I started following this guy on IG, Hoplite Armor.  He's running for Governor.  Libertarian, wants to abolish the NFA, etc.  Have you guys been paying attention to him at all?

@the444shooter

Start manuvering, your about to receive incoming fire.  Lot of guys on this board have a militant raw hatred for librarians.  They consider them nothing more then vote splitters and spoilers, traitors to the holy order of the GOP.

Hahahaha, I'm "sheltered in place," hunkered down in my basement.  

If the yellow porcupines have a reasonable candidate, I'd be interested in at least seeing him/her debate.

Most of the ones I have seen from that party have been clowns, kooks, or complete mockery of politics. Johnson seemed like a decent candidate for a while. Then, when it seemed like the party was actually gaining a foothold, he dove off the deep end. Now, people are having trouble seeing sanity from that party, again.

Being the primary one that's highlighted that the Libertarian vote your comments are about 95% incorrect.

I, and others, have never expressed "a militant raw hatred for librarians." I think we all have used library's when growing up for reading books, school work, etc. and have appreciated the help of the librarians at those places.

Since you're relatively new here the "Libertarian" vote has allowed elections to go to politicians like Sen. Tester, who used operatives to promote Libertarian candidates in order to split the vote, which has been done successfully twice.

Also, I've never heard anyone here say librarians or Libertarian's are "traitors to the holy order of the GOP". Democrat candidates like Cathleen Williams, and now Gov. Bullock have openly supported anti-2A policies.  No GOP candidate has done so.  

While Libertarian's seem to support universal gun-rights that group has many positions I totally disagree with, like universal illegal drug legalization and open use.  I think the Oxycontin disaster and current levels of drug addiction is a good example of why that position is a bad one.

I'm an independent conservative so I'm going to vote for a GOP candidate (I may have to hold my nose) vs. a Libertarian when my vote may help prevent a anti-2A Democrat that supports Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer from getting elected (interesting that MT started getting its first COVID-19 cases after he came to convince Bullock to run ).

You're entitled to your opinion & who you want to vote for but calling a lot of guys on this board "haters" is disingenuous.

My .02

BTW - A state governor has no say in abolishing the NFA so Mr. Bishop is just pandering. But will a US Senator and/or House Representative in the back pocket of Peloso and Schumer support that?

My understanding is that he'd abolish on a state level, which I can never keep straight on which supercedes the other in which instances.  Of course it's partial pandering...which candidate doesn't pander?  I see all your points and they are very valid, just like people voting for Bernie in the primaries because they figure he'll never actually win.  I always hope for a good R candidate, and usually vote as such.  I just thought he was in interesting character, and like what he's said so far, pandering and all.

He can't do it. Federal law supercedes.

As much as we would like the NFA to go away there's no restrictions on owning a NFA item.  

If you have the $$ you can go Class 3 which MT allows, as well as the other NFA categories like SBRs, AOW, suppressors.

To abolish the NFA it would have to go through the house, then the senate and then be signed by the president.

Or the Supreme court would have to rule it unconstitutional.

Neither one is going to happen as it has been tried and failed a few times in the past.

I'd settle for a repeal of the Hughes Amendment, to get things started...j/s

At the State level, we could start with "constitutional carry" not getting vetoed at the Governor's desk, for a change.

As for the State vs Fed argument, we all saw what happened with the MT Firearms Freedom Act. As long as the gun industry is dependent on the Federal government's "permission" to operate, it doesn't matter what changes we make to State law. The Fed can just laugh away any and all attempts at individual liberty. Wrong as it may be, this change has to take place at the Federal level.

In a simplistic view, I have actually heard some people say "it's working for marijuana, so let's do it with guns." The biggest difference is that marijuana is completely prohibited by the Fed. First, this means that there isn't an established industry for marijuana that is subject to Federal licensing and regulation. The firearms industry and trade members aren't ready to risk their livelihoods to push for the change. Second, this also means that there isn't already a long established anti-marijuana lobby trying to restrict it even more, like we have campaigning against guns.

Considering this thread about Hoplite (Hoplite) & some bizarre stuff on their Facebook site Mr. Bishop needs to get his own house in order vs trying to become the Gov.