MT Candidate Kathleen Williams Supports Registering Normal Capacity Gun Mags


Kathleen Williams
Kathleen Williams Supports Registering Normal Capacity Gun Mags img: Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call

Montana – -( Two days ago, Montana Shooting Sports Association Board member Randy Pinocci recorded Kathleen Williams at a public event saying she would favor treating what she called “high capacity magazines“, really just normal gun mags, the same (legally) as “sawed-off shotguns.” Pinocci had asked Williams if she supports Governor Bullock's new call for gun control.

Let me examine Williams' position.

A “sawed-off shotgun” is called in the National Firearms Act (NFA) a “short-barreled shotgun” (SBS). An SBS is defined as one with a barrel less than 18 inches or less than 26 inches in overall length. To legally possess an SBS requires a purchaser to apply to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE) for a tax stamp and pay $200 in tax.

For a law-abiding citizen, the process to apply for NFA permission and get approval takes most of a year, because of the backlog of applications.

A magazine is a device that holds ammunition for a firearm, a device often capable of being changed out with a full magazine when the one in the firearm becomes depleted. “High-capacity magazines” are spoken of by gun control advocates as those that may contain more than ten rounds of ammunition. In the gun culture, we might think of a 100-round magazine as “high capacity.” However, we would call the magazines that are usually purchased with firearms as “standard capacity.” It is very common for such standard capacity magazines to hold as many as 30 rounds of ammunition.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) is an organization that represents manufacturers of firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition. The NSSF estimates that there are 132 million magazines in private possession in the U.S. that will hold more than ten rounds of ammunition (See attached graphic.)

In 2017, the BATFE processed 259,163 applications under the NFA.

If the NFA were changed to require those possessing “high-capacity” magazines to treat them as SBS are treated under the federal law, this would multiply the current BATFE workload by 509 times – not double, triple, or quadruple, but 509X. Given the current one-year wait time for NFA applications processing, slogging through this avalanche of paperwork would take the BATFE decades at least, maybe centuries.

The alternative is to use federal law to turn the people who have these 132 million plus magazines into criminals overnight. That would be unwise, to say the least.

And, it would be an absolute fantasy to suppose that the people who possess these 132 million magazines would willingly surrender them to authorities. You'd do as well trying to use federal law to force the public to surrender their cars and ride unicorns.

The final part of Williams' misguided fantasy is her implied assumption that evildoers would be the first to dispossess themselves of or license their high-capacity magazines, thereby ending their evil deeds. That assumption is so deranged as to call into question the mental health of anyone making it.

So is this really the kind of flawed thinking and leadership we need in Washington? Remember “shall not be infringed” before you cast your vote in November.

Montana Shooting Sports Association

About Montana Shooting Sports Association:

Montana Shooting Sports Association (MSSA) is the primary political advocate for Montana gun owners. Visit:

  • 55 thoughts on “MT Candidate Kathleen Williams Supports Registering Normal Capacity Gun Mags

    1. She is an implant from kalifornia I think.All her schools was there Berkeley,then Colorado.She moved to Montana in 1995.Hell she might have been from Colorado,but she damn sure wasn’t from Montana.

    2. The woman’s idea makes no sense whatever. That aside, her registration scheme, being that registration leads to confiscation, is otherwise unacceptable. Were I a resident, no way she could get my vote.

    3. Thank you for not mis-identifying them as high capacity magazines. Whatever capacity magazine that the manufacturer ships with the weapon is the “standard” capacity by definition. However, if “normal” catches on, I’m good with that.

    4. Governor Bullock is in question here more than anybody. He just brings out the rest of the senseless, non common sense people, that have no life or been sheltered from the real life situations of this great nation. Most of them were taught nothing about life situations or how to be self sufficient in their own life. They never had to fend for themselves. And when they hear or see the real world come in to their view, they are shocked and follow the other idiots that makes sense to them. Protect the children, get rid of the guns, open up the borders, support abortion and so on. My take on the magazines will not come to pass. You Montana folks, need to take hold of your State and support your second Amendment and never give up your rights.

    5. Montana man:

      I noticed in your post, use of the term “amp”, in a couple of instances. Might I take it that “amp” is a shortened version of amplify? If not, please clarify. Thanks.

      1. (Caveat: I don’t know if this message will display correctly!)

