House Bill 450, a law currently being debated in the Montana Legislature, would allow hunters the use of suppressors (i.e. silencers) on their rifles while hunting mountain lions and wolves. The rationale for this proposal is so that the sound of the guns won’t hurt the hunters’ little ears!
Gimme a break! If hunters are really that concerned about the sound of their guns hurting their ears, then use ear protectors just as they do when they are on the gun range. If they find that unacceptable, then I would suggest something else - stay home!
One can’t help but notice that this proposal makes no reference to using silencers for hunting other big game. Make no mistake about it, the real reason for this cockeyed proposal is to allow hunters of wolves and mountain lions a second shot in the event that they missed with the first one. Do the proponents of this proposal really think that Montanans are that naive?
I am continually amazed at the stupid, half-baked ideas that some of our state legislators put forward for debate during the state legislative sessions … and all at the expense of Montana taxpayers!
Last Updated on Thursday, 05 March 2015 13:14
A big shout out to the Brewer Dental Clinic for their annual Dentistry from the Heart campaign. I understand 340 patients were served in a single day. Bringing pain relief and dental corrections to some of our most hard to serve residents speaks volumes about the love and compassion the Brewer family of providers have for their patients and this community. Thank you for making this a better place to live.
James E. Reno
Last Updated on Thursday, 05 March 2015 13:13
Please thank Brad Molnar for his insightful article “Double standard exists for Clinton, Williams” (Outpost, Feb. 12). Another Hillary fable would interest me, when she turned $100 into $10,000 in cattle futures or some such. This surfaced around 1991 or 1993 when old 42 was running. I’m surprised your article didn’t get edited by the editor.
This letter is late considering I didn’t get the Feb. 12 issue in my mailbox until Feb. 18.
Last Updated on Thursday, 26 February 2015 16:42
Gaming the system is the focus of the party insiders, not popular policy. My Party is suing in federal court to overturn a statue passed by the Legislature providing for an “open” primary.
I am opposed to a closed primary and the Montana Republican Party joining this federal lawsuit asking the court to order Montana to close the Republican primary, i.e., only Republicans can vote in the party primary.
A closed primary bill has failed many times in the Legislature. The plaintiffs want a federal judge, appointed for life, to override the elected Legislature – not very Republican.
These party insiders are confirming that they do not want a party about the people. They want a party about the party. That is a recipe for failure. Polls show Montana is about 37 percent Republican; the Legislature is 58.6 percent. Why not stick with a winner?
These insiders are the ones who brought us the ill-conceived “Republican Presidential Caucus” in 2008. The winner of the caucus was to receive our delegates to the National Convention, regardless of the winner of the primary. This alienated voters and was rescinded.
Closing primaries will not prove wise now. It tells the voters of Montana that we care more for our party than the people, and trust a federal court more than our Legislature.
The court recently denied a partial summary judgment motion by the plaintiffs and asked how the plaintiffs even knew who was a Republican? Montanans do not register by party.
However, it matters not because we have same day registration and a person can change their registration before every primary. Montana is made up of independent people who do not like to be labeled. If we deny them the chance to vote in our primary they will pay us back.
Last Updated on Thursday, 26 February 2015 16:41
On Jan. 27, an astute employee at the 3G’s store on State Avenue and Jackson Street saw something happening on the side of the store. I told her it may be just an accident because an older man was out of his truck and on his phone. There was a woman in a small white car just sitting there. Then the employee said someone was on the ground.
I walked over to the sidewalk and saw the older man still on his phone and a man lying on the ground. I still had a pair of rubber gloves on because I wear them on the buses so I won’t catch the flu. I saw the man on the ground was still breathing and had asked the older man who was still on his phone if he had called the ambulance. He said he had called 9-1-1 about 20 minutes ago.
So I touched the man on the ground and woke him. What was his name? He told me, then he said he had had a seizure. I saw a bottle in his front pocket and identified it as seizure medication.
About 10 minutes later a sheriff’s deputy came and I told him about the man had a seizure and that he had been drinking. I asked the man on the ground if he was hurt. He said he hit his head. So with gloved hands I searched his head for any bleeding. There was a bump but no bleeding.
The deputy watched me a minute or two and then called for help on his phone. I remained with the man and about 10 minutes later three or four police officers had shown up. They all gathered around about five feet away talking about the man on the ground - how they knew him, his having a history of being drunk and having seizures. They were laughing and joking about this man.
Never once did they ever try to help him by checking him out. One officer called in for wanted notices and warrants, but that’s as far as it went. The deputy had a few words to say to the man but that was it.
The only reason the deputy talked to this man was because he asked the sheriff to “Just cap me and put me out of my misery.” The officer said he “couldn’t do that.”
About 10 minutes later the fire truck pulled up. Then about seven minutes later an ambulance showed up. Still at this point no one had paid any attention to this man except me. I asked if they (sheriff. police and ambulance crew) could handle this now. Someone said yes, so I was leaving the area and taking off my gloves to throw them away.
Then as I got to the trash can an officer said, “Ma’am, you want to be careful. This man has AIDS.” You can’t get AIDS by touching someone! It took an hour for police, fire and ambulance to finally take him to the hospital.
What bothered me about this whole thing is that no one cared about this man. Yes, he was drunk, homeless and, yes, he has repeated his behavior over and again. That’s all anyone of them could talk about. It wasn’t about how they could take him to the hospital because of his seizure.
I do not care. He is still a human being and deserved better services than he got. Shame on the local PD, Fire Department and Ambulance Service. I hope I never need their services.
Wonder what Police Chief Rich St. John has to say about this behavior.
Last Updated on Thursday, 26 February 2015 16:40
The looming deadline for the state to ratify the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (CSKT) Water Compact should have farmers and rancher squirming. This legislative session is the last chance for the compact to be approved. Sixteen tribal compacts have been signed in our state – and the CSKT Water Compact needs to be one of them.
Should the state fail to approve a compact, the water rights of water users across Montana will be uncertain. If the compact isn’t finalized, the cost of litigation fees alone will bring many farm and ranch operations to a halt. Montana’s agriculture industry can’t afford to have uncertain water rights and then wait in line with hundreds, perhaps thousands, of other farmers to determine how much water I can or can’t use.
Martha D. Humphreys
Last Updated on Thursday, 26 February 2015 16:39