Help needed for HB228

imported post

From the MSSA:

Dear MSSA Friends,

It's action time with HB 228, MSSA's flagship Self Defense bill. Let me first give you a report on where we are with the bill. Further down in this email I'll tell you about the CRITICAL HELP we need from you.

Report. The House Judiciary Committee took Executive Action ("exec") on HB 228 today. Three entire sections were stripped out of the bill, all for tactically valid reasons (trust me on this - I don't like losing them either). The sections gone are Section 5 (recovery of legal costs in self defense), Section 6 (when and for how long police can seize guns) and Section 9 (employers and employees). Even with these three sections gone, there is still a LOT of meat in the bill and it is VERY worth supporting - worth fighting for.

There was a hostile amendment offered (by Democrat lawyers on the Committee) to strip Section 1(5) (burden of proof in self defense) from the bill. That attempt failed thanks to Rep. Deb Kottel (D-Great Falls). We've also been drawing a lot of political lightening over Section 3, defensive display of a firearm. Section 3, among other benefits, would affirm that open carry is legal in Montana, an issue about which Montana law is currently silent. In an effort to reduce some of the problems police administrators have with HB 228, Deb Kottel (still our hero) offered an amendment that was approved by the Committee.

There's just one problem, Deb's amendment, though well-intended, caused some serious problems with Section 3 and how it would be implemented. We are working now to get this problem fixed when HB 228 comes up for Second Reading on the House floor, probably on Tuesday. BTW, all Democrats except Deb Kottel on the Judiciary Committee voted AGAINST HB 228. All the Republicans and Deb voted FOR the bill.

To get HB 228 passed by the House and to get Section 3 fixed, we need to build political heat and momentum for HB 228. That's where you come in.

Action item 1: One Democrat on the Committee who voted against HB 228 is Rep. Bob Ebinger (D- Livingston). Bob is elected from a pretty "gunny" district. I doubt that his constituents would be pleased to learn that he's voting anti-gun. And, I suspect Bob may be somewhat responsive to public pressure.

So, we need to deliver a LOT of messages to Bob challenging his opposition to HB 228. You can email Rep. Ebinger at: buffalojump@imt.net

Please send Rep. Ebinger an email. DO NOT threaten him! DO NOT use bad language! No name calling. Scold him, cajole him, rebuke him or persuade him as you like. Also, if you know ANYBODY in Park County, please get them to contact Ebinger too, and to spread this word in Park County. Anyone without email can call the legislative message center at 444-4800 and leave a message for Ebinger. The messages should be short, such as "Why the heck are you voting against a self defense bill supported by every national gun rights organization, and by every statewide gun group in Montana? Who do you work for anyway?" Besides alerting all your friends, you can both send Ebinger an email message AND send him a message through the legislative message center (not working on Sunday). Let's make Ebinger feel the heat. He's our poster boy for the moment.

Action item 2: It's now time for you to begin contacting your House members, your Representatives (not Senators yet). Be nice!

If you don't know who your Representative is, you can find out from:
[url]http://nris.mt.gov/gis/legislat/2009/

[/url]If you live near a district boundary and can't figure out which of two districts you live in, send to any who are close. Heck, you can send to every member of the House if you like.
Emails addresses for all legislators who have email addresses are available from:
[url]http://www.leg.mt.gov/css/Sessions/61st/roster.asp?HouseID=0&SessionID=94

[/url]The message to all legislators should be some variation of "Please support HB 228. Oppose any amendments not made by Rep. Kerns (the sponsor) or Rep. Kottel." Plus, you might wish to explain that although some think the HB 228 is opposed by all cops, it's actually only opposed by police administrators, not rank and file street cops. And you might remind legislators that police, even administrators, are our employees, not our bosses. You might even care to invite them to review my expose' on Public Safety V. Private Safety at:
[url]http://www.progunleaders.org/safety

[/url]You may invite legislators to review my explanation of HB 228 at:
[url]http://progunleaders.org/Self-defense/

[/url]Feel free to be very firm. "We want this bill to pass!" is not too strong.