        It’s not “amp” by itself that you are seeing, it’s ampersand-“amp”-semicolon. It’s an HTML thing (the way that text is encoded for web page display). If you see “&” that means ampersand (“&”) — just read it as “and”. Another you’ll see occasionally is ” “, which means “no-breaking space” — just read it as a couple of spaces! If you ever see “&” or ” ” display in text or on a web page, then there is a software bug — you should only be seeing “&” or space(s), respectively.

    6. Bear with me re the following. I see, in many instances the following term or group of letters appear. AMP, not necessarily capitalized. What is the meaning of AMP, either in upper or lower case letters. Might amp stand for amplify?

    7. If this woman holds appointed office, her appointer needs to take corrective action. if she holds elective office, the problem she creates is one for the electorate to address, November comes the mind.

    8. HEY! Don’t identify cat people as crazy anti-gun nuts. My wife is a cat lady and she has her guns & ammo ready to Rock & Roll!

    9. Wake up born in Montana residents. Those who still think Dems. are for the working man and still vote “stupid” will lose your rights. You keep voting for these Dems since they sell you on the idea that “they” will keep hunting lands public… REALLY! You are suckers and fools. Those lands may remain pubic but once DEMS are election proof….they then will ban hunting on any game and since your firearms will be outlawed… I suppose it will not matter. Just remember Australia ….. first Dems took away those nasty pistols… the hunters laughed.. then they took away those criminal semi-autos.. that no respective hunter would own.. so the hunters laughed again… then they took away pump and auto loading shot guns… so the elite side by side crowed laughed….. then the DEMS..who are for the working man…. took away ALL the firearms that remained… including from the elitist Side-by-Side upland game idiots… SO NOW….THOSE WHO THOUGHT THEY WERE MORALLY SUPERIOR TO THE WORKING PEOPLE have nothing… just like the lowlife they spat upon… BETTER WAKE UP PEOPLE….. IT IS ALMOST TOO LATE.

    10. I would expect that her stated position, if correctly reported in the above, would suffice to blow a very large hole in the hull of her election vessel.

    11. Someone said that she was a sure vote for “Liawatha”. Post disappeared. Wonder why? At any rate it took me a moment to realize that he was referring to Fauxcahontas. Good one. I’ll use it.

    12. I live in NJ. Please ,do not let Montana become another NJ. Fight these fools with all you have. In NJ you cannot carry, yet the people who pass all these restrictive laws, like the new jackass governor Murphy , have armed state troopers ( with high cap mags and hollow pt. bullets ) protecting them. Fight ,fight, fight .

    13. Who enforces such a “law”?
      Who obeys the orders? Who kicks down the door? Who steals our property, kidnaps us if we refuse to surrender it, and murders us if we resist being kidnapped?

      Why do so many gunowners “back the blue” that will come to invade our homes, take our stuff and kill us?

      And for any cops in the audience – what order would you NOT obey?
      To keep your pension?

        1. Any LEO brought up on charges for refusing to obey a direct order whether they agree with it or not, and are convicted of failing to obey will be fired and if under their time to retire they can say bye bye to their pension. SO no cigar to you!

    14. Another ignorant liberal talking about something (guns) she knows absolutely nothing about first-hand. I bet she’s from Missoula.

      1. Williams is familiar with guns. She hunts and shoots too. She comes from a military family. And no, not from Missoula. Just because she has a different opinion from you does not mean she is ignorant.

    15. One thing these ‘candidates’ and/or rights restrictors will never admit to is what their ultimate goal is. Most of us already know that total Citizen disarmament is that goal but they always dress up their tyranny in flowery phrases like ‘it’s for the children’. If they can’t be honest with their intentions up front, why would anyone with a functional brain choose to support them.

    16. Somebody already said it.
      She moved to Montana from where ??
      Check out the fringe.
      She’s a shoe-in to vote for Liawatha.

    17. These are the people Montana need to not vote for.Probaly an implant from some communist state or her parents were years ago. You can’t trust a democrat for sure an some,just like a rattlesnake

    18. Don’t throw cat lovers into the mix with this Crazy Hag! Cat lovers own ‘regular’ magazines and the guns that go with them!

