• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Re wording 9.41.270

Lammo

Lammo

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2009
Messages
580
Location
Spokane, Washington, USA
How about we try for this?

Montana Code Annotated 2009

45-3-111. Openly carrying weapon -- display -- exemption. (1) Any person who is not otherwise prohibited from doing so by federal or state law may openly carry a weapon and may communicate to another person the fact that the person has a weapon.
(2) If a person reasonably believes that the person or another person is threatened with bodily harm, the person may warn or threaten the use of force, including deadly force, against the aggressor, including drawing or presenting a weapon.
(3) This section does not limit the authority of the board of regents or other postsecondary institutions to regulate the carrying of weapons, as defined in 45-8-361(5)(b), on their campuses.

History: En. Sec. 2, Ch. 332, L. 2009.

Link: http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/mca/45/3/45-3-111.htm

It's located in the Montana Code in the Justifiable Use of Force section, not with the other firearms laws. Except for paragraph (3) it looks real good to me.

P. S. - - I needed to look this up after a little "incident" in Kalispell, MT, on Saturday, 08-19-11 (I may post the story here later. For now, check out: http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?94208-MWAG-call-in-Kalispell-on-08-19-2011).
 
jt59

jt59

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2010
Messages
1,005
Location
Central South Sound
Lammo said:
Montana Code Annotated 2009

45-3-111. Openly carrying weapon -- display -- exemption. (1) Any person who is not otherwise prohibited from doing so by federal or state law may openly carry a weapon and may communicate to another person the fact that the person has a weapon.
(2) If a person reasonably believes that the person or another person is threatened with bodily harm, the person may warn or threaten the use of force, including deadly force, against the aggressor, including drawing or presenting a weapon.
(3) This section does not limit the authority of the board of regents or other postsecondary institutions to regulate the carrying of weapons, as defined in 45-8-361(5)(b), on their campuses.

History: En. Sec. 2, Ch. 332, L. 2009.

Link: http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/mca/45/3/45-3-111.htm

It's located in the Montana Code in the Justifiable Use of Force section, not with the other firearms laws. Except for paragraph (3) it looks real good to me.

P. S. - - I needed to look this up after a little "incident" in Kalispell, MT, on Saturday, 08-19-11 (I may post the story here later. For now, check out: http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?94208-MWAG-call-in-Kalispell-on-08-19-2011).
Click to expand...

This is absolutely the best suggestion so far.....
 
jbone

jbone

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,230
Location
WA
gogodawgs said:
It sort of came up in another thread, if you were to re word and eliminate wording from .270 to clarify illegal carry/intimidation how would you do it? Try and be as simplistic as possible, either by striking words all together or replacing a few key words.

9.41.270 Currently reads:



The words that I suggest striking are in bold above and read as follows:

(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to exhibit, display, or draw any firearm, dagger, sword, knife or other cutting or stabbing instrument, club, or any other weapon apparently capable of producing bodily harm, in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that manifests an intent to intimidate another person.
Click to expand...
What if the complainants (s) are accomplished left antigun liars? Intent is just a word. Does it pass the subjective and intent to instill fear test? Can you anticipate the prosecutor will not show intent in manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place, if they can get past the test?

I think there's still too much leeway in the statute allowing for continued abuse. In other words I’m not sure taking out “either, or that warrants alarm for the safety of other” is enough.


Edit to add:
Maybe the legislative fear mongering needs to be repealed too. This kind of BS sets the stage for liberals claiming their fear clearly defines intent.

RCW 43.70.540
Legislative finding and intent -- 1994 sp.s. c 7: "The legislature finds that the increasing violence in our society causes great concern for the immediate health and safety of our citizens and our social institutions. Youth violence is increasing at an alarming rate and young people between the ages of fifteen and twenty-four are at the highest risk of being perpetrators and victims of violence. Additionally, random violence, including homicide and the use of firearms, has dramatically increased over the last decade
 
Last edited:
O

oneeyeross

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2010
Messages
500
Location
Winlock, , USA
The problem (at least to my poor little twitter-pated mind) is "How do you prove 'intent'".

Absent a mind reading device, how does the court prove "intent?"

The way it is currently done, I guess, is by the preponderance of evidence, that is, posture, time, place, dress, attitude, made, etc... But, it just leaves too much to the discretion of the prosecutor and police officer on the scene. If we had police officers and courts that were truly "blind" it would be ok, but each officer and court room brings their individual prejudice and attitude to the situation.

There is no quick fix, there will never be a solution to this law. Until the population "gets" it when it comes to carrying a firearm, we will have this issue....
 
amzbrady

amzbrady

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
3,521
Location
Marysville, Washington, USA
oneeyeross said:
The problem (at least to my poor little twitter-pated mind) is "How do you prove 'intent'".

Absent a mind reading device, how does the court prove "intent?"

The way it is currently done, I guess, is by the preponderance of evidence, that is, posture, time, place, dress, attitude, made, etc... But, it just leaves too much to the discretion of the prosecutor and police officer on the scene. If we had police officers and courts that were truly "blind" it would be ok, but each officer and court room brings their individual prejudice and attitude to the situation.

There is no quick fix, there will never be a solution to this law. Until the population "gets" it when it comes to carrying a firearm, we will have this issue....
Click to expand...

View attachment 6766 Getting the police to recognize that open carry is legal, and get them properly trained on how to handle MWAG calls is a step in the right direction.
 
gogodawgs

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
5,669
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
Flopsweat said:
How about "manifests intent"? Once again left up to interpretation I suppose. And around we go. :)
Click to expand...

No, not around we go. Manifests intent is a series of actions that lead to a result. If you want to go down the "Once again left up to interpretation" route then you have a fundamental misunderstanding of our system of jurisprudence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top