We REALLY need a big push, right now. We need a strong showing from the House, because we will have an additional fight when HB 228 gets to the Senate. The better the vote in the House, the less the fight in the Senate.

HB 228 will probably be on the House floor for Second Reading on Tuesday. This is probably the most critical vote for the bill. NOW is the time to put the pressure on.

Thanks loads for your help! Every single message sent to Helena helps!!
Gary Marbut, president
Montana Shooting Sports Association
http://www.mtssa.org
author, Gun Laws of Montana
http://www.mtpublish.com

imported post

Tried checking out the links to all the upcoming bills and other horse-$#!+ that is upcoming and the links don't seem to work, if anyone has any information on where I can find these I would greatly appreciate a push in that direction!

imported post

Here is my Atempt ;

My name is MT Gunny, Born and raised Montanan.
It is Imperative that HB 228Be Passed in as close to its Original Form as Possible, EspeciallySection 3, defensive display of a firearm.

The Right to Protect myself and my family is a Natural Human Right, a God Given Right and a 2 Amendment Right. Also the Montana Constitution Grantees it to us.


[font=Arial,Helvetica]Montana: "The right of any person to keep or bear arms in defense of his own home, person, and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but nothing herein contained shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons." Mont. Const. art. II, 12.[/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica]HB 228 Would Reinforce this, Pleas Notice the, "Shall not be Called in Question" Part!! There is also the last 4 words of the 2 Amendment that Reinforce Montana's Article II, Section 12, If your Not familiar with the 4, they are "Shall Not Be Infringed"[/font]

This is Very important to Many of your Constituents, I am Shure of that. This is why I know;

Police aren’t required to protect you. In Warren v. District of Columbia (1981), the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled, “official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection. . . a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular citizen.” In Bowers v. DeVito (1982), the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled, “[T]here is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen.”

One thing Id like to Point out is the Fact that Idaho, wyoming, North and South Dakota have similar Bills that were passed years ago, Not to mention the Growing Number of states passing the Same type of Bill.

Please take this Under Very Careful Consideration and Vote Yes on HB 228

Please Fell free to Email me at .....................

Thanks MT GUNNY

imported post

Copy Paste your Message and send it to Every one Thats what I do. Here is a better place to Isolate all the Members of the state house and Senate;


House
http://leg.mt.gov/css/Sessions/61st/roster.asp?HouseID=1&SessionID=94

Senate http://leg.mt.gov/css/Sessions/61st/roster.asp?HouseID=2&SessionID=94

imported post

42amp, If you are looking to see info on specific bills, use this link, just type in the bill #.

http://laws.leg.mt.gov/laws09/law0203w$.startup

imported post

Action Item 2 Done with the Following, please feel free to copy and Paste.:



Hello My name isMT GUNNYI am a Born and Raised Montanan, And I support this Bill.I Believe that Self Defense is a Natural Human Right, A God Given Right andsupported by Montana Constitution.

Montana: "The right of any person to keep or bear arms in defense of his own home, person, and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but nothing herein contained shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons." Mont. Const. art. II, 12.

HB 228 will Reinforce that!

Please Do not Remove My Ability to Protect My Family Lawfully!
Police aren’t required to protect you. In Warren v. District of Columbia (1981), the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled, “official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection. . . a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular citizen.” In Bowers v. DeVito (1982), the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled, “[T]here is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen.”


I don't Know about you but that Scares the He** out of Me!!