    19. Ok, here we have a woman who may or not be from MT wanting to enforce crazy gun restrictions. I will bet she is a transposed Californian, having left that sh**hole of a state. Feces in San Fransisco, people urinating in the streets, sanctuary cities for ILLEGAL aliens. Yeah, no wonder people are leaving in droves. But wait. That means they will try and bring their communist/socialist/democrat beliefs with them into the more affluent states trying to force them to adapt what CA has done. I believe this woman is a perfect example of this latest movement.
      I do not believe a MT-born woman would try this stunt. I think we can see this as a trend in the coming months and years. Communists are bent on destroying what is beautiful, what is righteous and what is Freedom for the “sake” of the community. Look at Venezuela. That ought to put a fire under anyone’s arse to vote this Mid-term. WAKE UP AMERICA!

      1. Mark, you are correct. Progressives** have been moving out of infected populous areas (after they’ve ruined them, San Francisco being a good example). They working (consciously or subconsciously) to spread the progressive disease to other parts of the county. Most of the West Coast is heavily infected — especially in the metro areas (Seattle, Portland, San Fran/Oakland/San Jose, Los Angeles, and San Diego). As those areas suffer from horrible conditions (esp SF) or ultra-high housing prices, folks are moving out and spreading the destructive cause of progressivism.

        San Fran has had problems, but in the last 5-10 years its Sanctuary City status and other progressive policies have led to a rapid decline. You’ve all heard about needles and poop on the sidewalks. I know of someone who sat on a BART (public transit/subway system) seat last year and got poked by a needle left there — they were sick for 6 months with something picked up from that needle. Thank you, left-wing progressives.

        I know folks in Sacramento, which used to be a moderate-to-conservative city. Sacramento followed the Constitution to a fair degree (compared to the coastal metro areas), so folks could obtain CCW permits with not a lot of hassle (albeit a lot of expense, after mandatory training + fees, over $1K). A lot of San Fran Bay Area refugees have moved there, shifting the political climate. Now Sacramento has a left-wing progressive mayor. The Sheriff still issues CCWs, but in the next election a new “progressive” Sheriff might be elected who will refuse to issue any CCWs (just like the whole SF Bay Area, LA, and San Diego have been for a long time).

        I live in a progressive area and can’t even figure where I could move and be relatively safe from exported progressivism. When I hear that even places in Idaho and Montana are being infected, it gives me cause for great concern.

        ** who are not true liberals, as “liberal” in the classic sense of the word actually believe in LIBERTY

    20. This is a serious mental illness that still needs to be addressed, these people should not be making political decisions, with this condition, period!

      Time to quote various authors on this subject!

      Hoplophobia is a political neologism coined by retired American military officer Jeff Cooper as a pejorative to describe an “irrational aversion to weapons.” It is also used to describe the “fear of firearms” or the “fear of armed citizens.” HOPLOPHOBIA. (1966) From the Greek___(weapon) plus __ (terror).

      An unreasoning, obsessive neurotic fear of weapons as such, usually accompanied by an irrational feeling that weapons possess a will or consciousness for evil, apart from the will of their user. Not equivalent to normal apprehension in the presence of an armed enemy. Hoplon also means instrument, tool or tackle, but it is the root of hoplite (man-at-arms, gendarme) and thus principally signifies “weapon” in English derivations.
      Col. Jeff Cooper, widely acclaimed as “The Father of the Modern Technique of Shooting,” introduced the two-handed grip at eye level, when it was standard for people to shoot one-handed, and often from the hip. Far less known, Cooper was a historian with a Master’s Degree in History from the University of Calif. at Riverside and he held a B.A. from Stanford in Political Science.
      Hoplophobia, n. Irrational, morbid fear of guns (c. 1966, coined by Col. Jeff Cooper, from the Greek hoplites, weapon; see his book Principles of Personal Defense). May cause sweating, faintness, discomfort, rapid pulse, nausea, sleeplessness, nondescript fears, more, at mere thought of guns. Presence of working firearms may cause panic attack. Hoplophobe, hoplophobic.
      Hoplophobes are common and should never be involved in setting gun policies. Point out hoplophobic behavior when noticed, it is dangerous, sufferers deserve pity, and should seek treatment. When confronted about their condition, hoplophobes typically go into denial, a common characteristic of the affliction. Sometimes helped by training, or by coaching at a range, a process known to psychiatry as “desensitization,” a useful methodology in treating many phobias.
      Hoplophobic behavior is often obvious from self-evident irrational responses to real-life situations and is frequently seen in the news media and public debate. When a criminal commits a crime using a gun, hoplophobes often seek to disarm, or make lists of, innocent people who didn’t do anything, a common, classic and irrational response.
      The idea of creating an enormously expensive government-run 90-million-name database of legitimate gun owners — which would not include armed criminals — is a prime example of an irrational hoplophobic response to the issue of crime. How writing your name in such a list would help stop crime is never even addressed. (See, “The Only Question About Gun Registration”)
      An effort is underway nationally to have Hoplophobia recognized in the DSM, the official directory of mental ailments. Resistance from elements in the medical profession suggest this may be quite difficult, but that does not reduce the importance of recognizing a widespread, virulent, detrimental mental condition commonly found in the populace. The actual number of undiagnosed hoplophobes is unknown but believed to be in the tens of millions.
      Read Dr. Sarah Thompson’s brilliant essay on the medical nature of this affliction, the article that got the ball rolling on serious medical study of a condition affecting millions of Americans.
      Read Dr. Bruce Eimers’s insightful short description of the problem.
      Hoplophobes are dangerous. They should not be involved in setting public policy.
      Hoplophobes are victims. They are sick and need help.
      Hoplophobes deserve sympathy. It’s not their fault they are afflicted.
      Hoplophobes should seek treatment. Help shoot for a cure.

