# Montana gun legislation enacted **URL:** \ **Category:** NYSpeed Off Topic\ **Created:** [May 7, 2009, 5:05pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/montana-gun-legislation-enacted/67456 "2009-05-07T17:05:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![n20junkie](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/n20junkie/32/7396_2.png) [@n20junkie](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/n20junkie)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2009, 1:54pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/montana-gun-legislation-enacted/67456/121 "2009-05-10T13:54:41Z")
Yea, because that act of killing someone was legal. Nothing about killing that person was legal, yet still, you think more laws would have stopped it. Does it hurt to be so ignorant? ---
**Author:** ![SideWinderGX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/fbc32d/32.png) [@SideWinderGX](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/SideWinderGX)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2009, 2:12pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/montana-gun-legislation-enacted/67456/122 "2009-05-10T14:12:15Z")
> [@n20junkie](#): > > Your wrong, if your refering to NYS and the former federal AWB. > > By former U.S. law, the legal term assault weapon included certain specific semi-automatic firearm models by name (e.g., Colt AR-15, TEC-9, all non-automatic AK-47s, and Uzis) and other semi-automatic firearms because they possess a minimum set of features from the following list of features: > > Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following: > Folding or telescoping stock > Pistol grip > Bayonet mount > Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one > Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades) > > Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following: > Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip > Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor > Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold > Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more > A semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm > > Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following: > Folding or telescoping stock > Pistol grip > Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds > Detachable magazine > > Now if your speaking of commonly held views, well thats up in the air. There is no official “assault weapon” its just a great term that has been tossed around for so long, that we forget what bullshit it really is. > > Just like there is no such thing as a “sniper rifle” because pretty much any rifle can kill, and all high powered rifles can reach out and touch someone. So any target, hunting, or varmint rifle could be used as a “sniper rifle”. A rifle would only be a “sniper rifle” if used in that fashion as a sniper would, or by someone acually performing the job of a sniper. > > By the medias definion of a “sniper rifle” the zero power eo-tech sight on a bushmaster ar-15 is a sniper rifle, most of the world would disagree. > > Most people don’t know that the US Army uses a Remington 700 as its “sniper rifle”. So do most LE Agencies. That rifle is hands down the most popular hunting rifle ever made. Its bolt action and very accurate. Its been used to kill more people from long distances than the Barrett .50 (which isn’t even a good .50 cal) but still you have no talent ass clowns crying about the Barrett, but say nothing about the Remington. > > Lack of education makes these arguements frustrating, because most of the people that think they know so much, in reality only know the bullshit that they have been reading since they were kids, and the Clinton administration was pushing so hard for the AWB. You re-worded what I posted…I was defining an assault weapon, not what the AWB bans. I didn’t care to put in the part where a semi-auto weapon can technically be an assault weapon if you add a folding stock/suppressor/pistol grip/etc. because that is a _technicality_. NYS has very finicky laws about modifying weapons, and I didn’t want to write an essay about it all. You may continue to argue with yourself, as you misinterpreted what I said, but good info to read nonetheless. ---
**Author:** ![ILC](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/ilc/32/5337_2.png) [@ILC](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/ILC)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2009, 2:12pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/montana-gun-legislation-enacted/67456/123 "2009-05-10T14:12:37Z")
> [@n20junkie](#): > > Your one bitchy mother fucker Z28. The problem with america, is everyone is too worried what everyone else is doing. Everyone cares what I do in my free time. Guns don’t pick themselves up and shoot people. Lets deal with the fucking dumb mother fuckers that shoot people, and not blame the inanimate object. I don’t have a problem with you owning any weapon you can get your hands on. Hell have an RPG for fun outside, because you are educated on the subject. But you need to stop being so fucking selfish with your own agendas and think about what is better for the common good. > [@n20junkie](#): > > If you want to look at case studies, why don’t you pick a little more modern version. How about post gun ban Britain and Australia. These are NRA influenced propaganda. [Australian Gun Stats | Snopes.com](http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp) Debunked > [@n20junkie](#): > > We have already made it Illegal to kill another person, to sell drugs, to use deadly weapons to harm someone, to stalk someone… yet all of these crimes still happen. So WTF will more laws do? really. All you do is continue to punish only