Dissecting the Lunacy that is HB228 – House Floor Vote Monday

February 8, 2009 in 2009 Legislative Session, Common Sense, Montana, violence

by jhwygirl

Of all the crazy things to make it out of committee and onto the floor – and that’s not to diminish the lament of things that should of made it out of committee and onto the floor – Rep. Krayton Kern’s crazy HB228 has survived a House Judiciary vote (10 to 8!) and hits the floor Monday at 1 p.m.

Do make sure to check out amendment #1 and amendment #2 to this insanity.

Now, HB228 is called the Citizens Self-Defense and Firearms Rights bill. What it proposes to do is to reaffirm “the right of Montanans to defend their lives and liberties, as provided in Article II, section 3, of the Montana constitution, and their right to keep or bear arms in defense of their homes, persons, and property, as provided in Article II, section 12, of the Montana constitution, is fundamental and may not be called into question.”

How it proposes to do that is what is scary.

There is no duty on an individual to flee or summon law enforcement assistance (Section 2).

Now – think about that. That clause, in and of itself, is giving a person the right to take and hold the law – regardless of their knowledge of it – in their own hands. Certainly there are situations where, in an act of self-defense, there is no reasonable way to summon law enforcement assistance..but such a carte blanche grant of authority is regression to the days of citizens posses and hang-’em-high justice.

Who falls for this stuff?

Section 3 states that the “defensive display of firearms is not an offense.” It goes on to define, under Section 3, clause 2, what exactly is a “defensive display of firearms” – and note the inclusion of the words “but is not limited to” in that definition.

This first version is scary enough….it places the burden of proof that such “defensive display” was needed in the judgment of the law enforcement called to the scene after an incident (keeping in mind there was no obligation to call them there if there had been an opportunity to do so), and, in a scenario where one lays dead, it becomes a he said versus he-who-is-dead said scene. Unfrickin’ real.

Go to reading those definitions (“but not limited to”) of defensive display:

2(c) holding a firearm in a position so that the firearm does not point directly at another person.

Let’s think about that one for a moment: An elevated situation, and I’m now allowed – or whomever is feeling threatened (“you look mad!”) is allowed – to get out a gun and wave it around. Just don’t point it directly at me, and you’re OK.

Wow.

Or should I simply not be scared because people are allowed to wave their guns all around, so long as – lawfully as defined under this nutcase law – they’re not waving it in my face.

Simply because they feel threatened.

Are we exempting mentally unstable people from this law? Because I’m not seeing that.

Or angry people?

Or angry husbands? Or angry wives? Or scared teenagers?

Or drunks?

Nope – anyone who feels threatened can go waving a gun around, just not in anyone’s face

And just how threatened do I have to feel?

“They were in my personal space” threatened?

“They gave me a look-to-kill” threatened?

“They yelled at me and made me scared” threatened?

Yi, yi, yi.

Now, Kerns and his crew of co-sponsors (ANKNEY, ARNTZEN, BALYEAT, BENNETT, BLACK, BLASDEL, BONIEK, R. BROWN, T. BROWN, CAMPBELL, CURTISS, GALLUS, HAMLETT, HENDRICK, HINKLE, HOVEN, INGRAHAM, JACKSON, JONES, KOTTEL, MCGEE, MEHLHOFF, MILLER, MORE, RANDALL, ROUNDSTONE, SMITH, SONJU, VANCE, WARBURTON) went ahead and graciously added this mucky-muck:

When an investigation is conducted by a peace officer of an incident that appears to have been or is alleged to have been in self-defense, the investigation must be conducted so as to disclose all evidence, including testimony, that might support the alleged offense and the apparent or alleged self-defense.

So, again – here we go with an officer called to the scene – after the fact – which is often the case, but under this law, may well be always the case – and he has to sort out what has occurred under a law which granted, carte blanche, an ability to go waiving a gun around under an “apparent or alleged” (their words, not mine) claim of self-defense.

Of all the absolutely insane and inane laws to come forward – as I look at it – in a bipartisan fashion, this one has got to be the most ridiculous.

Democrats, I’m ashamed to say, are falling in support of this bill as being beneficial to domestic violence situations.

Wow. Really?

Why has the Montana County Attorney’s Association spoke in opposition to this bill?

Gallatin County Sheriff Jim Cashell came out strongly against the bill at the hearing, saying it could escalate gun violence and make it easier for criminals to cite self defense to avoid prosecution.

Dennis Paxinos, Yellowstone County attorney, said the bill fixes a problem that doesn’t exist:

“There is no case, there is no reason, for such a huge change in our criminal code,” he said.

Paxinos described a scenario in which two gangs approached each other in a public park. Under Kern’s bill, he said, it would be legal for both gangs to display their weapons to each other, then open fire.

“It eviscerates the tools we use now to combat these idiots,” he said.

In fact, an existing law that allows for justifiable use of force (MCA 45-3-102) and use the affirmative defense of self defense.

Why is the Montana Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence spoken in opposition to this bill?

HB 228 is NOT good for victims of domestic or sexual violence in Montana. Proponents of this bill have alluded to the fact that the self defense provisions are somehow beneficial for victims of domestic violence. NOT TRUE! HB 228 proposes an overhaul of our current criminal justice system by asserting that self defense can be used in any criminal action and puts the burden of proof to prove otherwise on the State.

Who supports this bill? Gary Marbut one-man member of the Montana Shooting Sports Association.

That’s enough said there now, isn’t it?

Help stop this lunacy NOW. The House Floor vote is 1 p.m. on Monday. Contact your legislators – all of ’em, Democratic and Republicans – and tell them that this bill endangers your safety and the ability of law enforcement officers to enforce the peace. It places greater burden on county prosecutors and has the potential to escalate gun violence. It makes it easier for criminals to utilize a self-defense claim to avoid prosecution for gun related crimes.

You can click on this map to find the legislators in your district. This link will take you to a list of legislators, along with their contact information.

You can also fill out an online form to send comments to legislators – and you can also call 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.

Be sure to mention HB228 in all correspondence or phone calls.

These legislators have indicated that they are ‘on the fence’ about this vote. Please contact these legislators to let them know your thoughts:
Bob Bergren of Havre – bergren@bobbergren.com
Bob Ebbinger of Livingston – buffalojump@imt.net
Dennis Getz of Glendive – ddgetz@peoplepc.com
Dan Vila of Anaconda – danvillaformontana@hotmail.com
Cynthia Hiner of Deerlodge – matthiner@hotmail.com
Cheryl Steenson of Kalispell – casteenson@gmail.com
Bill Wilson of Great Falls – bw208@bresnan.net
Bill Nooney of Missoula – bnooney@inv-ent.com
Don Roberts of Billings (you need to use the online form to contact him)
Jesse O’hara of Great Falls (you need to use the online form to contact him)
Gary MacLaren of Victor – garymaclaren@yahoo.com

~~~~~~~~
Don’t miss Matt Singer’s take on this at Left in the West. He does it in a lot less words than I.