Important Questions Concerning Krayton Kerns’ HB228
by jhwygirl
For more information, check out this post.
The following information from the Montana County Attorney’s Association. If the previous post didn’t scare you, what follows will.
HB 228 makes sweeping changes to the Montana criminal code, its concealed weapon statutes, and the permit process. Here are answers to the Frequently Asked Questions that the Montana County Attorneys, the Montana Sheriffs and Peace Officers, and Montana’s Chiefs of Police have received about this bill.
Q. If HB 228 passes, will convicted felons be allowed to carry concealed weapons?
A. Under current law, when a law enforcement officer stops someone for a traffic violation and a pat-down search for officer safety reveals a convicted felon carrying any type of concealed weapon (it does not have to be a firearm), that conduct, in and of itself, is a felony. The plain language of HB 228 Section 8(2) changes this. It allows any person, including convicted violent/sexual offenders, to carry concealed weapons, so long as the person was not using the weapon to commit another crime. The current felony statutory sanction will no longer be available to law enforcement, putting our officers and community at risk. Authorizing convicted violent/sexual offenders to covertly arm themselves obviously creates dangerous consequences with dire results.
Q. Why do the sponsors want felons to have the privilege of carrying concealed weapons?
A. We don’t know.
Q. If HB 228 passes, will I be able to carry my concealed weapon into government buildings?
A. The MCAA and law enforcement take the position that carrying in government buildings or other presently prohibited places will remain against the law. However, the potential conflict of laws creates a serious problem. Presently, under § 45-8-328, there are places where a concealed weapon may not be carried, and these include buildings or portions of buildings used for state or local government offices. Sections 7 and 8 of HB 228 confuse rather than clarify current law because they amend or repeal some provisions of the Carrying Concealed Weapons (CCW) permit structure, but do not mention nor address other provisions. HB 228 Section 8 states that as long as you are not using the concealed weapon to commit a criminal offense, you may carry it there. Someone will likely challenge these current prohibitions and we will have to litigate this matter all the way to the Supreme Court. Criminal defense attorneys will strongly argue that because of the ambiguity created by the bill, their client could not act “purposely or knowingly” and thought he had permission to carry. Which side would prevail is unclear, but generally whenever our Supreme Court is confronted with ambiguous language or conflicting statutes, it favors the charged individual’s interpretation.
Q. If HB 228 passes, will I be able to carry my concealed weapon into a bar, casino, or other places where alcohol is served?
A. Unclear. Same answer as above.
Q. If HB 228 passes, will I be able to carry my concealed weapon into my bank or credit union?
A. No. Federal law still prohibits carrying into a bank. While some citizens may believe HB 228 shields him to carry, he will be violating federal law regarding carrying into banks and credit unions.
Q. Will HB 228 have any effect on the permit process in current law (45-8-329) or on Montana’s reciprocity agreement with other states?
A. Unclear, but possible. The Attorney General is responsible for administering the reciprocity agreements. This question is being researched. It is possible this bill will invalidate reciprocity agreements with other states, negatively affecting untold numbers of Montana’s law-abiding citizens who rely upon such agreements.
Q. 45-8-329 speaks to the concealed Weapon Advisory Council. Was HB 228 presented to the CCW Advisory Council?
A. Unknown.
Wow.
HB228 comes to its second reading on the House floor today (Monday) at 1 p.m.
Take the time to read the previous post and contact house legislators by calling the Session Information Desk at 406-444-4800 to leave a message for as many as five legislators per call. Your message will be delivered directly to the legislators. The TTY (Telephone Device for the Deaf) number is 406-444-4462.
-
Recent Comments
JC on Memorializing War Swede Johannson on Memorializing War Swede Johannson on Rape is not “knucklehead… 
larry kurtz (@larry_… on Memorializing War larry kurtz (@larry_… on Memorializing War Turner on Liz’s Weekly Poetry Seri… lizard19 on Memorializing War
February 9, 2009 at 9:31 am
“Wow” indeed. Great information, thanks.
Don’t forget SB314, the “Anti-Stream Access” bill by Rick Laible of Darby. Just another attempt by rich landowners to lock you out of your lawful right to recreate on your own water. Would “redefine” the word “Natural” and “Clarify” the stream access law. Any stream that has irrigation diversions would be classified as Un-Natural and not subject to stream access laws. Shouldn’t make it out of committee, but you never know.
http://laws.leg.mt.gov/laws09/LAW0210W$BSIV.ActionQuery?P_BILL_NO1=314&P_BLTP_BILL_TYP_CD=SB&Z_ACTION=Find
February 9, 2009 at 12:16 pm
So you feel that any person who has committed an offense with jail time (even if not a felony) should lose their right to carry a weapon?
February 9, 2009 at 12:33 pm
I don’t get where you are seeing that in the above writings, Lt. Ripley – maybe you can explain?
February 9, 2009 at 12:47 pm
It was part of the first question. I realize you are extrapolating and using the example of a felon/sexual offender, but it raises a broader question.