those that follow the law, and allow the criminals to continue to do what they do, break the law. Only now I am left with a knife, while he has a gun. Your never going to get rid of all of the guns, because you fucking can’t. No more than we can rid the world of drugs, gang bangers, and whiny mother fuckers that are scared of a gun. I work at a night club downtown, and just like everyone else I have to walk back to my car and leave the safety of the nightclub and wander the streets to my car. On the way, I see two guys walk up to two ladies asking if they need someone to walk them to their car. Sure sounds like a nice gesture, but I can tell you its false I sped up and got closer to the ladies and the guys without word walked away. It was an obvious attempt to either take money on them and probably worse. If I was their or if they took a wrong turn and ended up in a lessly lit area, what do you think would have happened to them? They probably would have been scarred for life. Lets break this situation down. Could either of these ladies potentially have a gun on them? Absolutely not, they were in a nightclub or many, and no nightclub allows weapons of any kind. On top of that they were drinking. Still on this walk, I saw another guy waiting around a corner of a wall with a gun in hand looking to ambush someone else. Again 99% of the people walking back to their cars would be unarmed no matter if they had a gun or not. and before you say anything about GUNS being allowed in nightclubs NO FUCKING WAY WILL THAT EVER HAPPEN Alcohol and deadly weapons DO NOT mix Now the question of what these criminals (I feel they already commited the crime with their obvious intent) had on them in terms of weapons. The two gentlemen walking up to the two ladies… maybe nothing, maybe a knife, maybe a gun, unknown. The clothes they were wearing they could have had rifles in there, and I could have put myself in real jeopardy walking up closer to the ladies. The guy behind the wall… Clearly had a handgun in his hand. I’m just thankful I switched the side of the road becuase there were more people on that side. > [@n20junkie](#): > > BTW, your obama quote is fucking retarded, because you have no clue what liberty is. You prove this time and time again when you want to legislate the actions and abilities of others to enjoy their liberty. The quote isn’t dumb, people just get charged up when they see hitler tied to anything. The biggest problem with the US in particular is that people DO NOT think at all, I do not want these people freely going into the gun store buying a handgun and not being properly educated how to use it. People need to be governed, for a reason, and its to protect themselves. sadly people like yourself get stripped of some rights despite being extremely responsible. This is a democracy right? Majority rules and the majority of the people should not possess a firearm as their intentions are poor, and they just are not responsible enough to possess something specifically designed to kill. ---
**Author:** ![Treads4Heads](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/treads4heads/32/7416_2.png) [@Treads4Heads](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/Treads4Heads)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2009, 2:14pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/montana-gun-legislation-enacted/67456/124 "2009-05-10T14:14:03Z")
IMO you can only control guns and gun violence in one of two ways. A) Britian- SUPER strict laws, you have a gun? 20 years in prison no questions asked. None of these pussy laws trying to be nice, if you want to get gun, be prepared to to face punishment B)Montana- NO gun laws- Follow the quote “God made men, John Colt made men equal” Everyone (minus the obvious of ex-cons, mentally unstable, etc) has a chance to own a firearm and if anyone wishes to use their weapon in a forceful manner must consider the other guy, or even an entire group, also has a weapon. Any inbetween ground will just result in people finding loopholes and having people take advantage of others in some way. As per our 2nd amendment, I say we stick with the second option ---
**Author:** ![ILC](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/ilc/32/5337_2.png) [@ILC](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/ILC)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2009, 2:19pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/montana-gun-legislation-enacted/67456/125 "2009-05-10T14:19:11Z")
> [@n20junkie](#): > > Yea, because that act of killing someone was legal. Nothing about killing that person was legal, yet still, you think more laws would have stopped it. Does it hurt to be so ignorant? If this was in reference to me. you are out of your fucking mind. Killing someone is clearly illegal and Im sure you agree with me killing someone else should not be legal. The problem is how, whomever shot this man, got the gun in the first place. and with places like Montana handing out guns like its candy its pretty obvious would it could have come from. I say fuck Montana Let them break away. The instance last night would have never happened (the shooting) If 1) Ballistics from the gun were fingerprinted and tied to a name (the original gun owner) 2)The gun was registered to the original gun owner 3) every gun should be tied to the original gun owner. Why tied to the original gun owner. Becuase I’m sure when there is a civil penalty tied to it that original gun owner would have done a better job securing his weapon when not in use, and that original gun owner would STILL have that weapon in hand, and not in the hand of some dickhead shooting someone in the middle of the street. ---