MT GUNNY .......e....Mail.............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

91 Montana HouseReps, Just Recieved that. I copy andPasted Every one of there Emails to a New Contact Folder. Im half way through the Senat Members

imported post

MT Gunny Washington may have ruled that an officer is not required to protect you. But here in Montana this is still the guidelines and Oath that ALL LEO's take here in Montana. Regardless what Washington says, our LEO's work here in Montana are required to conduct themselves by this Code of Ethics recently updated in 08/01/2008





[align=right]Printer Friendly Version



23.13.203CODE OF ETHICS[/align]
(1) Regulations governing certification of public safety officers requires that a code of ethics shall be administered as an oath.
(2) The procedure for administration of the code of ethics is as follows:

(a) each applicant for certification will attest to this code of ethics and the oath shall be administered by the head of the public safety agency for which they serve, or by the Montana Law Enforcement Academy (academy) administrator or designee;

(b) the applicant and the administrator administering the oath will sign two copies of the public safety code of ethics; and

(c) one copy will be retained by the applicant and the other copy will be retained in the applicant's academy student file, which will be available for inspection by the council staff at any reasonable time.

(3) The oath of the public safety officers' code of ethics is:

"My fundamental responsibility as a public safety officer is to serve the community, safeguard lives and property, protect the innocent, keep the peace, and ensure the constitutional rights of all are not abridged.

"I shall perform all duties impartially, without favor or ill will and without regard to status, sex, race, religion, creed, political belief or aspiration. I will treat all citizens equally and with courtesy, consideration, and dignity. I will never allow personal feelings, animosities, or friendships to influence my official conduct.

"I will enforce or apply all laws and regulations appropriately, courteously, and responsibly.

"I will never employ unnecessary force or violence, and will use only such force in the discharge of my duties as is objectively reasonable in all circumstances. I will refrain from applying unnecessary infliction of pain or suffering and will never engage in cruel, degrading, or inhuman treatment of any person.

"Whatever I see, hear, or learn, which is of a confidential nature, I will keep in confidence unless the performance of duty or legal provision requires otherwise.

"I will not engage in nor will I condone any acts of corruption, bribery, or criminal activity; and shall disclose to the appropriate authorities all such acts. I will refuse to accept any gifts, favors, gratuities, or promises that could be interpreted as favor or cause me to refrain from performing my official duties.

"I will strive to work in unison with all legally authorized agencies and their representatives in the pursuit of justice.

"I will be responsible for my professional development and will take reasonable opportunities to improve my level of knowledge and competence.

"I will at all times ensure that my character and conduct is admirable and will not bring discredit to my community, my agency, or my chosen profession."

History: 2-15-2029, MCA; IMP , 2-15-2029, MCA; NEW , 2008 MAR p. 1587, Eff. 8/1/08.

imported post

JBin Check out this Discussion on that; http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=422552

Lets keep this thread on Subject.

imported post

Buy the Way have you sent them Any Emails?

Ive Had 5 Fairly Positive Replies so Far.

imported post

You can also use this to find your people http://www.votesmart.org/index.htm. It works easier for me since I live in one of those line areas.

I sent out a message.

-CZ

imported post

But I thought I was on topic since you posted:

Police aren’t required to protect you. In Warren v. District of Columbia (1981)

I had posted that Oath the LEO's take here in Montana and are required to protect.

But anyway I understand.

imported post

I realize that it was probably a form reply, but I got one from my rep, Mike Miller

You can rest assured that I am very pro 2[sup]nd[/sup] amendment and I plan on supporting HB 228 (and HB 246). I am sick and tired of watching our 2[sup]nd[/sup] amendment rights get slowly eroded and I am very concerned about what the “Brady Bunch” and the anti-gun controlled House and Senate in Washington DC are planning the next few years.

-CZ

imported post

Of the 5 Replies I receved, all were no more than 8 words.

4 said; "I agree with you"

imported post

JB, They are not nor can they be. The oath they take does not mean they are legally responsible for your safety. If someone steals your car are the police responsible because they did not safeguard your property? Also, an oath is not a statutory requirement.

imported post

VAopencarry wrote:

JB, They are not nor can they be. The oath they take does not mean they are legally responsible for your safety. If someone steals your car are the police responsible because they did not safeguard your property? Also, an oath is not a statutory requirement.

Click to expand...

Well VAopencarry I hate to disagree with you but I was an LEO here in Montana, and I know what I know from experience and what I was told prior to taking the oath.

If you want to be a cop here in Montana you will take the oath and live by it, or your gone.