      People who are terrified of and hate guns — hoplophobes — don’t care about anything rational, and we waste our time on such arguments. They want guns to go away. They don’t trust guns. They don’t trust people who have guns, and especially people who like guns. The only exception is “official” people with guns, meaning, they’re from the government, a source of relief.
      They will seize on anything else, because Hoplophobia is an irrational fear. Conveniently for them, the language of the report itself says that the limits of this individual right have not been clearly defined.

      To a Hoplophobes, that means your right to arms can be legally limited to a single gun, with a single round, that does not operate, and is locked away, with government holding the key. And even that leaves them nervous.

      What we really need is research and medical-treatment programs for the poor, unfortunate people who are terrified of guns, won’t go near guns, who would not defend themselves or their families if they had to, and who, very plainly, hate guns.

      Hate is a terrible thing.

      It must be confronted vigorously, righteously, and in a forthright manner. Logic and law do not confront hate or help lessen it. We must learn not to tolerate gun hate, anywhere we find it.

      Hoplophobic behavior in government, schools, and all facets of public life must be recognized for what it is, exposed, and rooted out or treated. Seemingly utopian pacifists are free to profess their love of a weapon-free world, but they must start by disarming the evil, criminal and tyrannical. Disarming the public is a vent for their twisted fear and hatred, a grotesque affront to freedom, and unacceptable. Disarming an innocent person is an act of violence.

      Guns save lives. Guns stop crime. Guns are why America is still free. The history of freedom is inextricably tied to the development of weapons (an interesting study, by the way, if you have the time to examine it). Good people need guns. Efforts to end that are immoral and unjust, and when done by government, is a direct failure to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.” That’s a violation of the oath of office, which should lead to removal from office and possibly even criminal charges.

      The people we elect or hire for public service should be screened for latent or overt gun hatred, and disqualified if such hatred is found, before it can do any more harm to our nation and its values.
      It is well past the time when the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders), the catalog of recognized mental infirmities, includes “Hoplophobia,” in all its forms, and serious medical research is conducted to identify and treat this pernicious condition that threatens us all. The doctors among you should begin raising this issue. If you’re not a doctor but have one or two, ask them about it.
      The opponents of gun rights come in four fundamental categories:

      Utopian Idealists – Dreamers willing to ignore human nature (anger, hostility, temper, greed, lust, hunger, poverty, want, megalomania, social pathologies, etc.) in the vain hope for a world where no one ever needs to defend themselves or others; Result: misguided efforts to disarm the public since no one should ever be capable of exerting lethal force for any reason. Fairly rare.

      Routine Bigots – Ignorant gun haters who, generally, have never actually seen a real gun much less fired one, and hate what they don’t know; strong corollaries with race haters; Result: Vigorous anti-rights profile if left alone, however they often resolve their blind hatred when education removes the ignorance — frequent anecdotes of such folks “converting” after their first time at a range. Quite common.