**Author:** ![Treads4Heads](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/treads4heads/32/7416_2.png) [@Treads4Heads](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/Treads4Heads)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2009, 2:30pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/montana-gun-legislation-enacted/67456/126 "2009-05-10T14:30:31Z")
> [@ILC](#): > > If this was in reference to me. you are out of your fucking mind. Killing someone is clearly illegal and Im sure you agree with me killing someone else should not be legal. > > The problem is how, whomever shot this man, got the gun in the first place. and with places like Montana handing out guns like its candy its pretty obvious would it could have come from. > > I say fuck Montana Let them break away. > > The instance last night would have never happened (the shooting) If 1) Ballistics from the gun were fingerprinted and tied to a name (the original gun owner) 2)The gun was registered to the original gun owner 3) every gun should be tied to the original gun owner. > > Why tied to the original gun owner. Becuase I’m sure when there is a civil penalty tied to it that original gun owner would have done a better job securing his weapon when not in use, and that original gun owner would STILL have that weapon in hand, and not in the hand of some dickhead shooting someone in the middle of the street. Well said, the people should be armed, but be ready to take responsibility for their weapons and ammunition purchases by having it linked directly to them. ---
**Author:** ![StrokedZ28](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/strokedz28/32/7592_2.png) [@StrokedZ28](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/StrokedZ28)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2009, 3:02pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/montana-gun-legislation-enacted/67456/127 "2009-05-10T15:02:47Z")
> [@Treads4Heads](#): > > Well said, the people should be armed, but be ready to take responsibility for their weapons and ammunition purchases by having it linked directly to them. If people were armed only to defend themselves this might be possible. But in reality how many more arguments would end in a gunshot? How many more people would think they are badass because they are packing heat? If everyone was responsible with their guns their wouldn’t be a problem. But think of how many people you have met in your entire life that if you thought about it, shouldn’t have a gun. I bet there would be a lot. ---
**Author:** ![Treads4Heads](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/treads4heads/32/7416_2.png) [@Treads4Heads](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/Treads4Heads)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2009, 3:05pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/montana-gun-legislation-enacted/67456/128 "2009-05-10T15:05:37Z")
I agree with you, but theres no happy medium that I can think of. Those assholes that shouldn’t have a gun will find a way to get them and I will not be able to defend myself. Like ILC said, in most situations, you wouldn’t have your weapon on you anyway, but just knowing that anyone in the area can be just as armed as you (I would think) could stop alot of crime. ---
**Author:** ![traumadog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8baadc/32.png) [@traumadog](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/traumadog)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2009, 3:12pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/montana-gun-legislation-enacted/67456/129 "2009-05-10T15:12:55Z")
> [@StrokedZ28](#): > > If people were armed only to defend themselves this might be possible. > > But in reality how many more arguments would end in a gunshot? How many more people would think they are badass because they are packing heat? > > If everyone was responsible with their guns their wouldn’t be a problem. But think of how many people you have met in your entire life that if you thought about it, shouldn’t have a gun. I bet there would be a lot. Hmm… we should arm more children, as they should have the ability to defend themselves against their parents. > Police: Man Killed 5 Kids When Wife Said She Was Leaving 4/5/09: [Fox News - Breaking News Updates | Latest News Headlines | Photos & News Videos](http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,512581,00.html) > NY Family’s murder-suicide deaths baffle friends 4/20/09: [http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2009/04/21/family\_of\_4\_from\_ny\_dead\_in\_md\_murder\_suicide/](http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2009/04/21/family_of_4_from_ny_dead_in_md_murder_suicide/) > Dad says son appeared normal before Polk murder-suicide 5/3/09: [http://www2.tbo.com/content/2009/may/03/041413/police-investigate-3-deaths-lakeland/news-breaking/](http://www2.tbo.com/content/2009/may/03/041413/police-investigate-3-deaths-lakeland/news-breaking/) But then again, perhaps we should hold those murderers accountable. Oh, that’s right… they’re already dead. To some, this is an acceptable trade for the right to bear arms. Oh, and don’t quote those studies that show increases in violent crimes in other countries when weapons are banned. Those countries still have crime rates on the order of magnitude less than the US - and +/- 10 murders in those countries are statistically significant - while that change in the US barely makes a news day. ---
**Author:** ![TORQDSS](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/torqdss/32/5125_2.png) [@TORQDSS](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/TORQDSS)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2009, 3:38pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/montana-gun-legislation-enacted/67456/130 "2009-05-10T15:38:25Z")
it’s in the constitution, i can own a gun, end of story. ---
