the books since 1987 and it hasn't kept cities, towns, and counties from passing gun laws. Search Florida 790.33 and you will find lots of examples of local laws getting struck down and nothing happening to the people that passed the law. It is all well and good to say you will fine the politician but the vast majority if not all governments have laws requiring the government body to pay legal fees for employees who are acting in their job as a government employee.

It is no different than when I lived in Alabama and the state government would pass law after law that everyone knew would be struck down by the Federal courts. Heck we passed lots of laws after they had already been struck down in another state and then spent millions in legal fees to fight the same losing battle to get the same result. Fighting the good fight against the level of government above yours is good politics in many areas even it nothing ever comes of it.

I realize that Missoula is a "big city" by Montana standards, but it's still small enough that the city council doesn't have the infrastructure to handle, oh I don't know, a deluge of emails and telephone calls expressing extreme disapproval of what they've done.

Get the names of the people who voted for the law and call and email.

Tie them up with this issue, they'll "unpass it" and they'll avoid it in the future.

Legitimate question, I think. I realize that oaths of office vary, but do these council members take an oath to defend the U.S. and or State constitutions?

Terry

230RN said:

Legitimate question, I think. I realize that oaths of office vary, but do these council members take an oath to defend the U.S. and or State constitutions?

Terry

Click to expand...

I would say it is almost universally true that politicians do take an oath to uphold the constitution and that both sides of every issue believe they are doing so. The constitution means different things to different people and that is why the founders set up the federal courts as the final decider of what the constitution and other laws mean.

JSH1, the bolded section c in post #12 regarding $5000 fines per offense in Statute 790.33, was not added until 2010.

It has done a remarkable job in virtually eliminating attempts at getting around Florida's preemption law.

I should know. I live here.Almost all the attempts of subverting you speak of occurred between 1987 and 2010. Virtually none have been attempted since.

JSH1 said:

Florida's 790.33 has been on the books since 1987 and it hasn't kept cities, towns, and counties from passing gun laws. Search Florida 790.33 and you will find lots of examples of local laws getting struck down and nothing happening to the people that passed the law. It is all well and good to say you will fine the politician but the vast majority if not all governments have laws requiring the government body to pay legal fees for employees who are acting in their job as a government employee.

Click to expand...

Not the case anymore. Serious penalty provisions were enacted in 2011. Among them:

(c) If the court determines that a violation was knowing and willful, the court shall assess a civil fine of up to $5,000 against the elected or appointed local government official or officials or administrative agency head under whose jurisdiction the violation occurred.
(d) Except as required by applicable law, public funds may not be used to defend or reimburse the unlawful conduct of any person found to have knowingly and willfully violated this section.

You can see the full preemption statute here:

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...tute&URL=0700-0799/0790/Sections/0790.33.html

On the 'personal liability' note; who all exactly was responsible for passing this? Names/positions of the various council members who voted for it, an especially those who initially proposed it would be good to know. If nothing else, than to give a place to start following breadcrumbs to those pulling the strings.

Preemption with teeth is how you keep your state from being swallowed piecemeal by the cities, slowly acclimating to an environment of widespread gun control. By fixing it at the state level, the whole enchilada has to swing to get these measures in place, which is a much harder sell when there aren't large enclaves already following them.

TCB

Yes, sig228, we went all over that in posts #12 and #20 above. It obviously was not read.

No harm in repeating the good news again though.

One area not yet addressed is how are residents supposed to run background checks? They don't have access to the NICS system. Did the city council even know this, and did anyone point it out to them during the hearings on this bill?