      Hoplophobes — Unfortunate souls afflicted with a phobic terror of firearms, deserving of pity, and in need of medical attention; Result: Though they should never be involved in setting policy on self-defense, national security, or Second Amendment rights, they often insinuate themselves into such positions, their need for treatment goes unattended, and they cause grievous social harm. Easily mistaken for plain bigots. Too common.

      Power Mongers – Like some at the U.N or many anti-gun-rights politicians, they know full well that an armed public interferes with their plans, and they insidiously use lies about the gun issue, and “disarmament (of you but not them) as a road to peace” as a power base and source of support; Result: truly evil, tyrants’ who ultimately suppress human rights, contribute to global genocides, live an elite lifestyle, care not for their fellow citizens. Rare but extremely dangerous.

      Example of the Sickness:

      “My own view on gun control is simple: I hate guns and I cannot imagine why anybody would want to own one. If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns would be banned.”
      –Deborah Prothrow-Stith, Harvard School of Public Health

      The right of decent private citizens to personally possess, transport, and responsibly use arms without government interference is the ultimate freedom and the main pillar supporting all other liberties. Few cultures have allowed their general population access to weapons, the tools of power, to the same degree as the United States. Instead, most societies have restricted the keeping and bearing of arms to a select few power brokers and their agents, often resulting in oppression on a grand scale.
      Despite a massive amount of historical evidence to the contrary, there is a substantial body of Americans, many occupying positions of influence, who contend that the abrogation of the Second Amendment is the quickest path to domestic tranquility. Since this is as absurd as advocating blood-letting as a cure for anemia, it would seem advisable to question the motives and mentalities of the gun control advocates themselves.
      In my observation, weapon prohibitionists can be broken down into seven major categories. Even though their motives may vary they all pose a mortal threat to liberty.

      Many of those in favor of oppressive firearms legislation are best classed as elitists. Elitists frequently identify with a peer group based on wealth, power, rank, social status, occupation, education, ethnic group, etc. and perceive themselves and their peers as inherently superior to and more responsible than the “common people”, thus more deserving of certain rights. Since elitists practically consider those outside their class or caste as members of another species, that most anti-elitist list of laws, the Bill of Rights is viewed by them as anathema. Naturally, the Second Amendment is their first target as it serves as the supporting structure for other nine amendments.

      Another type of individual who favors the restriction of private gun ownership is the authoritarian. Authoritarian personalities are characterized by their belief in unquestioning obedience to an authority figure or group and a disdain for individual freedom of action, expression, and judgement. Those with authoritarian personalities function well in symbiosis with elitists occupying positions of power. Because authoritarians repress their desires for autonomy they harbor a deep resentment toward free and independent thinkers. Of course, authoritarians do not want firearms in the hands of the general population as this constitutes a major obstacle to fulfilling their pathological and obsessive desire to control people.

      It goes without saying that career criminals would like to see the public disarmed for obvious reasons. A well-armed population makes crimes such as assault, robbery, and burglary hazardous for the perpetrator and this is bad for “business.” Also, even non-violent or “white collar” criminals live in constant fear of retribution from the public that they financially bleed and would therefore prefer that the public be disarmed. Evidence supporting this hypothesis can be gathered by studying the Second Amendment voting records of those legislators who have been convicted of willful misconduct.

      Cowards are easily or excessively frightened by things and situations that are recognized as dangerous, difficult, or painful. It therefore stands to reason that the mere thought of guns and the circumstances in which they are employed causes them abnormal amounts of stress. Rather than admit their weakness to themselves or others, some fearful types jump on the anti-gun bandwagon and purport moral superiority to those “barbaric” enough to employ lethal force against armed assailants by claiming various humanitarian and pragmatic motives for allowing evil to remain unchecked. Many of these individuals harbor an envy induced resentment toward anyone with the means, skill, and will to successfully stand up to criminal aggression.
      The desire to assert oneself exists in nearly everyone, wimps included, so cowards seek out tame enemies against whom they can ply their pitiful brand of machismo. Instead of the sociopaths who commit acts of wanton aggression with guns, guns themselves and responsible gun owners are the main targets of their attacks. After all, real criminals are dangerous, so cowards prefer doing battle with inanimate objects that do not have a will of their own and decent law-abiding people whose high level of integrity and self-discipline prevent them from physically lashing out against mere verbal assailants, however obnoxious they may be.

