Skip to comments.
[Montana] Senate kills self-defense bill
The Bozeman Daily Chronicle ^
| April 7, 2005
| WALT WILLIAMS
Posted on 04/07/2005 5:56:38 AM PDT by Brian328i
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-31 last
To: Brian328i
It could very well be a mixed blessing that this bill was killed. I looked over the bill online, and it appeared to me to be watered down, and probably do more harm than good.
21
posted on
04/07/2005 6:36:39 AM PDT
by
BigSkyFreeper
("Stupidity is also a gift of God, but one mustn't misuse it" - Pope John Paul II)
To: Semper Paratus
Why it happened in Montana is best illustrated by the following exerpt from today's editorial page of the Wall St Journal: "...Not only had the citizens of the nation's fourth largest state elected a Democratic candidate as governor for the first time in 20 years, they'd also rolled back GOP dominance to a 50-50 split in the state House, taken a 27-23 majority in the Senate, filled virtually every position of real authority in the state's higher offices with Democrats, and defeated referendums on re-allowing cyanide leaching in mining (despite millions of dollars of industry lobbying money promoting the idea) while approving of the medical use of marijuana.
The only victories of consequence for the GOP were the re-election of Republican Denny Rehberg to our state's single seat in the House of Representatives and the passing of an amendment that defined marriage to be a contract made exclusively between a man and woman. Oh, and the re-election of President Bush..."
To: Bringbackthedraft
"We don't need to go down this road where everybody starts arming themselves ......................to defend their lives and property. (I think this is what he is really thinking and saying)Well, what is wrong with that??? i.e. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to bear arms, shall not be infringed!
23
posted on
04/07/2005 6:39:24 AM PDT
by
meandog
(bellum nec timendum nec provacandum)
To: Brian328i
Some lawmakers were bothered by language in the bill saying citizens had no duty to summon law enforcement when threatened with death or bodily injury.Where in the Constitution (federal or state) does it say that a citizen does have a duty to summon law enforcement? I have heard that LE has NO duty to come when called, but never heard that the citizen is obliged to call them. What's wrong with a law acknowledging the obvious?
To: Brian328i
It sounds like refugees from the PRC are turning Montana into another socialist hellhole.
To: AlaskaErik; Bear_Slayer; Leatherneck_MT; BigSkyFreeper
It sounds like refugees from the PRC are turning Montana into another socialist hellhole.
I think the rest from Montana would agree that theres ups and downs to living here, just alot of influx from the liberals over the years and the fact that Montana does have quite a few more Government jobs compared to the rest of the nation. I believe on average Nationally it is 1/5 jobs are Federal, where-as in Montana 1/4 jobs are Federal. Also you can not forget the people who come here like ol' Ted Turner.
The Montana democrats are very disturbing also, they protray themselves as being pro-gun (remember what happened to our good buddy Max when he voted for a gun-grab-bill, the next slot up for relection he was barely re-elected due to that vote IIRC) but I believe given the opportunity to take everything away and model us after some other liberal bastion they would.
To: Brian328i
Self defense? That's pretty radical. Who's life are these gun-nuts trying to protect anyway? It all sounds very selfish to me. /sarcasm
27
posted on
04/07/2005 8:12:56 AM PDT
by
TigersEye
("It's a Republic if you can keep it." - B. Franklin)
To: Leatherneck_MT
Must not have many "OJ" jurors in Montana....
To: Brian328i
Some lawmakers were bothered by language in the bill saying citizens had no duty to summon law enforcement when threatened with death or bodily injury.How could anyone oppose this provision when the courts have ruled time and time again that the police have no enforceable duty to protect an individual from any given crime?? So, they're not accountable for stopping a crime, but we're to be accountable for calling them anyway???
29
posted on
04/07/2005 9:37:05 AM PDT
by
Still Thinking
(Disregard the law of unintended consequences at your own risk.)
To: Bear_Slayer
Just because some new organization runs a story doesn’t mean it is true.
We all have to realize that anti’s lie all the time.
To: BigSkyFreeper
One of the existing rules of self defense in Montana. If the laws are anything like in the State of Washington there are also additional laws that touch on self defense, justifiable homicide, etc. However, from what I can figure out, some of these laws, while still on the books, have been modified based on case law.
For example, in Washington state the law states that you can shoot someone to prevent a felony. Case law however says you can’t shoot somebody when they are “just” stealing your car.
Just like in the below law and the last sentence “to prevent a forcible felony”. To me that would be some guy grabbing me and tossing me out of my car and stealing it. But I’m guessing that case law probably doesn’t allow one to shoot the car-jacker as they are driving away. I suppose you could say he was driving the car right at a bunch of kids that he was going to run over.
45-3-102. Use of force in defense of person. A person is justified in the use of force or threat to use force against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that the conduct is necessary for self-defense or the defense of another against the other person’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, the person is justified in the use of force likely to cause death or serious bodily harm only if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent imminent death or serious bodily harm to the person or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
31
posted on
06/11/2022 4:04:37 AM PDT
by
21twelve
(Ever Vigilant. Never Fearful.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-31 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson