ECHOES OF ANTI-GOVERNMENT FREEMEN HEARD IN HELENA
Concealed Gun Bill Scares Montana Law Enforcement Officials
By Todd Wilkinson, 3-29-07
With a sense of deja vu from the 1990s all over again, in the form of anti-government rhetoric previously espoused by the “Freemen” and radical “Posse Comitatus” spilling back into Montana politics, a proposed gun rights bill in the state legislature has law enforcement officials worried.
House Bill 340, drafted by Republican Representative Jack Wells of Bozeman, is aimed at doing two things: Allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons inside city limits without needing a permit and it makes it harder for authorities to prosecute gun-carriers for crimes if they kill or wound another person in the name of self defense.
The bill has been met with near universal condemnation from police and sheriff’s departments across the state. Laws that enable people to defend themselves with guns already exist on the books, they say. What the bill by Wells, already known for his anti-government views, does is invite the presence of guns into public places where they shouldn’t be and heightens the potential for Old West-style gun violence and accidental shootings, critics say.
However, if the testimony from Three Forks resident Franklin Shook is any indication of those speaking out in favor of Wells’ bill, there are echoes of the 1990s when armed Freemen used similar rhetoric to incite hostility toward law enforcement officials. “Let’s just keep America alive and well in Montana,” Shook was quoted as saying in a story that appeared Thursday on the front page of the Bozeman Daily Chronicle. “Let’s not listen to organized law enforcement tell us why we must have our rights infringed.”
Countered Gallatin County Sheriff Jim Cashell to a Senate Committee hearing testimony: “This bill is based on fear. It is a very simple message: ‘You have to be afraid out there, not afraid of the person who is attacking you, but afraid that law-enforcement people will not support you’ when you claim self-defense.” Click here to read the entire report from Chronicle staff writer Walt Williams.
[End of article]Research for this discussion should include experiences from other states that have passed similar legislation. The fear factor could be addressed by presenting the number of on-scene police arrests that prevented life-threatening assaults measured against the total number of reported life threatening assaults in a particular reporting period. This statistic would indicate whether citizens had no reason or every reason to fear for their safety.
Comment By TW in Bozeman, 3-29-07Jim: Here's a link to a story that provides a fairly objective overview of Minnesota's experience with a concealed gun law and events in its aftermath. While the story says the vast majority of gun carriers do so without incident or having a criminal record, there have been cases in which people with criminal records and/or a violent history, such as spouse abusers etc., used the law to an unfortunate end. It also cites a report that might be helpful to you. Guns don't kill people; people who carry guns kill people; and it's the unstable folks who shouldn't be carrying guns who are not weeded out by this legislation in Montana that has law enforcement officials worried. Anyway, yours was a good post and here's some food for thought:
http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=99280
Gee, any of you read the bill? I don't see what is so terrible about HB 340. You're not allowed to provoke. So you aren't required to flee. And there has to be burden of proof moved to the state, yet investigations are allowed. Felons are specifically not "protected" by this. I'm sorry to see that the provisions about forcing the state to pay if charges are bought, then either dropped or found innocent, and it is too bad the parking lot provisions were canned.
Never mind it has been watered down already.
It's not like people are going to be road-raging looking for someone to shoot, for crying out loud. In fact, passing this bill might result in people driving and acting a bit more courteously. Ya never know....
I read with interest the points of this column. Then I read what
amounts to a rebuttal of those points in the Montana Standard:
http://www.mtstandard.com/articles/2007/03/25/opinion/hjjcjghejjefib.txt Members of the MSSA hardly fit the Freemen label.
When looking at proposed legislation it is always worthwhile to figure out what problem is being addressed. In this case, if not but for the Concealed Gun Bill, how many Montanans have received criminal or civil litigation treatment for concealed carry or pulling the trigger? Don't know. How many Montanans would now take advantage of this bill and why? Don't know. Is all this theoretical or is there a real problem either way? Who loses here and why? Don't know.
I could see maybe amending the bill to contain a rebuttal presumption in favor of those that have gone through and received certification of firearms training and safety. A little schooling never hurt anyone and just might help in those tense situations.
I am a little curious with the law enforcement community position
given the recent imprisonment of Border Patrol officers for shooting a drug runner and the recent NY indictments of police officers there. Pulling the trigger always seems to place the burden on the shooter whether officer or not notwithstanding the victim whether a bad actor or not. Criminal proceedings or civil lawsuits will follow. Montana's law will not prevent a shooter from risking all of his personal assets in a court fight in addition to living and reliving the shooting experience for the rest of his life. That's a high price for a moment's reflex response.
Dave, if you have a link to the bill, please post it. Thank you.
I found this link that may be latest house version that passed. http://data.opi.state.mt.us/BILLS/2007/BillHtml/HB0340.htm
In addition to a rebuttable presumption that I suggested before which would be linked to those people who have completed firearms and safety training, I would also suggest a CUI provision modeled after Montana's DUI laws. The presumption would be linked to those passing field sobriety testing. People should be cold sober and well trained for the law to favor their judgment in a confrontation situation.
We have spent the last month or so reading Wild Bill's recounting of the rhetorical mob lynching of Jim Zumbo and the responses posted by the very class (and I use that term at the lowest point of its definition) of people who would be the first to "carry" and, frankly, I sure don't believe that these people are in any way the kind of people that I would want having any expanded rights to carrying and brandishing firearms. Just go back and read some of that trailertrash arrogance, contempt for the broader public, that strutting, the bullying, the intimidation, and thinly veiled threats of violence against Zumbo, Schneider, and others and ask yourself whether we need to essentially gut our existing concealed carry and brandishment laws.
Comment By Craig Moore, 4-09-07I see where democrats in the Montana state senate have bottled up both HB 340 and HB 420 (Montana manufactured firearms). I guess this is to keep both bills from coming to a vote and prevent exposure of democrats to recorded firearms positions. Regardless of one's position on these bills, preventing a vote puts democrats once again against 2nd Amendment rights.
Comment By Logical Move, 4-16-07I wasn't aware that this paper was the voice of our law enforcement. Very dissapointing read, and a connection to the Freemen? Seriously?! Come on, man. What are you doing in Montana?? You sure you wouldn't be happy over in New England?
This article was printed from www.newwest.net at the following URL: http://www.newwest.net/main/article/concealed_gun_bill_scares_montana_law_enforcement_officials/