**Author:** ![ILC](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/ilc/32/5337_2.png) [@ILC](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/ILC)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2009, 3:47pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/montana-gun-legislation-enacted/67456/131 "2009-05-10T15:47:17Z")
> [@TORQDSS](#): > > it’s in the constitution, i can own a gun, end of story. You are correct. You can own a gun now register it and be responsible with it. The constituition does not say anything about a process of obtaining a gun. ---
**Author:** ![n20junkie](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/n20junkie/32/7396_2.png) [@n20junkie](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/n20junkie)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2009, 3:55pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/montana-gun-legislation-enacted/67456/132 "2009-05-10T15:55:33Z")
> [@ILC](#): > > I don’t have a problem with you owning any weapon you can get your hands on. Hell have an RPG for fun outside, because you are educated on the subject. But you need to stop being so fucking selfish with your own agendas and think about what is better for the common good. > > These are NRA influenced propaganda. [Australian Gun Stats | Snopes.com](http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp) > > Debunked > > I work at a night club downtown, and just like everyone else I have to walk back to my car and leave the safety of the nightclub and wander the streets to my car. On the way, I see two guys walk up to two ladies asking if they need someone to walk them to their car. Sure sounds like a nice gesture, but I can tell you its false I sped up and got closer to the ladies and the guys without word walked away. It was an obvious attempt to either take money on them and probably worse. If I was their or if they took a wrong turn and ended up in a lessly lit area, what do you think would have happened to them? They probably would have been scarred for life. > > Lets break this situation down. Could either of these ladies potentially have a gun on them? Absolutely not, they were in a nightclub or many, and no nightclub allows weapons of any kind. On top of that they were drinking. > > Still on this walk, I saw another guy waiting around a corner of a wall with a gun in hand looking to ambush someone else. Again 99% of the people walking back to their cars would be unarmed no matter if they had a gun or not. and before you say anything about GUNS being allowed in nightclubs NO FUCKING WAY WILL THAT EVER HAPPEN Alcohol and deadly weapons DO NOT mix > > Now the question of what these criminals (I feel they already commited the crime with their obvious intent) had on them in terms of weapons. The two gentlemen walking up to the two ladies… maybe nothing, maybe a knife, maybe a gun, unknown. The clothes they were wearing they could have had rifles in there, and I could have put myself in real jeopardy walking up closer to the ladies. > > The guy behind the wall… Clearly had a handgun in his hand. I’m just thankful I switched the side of the road becuase there were more people on that side. > > The quote isn’t dumb, people just get charged up when they see hitler tied to anything. The biggest problem with the US in particular is that people DO NOT think at all, I do not want these people freely going into the gun store buying a handgun and not being properly educated how to use it. > > People need to be governed, for a reason, and its to protect themselves. sadly people like yourself get stripped of some rights despite being extremely responsible. > > This is a democracy right? Majority rules and the majority of the people should not possess a firearm as their intentions are poor, and they just are not responsible enough to possess something specifically designed to kill. Common good? get a fuckin clue. You raised your hand to support and defent the constitution of the United States. But your going to sit here and tell me that we can ignore that because of the “common good”. If the issues in Great Britain and Australia are debunked, show us the “real” numbers. Your little story there was cute, but its the typical liberal mentality. You think that a crowd of people will somehow protect you or the others around you. I have had MANY good friends that are not gun people call me and ask where they can get a gun because something in their life came about, and they feared for their life. Who will protect these people? 911 is great, they will totally fill out the paperwork after the event. Your not getting rid of any guns in this country. WE WILL NOT ALLOW IT. So you can complain about Montana “handing out” guns, but in reality its the voting public, you know those people that all local, state and federal powers are derived from, buying those guns. They see it as they want them, so who the fuck are you to say that they can’t buy them. I’m sorry that your afraid of guns, especially when on the weekends, your supposed to be profecient with one. But thats your personal issue. Maybe its your irrational fear and agenda thats the issue. It seems like there are plenty of gun owners that are plenty law abiding. Its great that we have all of these wonderful facts about gun deaths. But one time we had the same facts, but it was for beer, wine and other forms of alchohol. Which to this day, kill more people due to drunk driving accidents, than guns do in the entire world over. But still we can drink, and drive. Course thats illegal, but you can’t stop them, anymore than you can stop humans from killing other humans. But I’m just a dumb knuckle dragging redneck. WTF do I know right. I mean come on, you work down town, and at a club, you see it all. ---
**Author:** ![n20junkie](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/n20junkie/32/7396_2.png) [@n20junkie](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/n20junkie)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2009, 3:58pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/montana-gun-legislation-enacted/67456/133 "2009-05-10T15:58:33Z")
> [@ILC](#): > > You are correct. You can own a gun now register it and be responsible with it. The constituition does not say anything about a process of obtaining a gun. You might want to google “infringed” because the constitution says that my right to bears arms should not be. ---
**Author:** ![Afrank45](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/afrank45/32/5021_2.png) [@Afrank45](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/Afrank45)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2009, 4:01pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/montana-gun-legislation-enacted/67456/134 "2009-05-10T16:01:08Z")
:picard: ---
**Author:** ![SideWinderGX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/fbc32d/32.png) [@SideWinderGX](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/SideWinderGX)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2009, 4:15pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/montana-gun-legislation-enacted/67456/135 "2009-05-10T16:15:44Z")
> [@Afrank45](#): > > hey asshole you do realize ilc is a fucking vet right. I think he may know a thing about guns and defending ones liberties I know a few vets that are anti-war, anti-gun, anti-military. What you’re saying is exactly the same as those ‘have you ever drove (insert car)? then shut up’ arguments. Like if you drive a car for 30 seconds you suddenly know every inherent detail of the car like you designed it :roflpicard: ---
**Author:** ![ILC](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/ilc/32/5337_2.png) [@ILC](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/ILC)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2009, 4:18pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/montana-gun-legislation-enacted/67456/136 "2009-05-10T16:18:11Z")
> [@Afrank45](#): > > hey asshole you do realize ilc is a fucking vet right. I think he may know a thing about guns and defending ones liberties N20junkie is military too… I don’t have time to respond. As I am on my phone cannot copy and paste and really can’t type quickly. My stories aren’t trying to be cute. As I saw these events happen last night. Aside from the shooting I saw the aftermath though. ---
**Author:** ![Treads4Heads](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/treads4heads/32/7416_2.png) [@Treads4Heads](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/Treads4Heads)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2009, 4:40pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/montana-gun-legislation-enacted/67456/137 "2009-05-10T16:40:46Z")
> [@n20junkie](#): > > You raised your hand to support and defent the constitution of the United States. But your going to sit here and tell me that we can ignore that because of the “common good”. Im pretty sure he knows… ---
**Author:** ![Afrank45](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/afrank45/32/5021_2.png) [@Afrank45](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/Afrank45)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2009, 4:58pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/montana-gun-legislation-enacted/67456/138 "2009-05-10T16:58:32Z")
> [@Treads4Heads](#): > > Im pretty sure he knows… Yea i should apologize now. my bad. i dont change my opinion that ilc is justified in his position since he did choose to defend our liberties, but i revoke my hey asshole comment. that being said n20 you are also entitled to your opinion for the same reasons. ---
**Author:** ![StrokedZ28](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/strokedz28/32/7592_2.png) [@StrokedZ28](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/StrokedZ28)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2009, 5:02pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/montana-gun-legislation-enacted/67456/139 "2009-05-10T17:02:41Z")
> [@n20junkie](#): > > You might want to google “infringed” because the constitution says that my right to bears arms should not be. Although I would never make this argument. I could argue that the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with contemporary firearms whatsoever and therefor our rights to own them are not protected. I don’t believe that but that doesn’t mean that the 2nd amendment shouldn’t be clarified and updated for todays firearms. The Constitution is designed to grow and adapt over time to meet certain changes in society…I think the evolution of firearms from muskets to full auto to everything in between warrants an update. ---
**Author:** ![n20junkie](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/n20junkie/32/7396_2.png) [@n20junkie](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/n20junkie)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2009, 5:07pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/montana-gun-legislation-enacted/67456/140 "2009-05-10T17:07:47Z")
You could argue the “living document” line. But we both know that it only applies to the second ammendment. For some reason ever other ammendment escapes that arguement. [Previous page](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/montana-gun-legislation-enacted/67456.md?page=6) [Next page](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/montana-gun-legislation-enacted/67456.md?page=8)