Posted on 04/07/2005 5:56:38 AM PDT by Brian328i
HELENA -- The Senate shot down a bill that would have spelled out that people have a right to use guns to defend themselves Tuesday.
House Bill 693 by Rep. Jack Wells, R-Bozeman, died an unusual death. It was first amended by senators to strike out everything in the bill except one small section prohibiting employers from firing employees who keep guns in vehicles parked in the company parking lot.
The Senate then moved to indefinitely postpone the bill because the amendment pretty much erased its entire purpose.
Sen. Mike Wheat, D-Bozeman, who suggested the amendment, was pleased to see the bill go down.
"We don't need to go down this road where everybody starts arming themselves and killing people," he said.
The final vote came after more than 90 minutes of debate with senators relating their own scary encounters while both armed and facing people who were armed.
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.
It spelled out how people could defend themselves with guns, but it also ordered law enforcement to seek out all evidence of self-defense when that was used as a plea.
Sen. Joe Balyeat, R-Bozeman, supported the bill, relating recent news from Bozeman about a convenience store clerk who was raped while police encircled the store.
"There are many, many times when the police are ineffective because of the circumstances to deal with the situation at hand," he said.
The bill in its original form was opposed by law enforcement groups. It had since been trimmed back significantly to address their concerns.
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.
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!
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?
It sounds like refugees from the PRC are turning Montana into another socialist hellhole.
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
Must not have many "OJ" jurors in Montana....
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???
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.
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.
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.