      Ideological chameleons follow the simple social strategy of avoiding controversy and confrontation by espousing the beliefs of the people in their immediate vicinity or advocating the philosophy of those who scream the loudest in a debate. Quite a few supposedly pro Second Amendment public officials have shown themselves to be ideological chameleons when they supported restrictions on the private possession of military style semiautomatic rifles following recent atrocities in which such firearms were employed. Like their reptilian namesake, people who merely blend in with the ambient philosophical foliage seem to have little insight into the moral and social ramifications of their actions. Political and/or economic gain along with avoidance of confrontation are their only goals.

      Security monopolists are those members and representatives of public and private security providing concerns who want the means of self-protection out of private hands so that they can command high fees for protecting the citizenry against the rising tide of crime. These profiteers stand to lose a great deal of capital if citizens can efficiently defend themselves. To the security monopolist, each criminal who enters and exits the revolving door of justice is a renewable source of revenue providing jobs for police, social workers, victim counsellors, judges, prison employees, security guards, burglar alarm installers, locksmiths, and others employed by the security monopolies or their satellite organizations. No wonder it is so common for an honest citizen to be more ruthlessly hounded by the authorities when he shoots a criminal in self-defense than a criminal who shoots honest citizens.

      Just as a limb will weaken and atrophy if not used, so will aspects of the mind fail to develop if nothing in one’s environment exists to challenge them. People who have led excessively sheltered lives tend to have a difficult time understanding certain cause and effect relationships and an even harder time appreciating just how cruel the world can be. These dysfunction ally unworldly types are truly perplexed at the very notion of firearms ownership regarding defense. To them, tyranny and crime are things that happen in other places far removed from their “civilized” universe. Also, they do not understand the value of private property and why some people would fight for theirs since they never had to work hard to acquire what they possess. While those suffering from dysfunctional unworldliness are most often people who have been born into considerable wealth, this condition is also common in members of the clergy, academicians, practioners of the arts, and others who have spent much of their lives cloistered in a safe and pampering environment. While many of these people may be quite talented and intelligent in some ways, their extreme naivety makes them easy prey for the tyrants who use them for the financial support and favorable advertisement of their regimes. The anti-gun movement is well represented and financed by the dysfunction ally unworldly.
      The price of liberty is eternal vigilance, and it behooves all vigilant lovers of liberty to know and be able to recognize the various types of arms prohibitionists and understand their differing but equally dangerous motives. Acquiring knowledge of one’s foes is the first step toward defeating them. We must never forget that a threat to private firearms ownership is a threat to all freedoms.
      The inalienable and fundamental right to keep and bear arms which is enumerated by (but predates) the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not about hunting, gun collecting, or target shooting. Its purpose is to ensure that every responsible American personally possesses the means to defend the Republic from all forms of tyranny, within and without. It is what permits the other nine Amendments in the Bill of Rights to be more than mere hollow phrases on a piece of paper. Its free exercise is the antithesis of serfdom and the only meaningful form of holocaust insurance known to man.
      We must never insult and degrade the spirits of our Founding Fathers by permitting the Second Amendment, the pillar of freedom, to be destroyed by the cold flame of legislative ink.

    21. Hey watch it hgnoc2, I identify as a crazy cat lady and I think all laws concerning guns are illegal according to our constitution and the survival rights bestowed upon us by the God which made us. All gun control freaks are your enemy and are planning to have their way with you, and to terminate you if it suits their purpose if you resist. Be organized and ready comes the day.

    22. Ho-hum, another dreamy-eyed, kumbaya-singing airhead. These people are so ignorant and uninformed it could almost be humorous, but isn’t. They’re actually dangerous, seeking elected office. There are enough voters like them to make it happen. Something that cannot stand.

    23. 132 million magazines holding more than 10 rounds times $200 for a tax stamp equals a lot of money sent to the treasury department for more wasteful spending while doing nothing to prevent or reduce crime. But look at all the money! Hiring all those people to process a 509% increase in background checks will likely outspend the income. But who cares. Big government knows best (wink, wink).

    24. Montana Candidate??……Candidate for what?…..shouldn’t that be clear at the start of the article, or at least somewhere in it?

      1. Good question, though I would think that her stated position would serve to sink any hopes she had for election to any public office.

    Leave a Comment 55 Comments

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *