Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: HB 228 What does it mean?

  1. #1
    Regular Member vermonter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    341

    Post imported post

    Now that open carry is addressed by law can you be restricted by businesses? I know employers can still restrict employees and CCW restrictions are still the same. Does that mean you can enter a restaurant and eat as long as you don't consume alcohol while OPEN CARRYING a holstered pistol and not be told to leave? I am sure property owners rights are still intact, but the law preempts hotels and landlords from prohibiting you. Does this mean the OC is protected, and you can carry with that protection into any OPEN establishment?

    I hope we don't act like Ass$#&^@ with this new law and ruin it for ourselves by doing stupid things.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Milford Colony, Montana, USA
    Posts
    145

    Post imported post

    I am sure someone with better knowledge than myself will answer. What I see is that it was further clarified, or asserted, what had already been in place. It also went on to further state that Montana has castle doctrine and places the burden of proof towards the state. Yes, a place of business can restrict you on their property if they choose, that does not change.

    -MTCZ

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    296

    Post imported post

    Montana House Bill 228 - Right to Self Defense and Right to Bear Arms

    http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2009/BillPdf/HB0228.pdf
    Montana House Bill 228 (8 pages)

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    296

    Post imported post

    Here's what we get with HB 228:
    >
    > 1. A clear policy statement by the Legislature that self defense is a natural right and that self defense by citizens reduces crime.
    >
    > 2. A clear policy statement by the Legislature that the right to bear arms in Montana is clearly a fundamental (important legal term) and individual right.
    >
    > 3. Reversal of guilty-until-proven-innocent for people defending themselves. This provision requires the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person defending herself or himself was NOT justified in using force, rather than the status quo, that defenders must prove that they were justified in using force. Trust me, this is very important.
    >
    > 4. Legislative declaration of policy that a defender has no duty to summon help or flee before using force to defend, in any place.
    >
    > 5. Open carry is legal. This has been presumed in Montana, but never stated in law. People have been arrested for open carry. This will settle that issue for good.
    >
    > 6. A defender may announce "I have a gun," with no more fear of prosecution under Montana's overbroad felony "Intimidation" statute.
    >
    > 7. Defensive display. A person may show an attacker that the defender is armed, and may even draw the gun and still be clearly on the right side of the legal line if the defender genuinely fears attack.
    >
    > 8. Requirement that when police investigate a scene where self defense is claimed, investigators must collect evidence that may support a claim of self defense as well as any other evidence.
    >
    > 9. Improved conditions for a defender to use force in any occupied structure. This applies to all occupied structures, not just a dwelling.
    >
    > 10. Police may not destroy any firearms seized. Any firearms seized must either be returned to the rightful owner or sold back into the marketplace.
    >
    > 11. Landlords may not prevent tenants from possessing firearms. This not only protects travelers staying in motels, but also protects those who cannot afford to own their own homes.
    >
    > 12. Restoration of the right to bear arms for people convicted of non-violent crimes who have done their time and been released from state supervision. This will not apply to people who have committed crimes of violence or crimes where a weapon was used.
    >
    > 13. The ability to use reasonable force to effect the citizen's arrest of a person believed to have committed a crime - to be able to hold the person until law enforcement can be summoned (as happened yesterday in Thompson Falls).
    >
    > 14. An immediate effective date. All of this will become effective while the ink from the Governor's signature is drying.
    >
    > Gary Marbut, president
    > Montana Shooting Sports Association
    > http://www.mtssa.org
    > author, Gun Laws of Montana
    > http://www.mtpublish.com

  5. #5
    Regular Member vermonter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    341

    Post imported post

    Well it clarifies that open carry is a RIGHT. Entering someone's home is by invitation and they can rescind that if they don't want you carrying. A business that is open to the public cannot throw you out for exercising a right that is codified by law. You have a right to free speech by wearing a tee shirt thats says "Vote for Ron Paul" in the Mall. You cannot yell, swear and disrupt the peace of others in the mall. That behavior would overstep your right to free speech by infringing on others. The way I see it is the state says it is your right to OC. No one can overstep the law and tell you that you cannot carry there IF their doors are open to the public. This would only apply to quasi public business, state buildings Etc not to private residence/land IMHO.

    DEFINITION:

    quasi-public
    One entry found.

    Main Entry:
    qua·si–pub·lic
    Pronunciation:
    -ˈpə-blik
    Function:
    adjective
    Date:
    1888
    : essentially public (as in services rendered) although under private ownership or control

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Red Lodge, MT & Gainesville, FL
    Posts
    73

    Post imported post



    No. I Don't Thing so!!

    vermonter wrote:
    Well it clarifies that open carry is a RIGHT. Entering someone's home is by invitation and they can rescind that if they don't want you carrying. A business that is open to the public cannot throw you out for exercising a right that is codified by law.
    In Montana, entering someone's business is ALSO by (implied) invitation, and that invitation is subject to revocation by the business owner or his designate. IN MONTANA, A place of business is not a public place... and here is a really great example.

    I am a (part-time) employee of a corporations that owns and operates both a Ski area and a Golf Course. The corporation does this "For Profit", even though part of the Ski area operates on "Public Land" under a lease from the U.S. Forest Service. 'Montana Law' allows the corporation to 'Regulate' (e.g. DENY) those who want to hike up the Mountain without buying a lift ticket, and anyone who "insists" that that they "have the right", once told to leave, if they choose not to leave, can, AND HAVE, been arrested of Criminal Trespass. Similar things hold for the Golf Course. (here itisALL on Privately owned Property) Just because the course is open to the public does NOT mean it is a "Public Course". If you want to play golf on the course, you must pay the greens fees, pay the cart rental (if you want a cart) and above all ABIDE buy the rules of the course (no you can't bring your own food, or booze or other drink - if it's on the course you have to buy it from the corporation. and no, you can not come out at night and ball hawk for balls in the ponds - they belong to us). I personally have had a LEO remove someone from the course for trespassing. HB228 DOES NOT preclude the RIGHT of any business to post "No Guns" (go ahead give the cite where it does ) or to ask ANYONE to leave the premises for ANY REASON (again, please provide the cite). If you are asked to leave a Private Business (for any reason) and you choose not to do so, in Montana, you CAN be arrestedfor Criminal Trespass.... and HB228 did not change that.
    StaySafe,
    MG
    NRA Certified Instructor

  7. #7
    Regular Member 40s-and-wfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Lake County, Montana, USA
    Posts
    490

    Post imported post

    Vermonter, read my latest posting in the thread talking about First Real Open Carry Experience.

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum34/621-4.html

    I was asked to leave a business because of a policy they have restricting the carry of firearms. A business has the right, as mentioned, to restrict who comes in and who doesn't and what those who come in, may do. If they don't want you to carry, it is their right to tell you to either leave your sidearm out in your vehicle or to not come in at all!!
    We (Myself and MT GUNNY) were successful in getting the policy changed, but it is still out there and it is still something that will plague us for quite some time!! We need to work as much as we can to change policies like that as often as we come across them!
    In a crisis you don't rise to the occasion, but rather default to your level of training.

    Forgiveness is between them and God. It's my job to arrange the meeting.
    -John W. Creasy (Man on Fire)

  8. #8
    Regular Member MT GUNNY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Kalispell, Montana, USA
    Posts
    309

    Post imported post

    Bump

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •