Welcome to the Wild Wild West, Montana

by jhwygirl

Feel threated? Shoot. The law allows it.

If you feel threatened, that crazy Krayton Kerns gun bill from this past legislative session gives you carte blanche to go right ahead and pull that trigger.

Any threat – even a fist fight – could result in someone pulling a gun.

So now duck-and-cover might be something you’ll want to consider next time a fight breaks out. Any old fight.

Consider yourself warned.

  1. Rep. Mike Miller, HD84

    I guess you read the bill (http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2009/billpdf/HB0228.pdf) differently than I do. Fortunately, it was I, as a co-sponsor, pressing the green button, and not you, pressing the red button.

    85 legislators voted for this and 14 voted against (after the bill was amended) (only Gordon Hendrick didn’t vote and knowing Gordon, I am sure he would have voted in favor of it) – seems like good bipartisan legislation to me. Unless some legislators were afraid of that the NRA/MSSA would “target” them for voting against a “gun bill” in the next election. Do you vote your conscience and the way your constituents want you to vote or do you vote the way that gets you re-elected? Me, I vote the way my constituents want me to.

    “At the point he decided to draw his gun, Mr. Schmidt could retreat no further,” Paxinos wrote. “He was almost on his back with his feet off the ground, and he believed he would be severely beaten.”

    “We believe that a reasonable jury would weight the same factors we did and also conclude that Mr. Schmidt was justified in using a gun to defend himself,” Paxinos determined

    I’d be happy to hear just what you would have done in similar circumstances. Lay there and get potentially seriously injured or even beat to death or defend yourself if you were capable? Call for the police on your cell phone and hope they got there and found you not too seriously injured and still alive? When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

    You might wonder if I have a concealed carry permit – I don’t. I don’t “carry” legally or illegally. I have no issue with you legally “packing” if you are so inclined.

    • Funny. I read the story and I see Schmidt (the shooter, who was outweighed by the “shootee” by 125 lbs.) punking the guy.

      Easy to do when you have a gun.

      There’s plenty of room for abuse in that law – which is what the detractors – like the Montana County Attorney’s Association – were saying.

      Montana didn’t need that law. That was the argument then, and that is the argument now. We have other laws that protect the shooter without presuming the guy with the gun innocent while, potentially, the victim lay dead.

      That law forces the presumption of innocence on the shooter, not the victim. And that’s the problem.

      • Pogo Possum

        “That law forces the presumption of innocence on the shooter, not the victim. And that’s the problem.”

        Can’t the shooter also be the victim?

    • klemz

      Christ, did Montana just get l33tspeak? There’s no sanctuary now. If this keeps up I’ll have to pick a fight with someone with a gun (so I can still get a Christian burial).

      The county attorneys don’t want a shifted burden of proof so they’re arguing peripheral points that seem less self-serving. At any rate, that dog won’t hunt. There’s a paradigm shift going on here and I doubt it can be stopped by arguments of “potential abuse.” McDonald v. Chicago is coming. Get ready for the Second Amendment in full effect.

      • Thomas Paine

        “Get ready for the Second Amendment in full effect.”

        Let’s hope so. It’s time the leading and modifying phrase “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” be understood as actually having meaning.

        • Lizard

          what i interpret as being necessary to the security of a free state, if the state we are talking about is montana, is to be as educated and prepared for national collapse as possible.

          for that to happen there would have to be some sort of collaboration between militia and academia, or, in other terms, between the reactionary right and the studious left.

          i don’t mean to imply there is no studious right or reactionary left, but as far as the mainstream media frames it, that’s what we’ve got implanted in our national consciousness.

          • Let me guess…you’re an intellectual, right?

          • Coming from a guy who rarely puts more than 10 words into a comment, that’s pretty rich.

          • Lizard

            yeah rusty, i would consider myself a part of the studious left, and if you have a problem with that, it only reinforces what i’m about to say.

            what concerns me about the gun-toters on the reactionary right is their virulent strain of anti-intellectualism. somewhere in the recent past, it became a point of pride to be ignorant. now it’s common for folks to despise science and critical thinking. this leaves a large group of people vulnerable to really stupid ideas, like obama being a socialist.

            it’s discouraging, to say the least, to see how gullible and easily conditioned people can be.

        • klemz

          independent clause

  2. The irony between this posting and the awful events that transpired today in Alabama are quite ironic, donchathink?!

    • So arming everyone with guns in the answer?

      Is there an age restrict on this? Do we start with age 15? 16? Should we allow high school students to be armed? Or does entering college seem reasonable? What if they aren’t 18 yet? Does it matter?

      • 45-8-321. Permit to carry concealed weapon. (1) A county sheriff shall, within 60 days after the filing of an application, issue a permit to carry a concealed weapon to the applicant. The permit is valid for 4 years from the date of issuance. An applicant must be a United States citizen who is 18 years of age or older and who holds a valid Montana driver’s license or other form of identification issued by the state that has a picture of the person identified.


        The nutjob educator in Alabama killed her co-workers, not students, try to keep up.

        • I read the link. My question still stands: So – is arming everyone with guns the answer?

          Do you want to arm kids too? Where is the line? Is there a line? Who doesn’t have second amendment rights? 17 year olds don’t where 18 year olds do?

          What happens to the innocents caught in the crossfire?

          Are public libraries OK, but city halls not? No to courthouses, but bars should be ok because of the potential of a life-threatening shove or punch?

          • Concealed carry laws lower crime, deal with it.

            Your argument about arming “kids” is bullshit, and you know it (or you’re dumber than I thought). Do you think those under the age of 18 should be allowed to vote, or enter into contracts?

            With the exception of your example of a bar/tavern, you listed buildings that are government owned, and an individual losing their right to protect themselves in such dwellings is nothing more than CYA for the governments that own said buildings.

          • Concealed carry laws lower crime, deal with it.

            Prove it.

            Do you think those under the age of 18 should be allowed to vote, or enter into contracts?

            If conceal/carry lowers crime as you claim then why shouldn’t they be allowed to CC? Your inconsistency is, might I point out, total bullshit Rusty.

            With the exception of your example of a bar/tavern, you listed buildings that are government owned, and an individual losing their right to protect themselves in such dwellings is nothing more than CYA for the governments that own said buildings.

            That makes no sense whatsoever. What is the government trying to cover their asses for? Are you likely to get assaulted at a government building? If so, why? For once in your pathetic life, make sense, Rusty.

          • In Rusty’s world, Wulfgar, apparently nutjobs with guns don’t kill anyone under the age of 18 and minors don’t have constitutional rights.

          • JC

            “Do you think those under the age of 18 should be allowed to vote, or enter into contracts?”

            The 26th amendment set the voting age at 18.

            Contracts are controlled by law, not the constitution, and are set at their current ages through law.

            The 1st amendment doesn’t limit rights of those under 18.

            Likewise, the 2nd amendment states nothing about age. Yet Rusty, a self-avowed 2nd amendment supremacist, thinks that those under 18 don’t deserve to exercise those rights through CC.

            How long is it until he thinks that under-18 year olds don’t deserve to exercise full 1st amendment rights.

            The inconsistency is telling.

    • problembear

      the irony is this country of brave gun-wielders seems to docilely accept that our rights as human beings are being slowly subsumed by corporate control of our economic and political futures. few rise up to challenge the machines as they tighten their grip…..yet, we are happy to shoot each other on a whim.

      guess the corporations and aristocrats figure our pop-guns are no threat to them…. if the peasants want to kill each other and feel brave about it, no skin off their balance sheets….

  3. problembear

    the biggest myth about gun ownership is that if you own guns no government entity can fully devour your rights as a freedom loving human being. the reality is that if the corporate controlled government wants to barge into your home to terrorize you or to bring you in, your tiny arsenal is worthless against a well-trained swat team….

    so who will protect missoula’s citizens from our police department? http://bit.ly/arPZGN things have gotten out of hand here.

  4. petetalbot

    I’m late to this debate but I wanted to say kudos, jhwygirl, for bringing up the subject. Here in Montana, nothing evokes more virulent comments than 2nd Amendment issues (except, maybe, kitten abuse).

    Hell, you could say “let’s censor the newspapers,” or “limit free speech,” or “curb religious freedom” and get a milder response.

    In these days of horrendous shooting-spree stories, there seems to be two schools of thought: we should have more guns and fewer gun laws, or fewer guns and more gun laws. Logic would lead one to lean toward the second argument, as I do. But I’m tired of getting beat up over it. You’re going to need a thick skin on this one, jhwygirl.

  1. 1 Editor and Publisher John Q. Murray on the Danger of Constitutionalists « 4&20 blackbirds

    […] listen to this wise woman (who is not anti-gun), and passed several horrible gun bills including HB228 and […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

  • Pages

  • Recent Comments

    Miles on A New Shelter for Vets or an E…
    success rate for In… on Thirty years ago ARCO killed A…
    Warrior for the Lord on The Dark Side of Colorado
    Linda Kelley-Miller on The Dark Side of Colorado
    Dan on A New Shelter for Vets or an E…
    Former Prosecutor Se… on Former Chief Deputy County Att…
    JediPeaceFrog on Montana AG Tim Fox and US Rep.…
  • Recent Posts

  • Blog Stats

    • 1,689,727 hits
  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 2,734 other followers

  • February 2010
    S M T W T F S
  • Categories

%d bloggers like this: