Passing thoughts on
‘assault weapons,’ AGs
Dear Editor:
I note that there is the usual push, in the usual places, add to that some places that might not be so usual, for a ban on “assault weapons,” items that are strangely or maybe not so strangely undefined. While one understands what an “assault rifle” is, essentially a selective fire capable arm, who knows what this “assault weapon” is, for those who go on and on over and or about them are unable or unwilling to properly define that which they speak of; the question of why looms large.
Otherwise, in the current Readers Forum, there is mention of the strange goings on in Massachusetts, where on individual rights strange goings on seem to be the norm, these sponsored by a lady named Healey, the state’s Attorney General. Regarding her proposals, I wonder as to how in blazes such people ever attain important elective office. Ditto for the equivalent in other jurisdictions; for instance Washington state, where their Attorney General seeks to ban “assault weapons” — so far as I know, undefined items. Might we here be seeing what has been described as the Californication of Washington?
By the way, as there seems to be, in some quarters, a degree of confusion, “assault weapons” being commingled with semi-automatic rifles, semi-automatic rifles have been continually produced for the civilian market, exception made for World Wars 1 and 2, since 1907 or 1908, more than 100 years ago.
Alan Schultz
Pittsburgh, PA
Testing Missoula’s illegal
firearms transfer ordnance
Dear Editor:
This is just a heads up on a battle I have just undertaken. On October 27th…the day after Missoula’s bogus firearms sales ordnance is supposed to go into effect, I plan to sell a .22 rifle right here in Missoula City Limits … and screw the ordnance.
It is unenforceable. It violates State Law … which reads as follows…
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 45-8-3.
What part of “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” don’t you understand?
I’m an old PR guy, with many contacts within the national media. I’ve actually appeared on the NBC Today Show twice. I will work to have some of that media on hand the day I sell that rifle…on my front lawn. The Missoula City Council is an embarrassment to the citizens of this city.
Toby Bridges,
Missoula, MT
Why don’t politicians
know existing laws?
Dear Editor:
RE: SAF, TGM Sr. Editor sue Seattle over gun tax records. TGM, Oct. 2
“In April, TGM filed a public records request, seeking information about the first-quarter revenue from the gun tax”. TGM, Oct. 2016..
But, the US Supreme Court ruled in 1943.
“It is contended, however, that the fact that the license tax can suppress or control this activity is unimportant if it does not do so. But that is to disregard the nature of this tax. It is a license tax-a flat tax imposed on the exercise of a privilege granted by the Bill of Rights.
A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution.” ——– MURDOCK VS Comm. of Penn, 319 US 105, at 113.
“A STATE MAY NOT…..”!
A right cannot be taxed, regardless of the “public safety” concerns of government, nor, in the definition of “charge”, can a right be people
Useless, ineffective and laws that perform no constitutional function, are unconstitutional. Unless “tax deductible/reimburse”, such costs would be called “unfunded mandates” and be so unconstitutional.
I can do this all day folks —- show court rulings that absolutely destroy so many laws that infringe the rights of lawful Americans under the guise of regulating or “securing” a right. Sad part is, why don’t our public servants know the law?
Don Schwarz
Stoughton, MA
The Clintons and
European history
Dear Editor:
In their insatiable greed, endemic corruption and insane thirst for power, the Clintons resemble no one so much as Nicolae and Elena Ceaucescu, the husband and wife dictators of communist Romania. Maybe we should start calling them the Clintonescus.
If Hillary wins in November, a lot of stupid, short-sighted and self-centered people will be getting exactly what they deserve,
What bothers me though is that I also will be getting what they deserve.
Capt. Roy West, USA (ret.)
Philadelphia, PA