I read the bill, and the sections of MCA that it amends, and while it doesn’t make concealed carry it’s own offense unless done while in the commission of a criminal act, I don’t see where it allows felons to carry weapons around.
February 9, 2009 at 12:58 pm
I’ve not cited any example which indicated that the bill allowed sex offenders or felons to have a gun.
February 9, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Oh, ok. You just interviewed those who basically said that it would allow violent offenders to conceal them.
And I don’t get where in the bill that it would allow people to conceal carry into a bar, bank or public building.
February 9, 2009 at 1:20 pm
And sorry, but I’m taking this from the standpoint that you are advocating and accepting the answers and position of the interview you cited.
If you’re not, please let me know.
February 9, 2009 at 1:28 pm
I don’t know where you read your information about firearms, but please, find a real source. Your information is more false than a Obama’s cabinets tax records.
To continue with the lesson I provided at LITW: The laws surrounding convicted felons and sex offenders are FEDERAL. So, they would be arrested for committing a federal crime. This doesn’t change that, no matter how badly you want it to. Everything you have mentioned on LITW and 4&20 are federal laws that wouldn’t change. So, you can now support it, right? Or do you just hate the idea of me owning guns in general?
February 9, 2009 at 1:38 pm
I also find it very amusing that the though of Montanans protecting themselves “scares you” as you put it. This viewpoint is like a clown on fire; kinda of funny, mostly sad.
February 9, 2009 at 1:40 pm
The “questions” above were not even answered. The Montana County Attorneys lobbying group did ya wrong Girl.
The bill doesn’t seem “scary”. Maybe crappy but not scary.
Don’t let the lobbyists scare you without some clear answers. Scared is when the creep is trying to break into your house ,you pull the trigger …and hear….. click.
February 9, 2009 at 2:52 pm
Now that’s kinda BS, ain’t it? I’ll bet dollars to donuts that the thought of Montanans protecting themselves (a right we already have) doesn’t scare one person here. The thought that assholes can abuse the law and then hide behind BAD law does scare people, and it damned well should.
In other words, you can still argue your case without being a jerk.
February 9, 2009 at 3:10 pm
http://www.progunleaders.org/Legis09/ResponseMSPOAattack.html
Here are some real answers based on facts and the law.
February 9, 2009 at 3:10 pm
“If the previous post didn’t scare you”. This law is a self defense law, a very good one I might add. Her entire facts are wrong, every single one of them. The post stated that she was afraid of the law (I realize it was based off of bad information). A+B= If she is truly of afraid of this law, than she is afraid of Montanan’s protecting themselves.
February 9, 2009 at 3:40 pm
Sorry, but in light of all these pro-gun message jocks, I have to repeat myself from a comment made on an earlier post on this unnecessary bill:
“I love guns. Really, I love guns. Gun loving democrat.
But I totally hate this bill. It is judicially unnecessary, and it presumes the legislature should step-in for the courts in developing common-law jurisprudence. People talk about legislating from the bench, and this is the opposite: a completely un-American and inappropriate use of the legislative system to subvert the role of the courts.
It also sets the stage for off-the-wall self defense claims in situations that are frankly scary, even for folks like me who think everyone in Montana ought to carry a gun.
Let the courts do their job.”
February 9, 2009 at 3:45 pm
Ahh…sorry. I assumed that JhwyGirl was the one asking the Montana County Attorneys the questions, when in fact it was really a trumped up list of talking points. I forgot for a minute where I was…duh.
I am for any law that makes it less hassle for me if I ever need to blow an intruder away. I will clean up the mess but I don’t want to have to take time off of work or hire a lawyer.
Respectfully, your gun nut , Obama Supporting, Moderate Independent,
Charles
February 9, 2009 at 4:28 pm
Gun Lover, I was pretty much under the understanding that that was the job of the LEGISLATIVE Branch- to legislate. If there was anything unclear or not right in the law, it’s their job to change it. That’s why people have a problem with LEGISLATING FROM THE BENCH. Because the judicial system is supposed to interpret the law, and the legislative branch is supposed to make the law. If the judicial side is misinterpreting, the legislative side is free to clarify by changing the code.
Sounds pretty straight forward to me. This bill won’t arm felons or allow guns into schools or bars… it won’t create a wild west or endanger cops. Pretty much the only thing I’ve heard against it (besides that list of false answers) has been “We don’t NEED it” and “it’s a bad bill, period”. Sounds to me that the left is afraid of not having permits and a registry of those with concealed carry.
February 9, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Sounds to me like you don’t understand the bill, syd.
February 9, 2009 at 6:13 pm
So please explain what it is you think I don’t understand, Wulfgar.
I’ve read it… I’ve talked to people who understand the law. Give me something better than that, Wulfgar.
