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.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=99280
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....
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.
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.