February 9, 2009 at 6:16 pm
the fact that gary marbut and his insane tin foil covered appendages had anything to do with this bill is enough to cause me to suspect that it would be unwise to pass this legislation….
but then upon reading the reservations of the montana county attorney’s association i am convinced of it…
current laws are sufficient to allow me to defend myself. we don’t need gun-nuts running around waving guns in our faces at the slightest provocation because we told them that would be alright with the laws of the state of montana. that is insane. if i had a personality as unpopular as mr. marbut, i would probably fear everyone. don’t think it would be a good idea to make it legal for him and others of his ilk to vent their paranoia by threatening deadly force.
the use of a gun for self-defence is certainly a right i have already. let’s not make it more dangerous by inviting crazy people to wave guns around….
February 9, 2009 at 6:18 pm
Well, of course a bear would be for gun control.
February 9, 2009 at 6:26 pm
absolutely not for gun control, klemz but am for crazy control. just don’t want gary to shoot all his relatives when they try to throw a surprise birthday party….
February 9, 2009 at 6:38 pm
So again… “We don’t need it.”
Marbut’s not crazy, he just knows better than to rely on the government to maintain our liberties.
February 10, 2009 at 8:28 am
So, Lt. Ripley, explain to me what piece of jurisprudence needs clarification? What law out there isn’t working that the legislature needs to clarify?
What’s missing from your right to bear arms, claim self defense, or the well-developed case law behind the castle doctrine that needs clarity?
I believe in separation of powers, not ideologically driven legislators trying to make statements to rally their constituents by passing irrelevant statutes that clog the courts and confound prosecutors.
P.S., pass all you want, the courts can still knock this down in one case.
You guys are making gun lovers like me look like un-informed cranks trying rally the base.
February 10, 2009 at 6:10 pm
Reagan Democrats are voting for HB-228
February 10, 2009 at 7:54 pm
Enjoy it while it lasted, jed.
Democrats voted for it because they were threatened by the NRA and other gun lobbys.
’cause that’s how they roll.
February 10, 2009 at 9:08 pm
Not questioning your credibility jhwygirl, but how do you know they threatened dems? What evidence is there?
I’m really fascinated by this move and would really be enlightened to know how they pulled this off. Did they threaten to throw primary opponents at them? Did they threaten to hit them in the press? The boldness of it fascinates me because the different possibilities I can imagine all point to partisan complicity. Thoughts?
February 10, 2009 at 9:20 pm
Listen to Monday’s floor debate, for one thing, Gun Lover.
If anyone is OK with anything more specific than that, I’ll let everyone know…but beyond that, you can hear it in the floor debate.
Here’s a link: Listen or Watch
February 10, 2009 at 10:23 pm
You’re right… the rhetoric is intense.
February 11, 2009 at 8:30 am
… But, Jhwy girl, you still didn’t answer my question. What were the threats? You made a claim that the NRA was threatening democratic lobbyists, I asked you to clarify what you meant by this and maybe be a little more specific, and your response was “just watch the tape.”
And I did.
But you still didn’t explain where you’re coming from and what threats were made, and how that was the reason these people voted the way they did. I’m trying to help you flush out your argument for all to see and… well… I’m getting the feeling of dismissiveness and condescension here.
February 11, 2009 at 8:31 am
[meant threatening democratic legislators... sorry]
February 11, 2009 at 8:53 am
I was in no way being dismissive and condescending…and I did answer as best as I could – I said “If anyone is OK with anything more specific than that, I’ll let everyone know,” with the “anyone” being anyone that received the threats. Maybe you missed that?
If you’re going to take that from me at all, it’s gonna have to be on faith…and that’s all I can say. Sorry. But you have to understand that threats are threats and people that won’t talk about them, well, to me, that seems pretty understandable.
February 11, 2009 at 9:16 am
Jhwygirl, that’s a little strange. Rumor has it that you yourself are a democratic legislator, which might help explain to Gun Lover why you can’t offer more specifics.
If you can’t offer specifics then why make the claim in the first place?
February 11, 2009 at 9:43 am
That rumor is laughable. Please. What legislator would have the time to write this stuff right now? During session? You think that stuff only takes 5 or 10 minutes?
February 11, 2009 at 12:11 pm
I’m one of those really kooky types I guess…one of those ‘left of lefties’ whose politics run more to the socialist than the traditionally liberal, who also is in full support of conceal and carry- I fully supported Schweitzer and Tester in their own support of the move to allow concealed weapons in national parks (the idea that CWP holders are going to haul ass around Glacier shooting everything that moves is insulting). I also think the assault weapons ban was a joke that had more to do with cosmetics than ballistics.
Yet…this bill…uh…no.
Any responsible firearm owner knows that you don’t mix alcohol and ammunition. Why ANYONE would be in favor of allowing concealed weapons in drinking establishments is beyond me. It’s one of the few things people on the other side of the concealment argument and I can probably agree on- whiskey, harsh words, crowds and firearms should really be kept separate. Just as a matter of common sense.
Giving people with a history of sex crimes or violent tendencies seems equally hazardous.
Who’s pushing this thing through, again?
February 11, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Charles – this is state legislation, so you’re safe (for now) until Krayton Kerns gets elected to replace Denny Rehberg.
I can pretty safely say that isn’t going to happen. We’re going to work to get rid of Denny, but it won’t be Krayton – fer sure!