Just an idea

[joeroket]

The Montana bill is pretty good witha couple of exceptions.

Sections 1 and 3 look good.
Section 2(1), the part that states "Any person who is not otherwise prohibited from doing so by federal or state law may openly carry a weapon" needs to be clarified that open carry is a constitutional right. The way it is worded makes it appear to be that this law is granting that right.

What you are asking for in 2(1) is already stated in the declaration of intent of the bill.

WHEREAS, the Legislature declares that:

(1) the right of Montanans to defend their lives and liberties, as provided in Article II, section 3, of the Montana Constitution, and their right to keep or bear arms in defense of their homes, persons, and property, as provided in Article II, section 12, of the Montana Constitution, are fundamental and may not be called into question;

(2) the use of firearms for self-defense is recognized within the right reserved to the individual people of Montana in Article II, section 12, of the Montana Constitution;

 

[ak56]

What you are asking for in 2(1) is already stated in the declaration of intent of the bill.

True, but when people read the resulting law, they don't see the declaration of intent. Having it clearly stated in the actual text of the law avoids confusion.

 

[jt59]

Sorry AK 56...(post # 40) I would have to disagree on this approach.....for me it's "shoot for the moon, you might land on the roof"....

...because any modification to the existing statute, opens it up for any amendment by anyone...anti legislators as well as anti groups. IMO, I don't see any reason in the world to leave the anti's "something" if an effort to mount a legislative change/clarification was made...you are assuming that they are happy with the status quo....they clearly are not.....ie: Where do you think the WSP, Washington County Sheriffs Association, 2/3rds of the county PA's, let alone the local city PA's would come out on this?...and that's not even considering the general population anti groups. They're well organized and have enough money to push back and push back hard....

That's not to say that it couldn't be successful, but it would need a serious plan, resources and strategy to succeed....my analogy is hitting Omaha Beach with half the force and only 1 bullet per soldier and then landing the invasion force exactly where they thought we were going to land....we don't have to convince ourselves this makes sense....we have to convince everyone else.

A lot of the language in the MT statute makes it crystal clear on what is allowed and what is enforceable....I also like the recognition in the language that recognizes police response is not in one's decision making process, when reasonably threatend, and any subsequent investigation is tilted toward support the self defense nature of the investigation, not the other way round....and being able to inform your assailent that you are armed is not a crime, as thatcould be construed as "intimidating" and warrenting alarm (in your assailent) in the current WA law.

A change in WA law would be a long and arduous process (at least two years) to move it through the legislature....so you may as well go for the full monty.....claim as much political ground as you want and work back from there in the legislative process.....

I've done this before....it has to be well organized and takes an inhuman amount of commitment...there are at least 8 committee hearings (four on each side of house) that the language change would have to be marshalled through, along with some version of a fiscal impact review..... in addition, the effort needed to do a lot more than an email campaign to get 8 committee chairs to move it through each committee to a public hearing. Add to that the fact that the committee "do pass" recommendations are sequential, and it makes it all that much harder...if it stops in any one of the committee's is will die there.

As I've said before, it is much easier to get a legislative change shut down than it is to get one passed....you just need enough dogs barking in the yard to let the legislators know that the issue doesn't have consensus not on the merits of it being right or wrong.

Quite frankly, although I agree and see the need for clarification as great as anyone here, the likely lack of enough legislative experience and networking of this group being successful, is low....

And so, not to throw water on anybody parade, with that said, is there anyone who can offer this?:

1.) The names of at least two pro-gun Democrats and Republicans on the WEST side that you have a working and personal relationship with. (Note that one each, has to be in the House and one each, from the Senate)...who also happen to be the chairs of (any of) the respective committee's that will get the bill for consideration.

2.) The willingness to contact their office and ask for them to take a meeting....(and set a date).

3.) The willingness to get the 40-60 people on this forum to agree on legislative change language to bring forward.

4.) The ability to get the first three steps accomplished by no later than November 10th.

....because that's when the process for legislative bills to be dropped will begin....about 4,000 of them...all to be put into the process (meat grinder) and handled in the upcoming legislative session.

.........and if you can, then I'm in all the way!

(OK, Flame ON)

 

[amlevin]

Sorry AK 56...(post # 40) I would have to disagree on this approach.....for me it's "shoot for the moon, you might land on the roof"....

...because any modification to the existing statute, opens it up for any amendment by anyone...anti legislators as well as anti groups. IMO, I don't see any reason in the world to leave the anti's "something" if an effort to mount a legislative change/clarification was made...you are assuming that they are happy with the status quo....they clearly are not.....ie: Where do you think the WSP, Washington County Sheriffs Association, 2/3rds of the county PA's, let alone the local city PA's would come out on this?...and that's not even considering the general population anti groups. They're well organized and have enough money to push back and push back hard....

That's not to say that it couldn't be successful, but it would need a serious plan, resources and strategy to succeed....my analogy is hitting Omaha Beach with half the force and only 1 bullet per soldier and then landing the invasion force exactly where they thought we were going to land....we don't have to convince ourselves this makes sense....we have to convince everyone else.

A lot of the language in the MT statute makes it crystal clear on what is allowed and what is enforceable....I also like the recognition in the language that recognizes police response is not in one's decision making process, when reasonably threatend, and any subsequent investigation is tilted toward support the self defense nature of the investigation, not the other way round....and being able to inform your assailent that you are armed is not a crime, as thatcould be construed as "intimidating" and warrenting alarm (in your assailent) in the current WA law.

A change in WA law would be a long and arduous process (at least two years) to move it through the legislature....so you may as well go for the full monty.....claim as much political ground as you want and work back from there in the legislative process.....

I've done this before....it has to be well organized and takes an inhuman amount of commitment...there are at least 8 committee hearings (four on each side of house) that the language change would have to be marshalled through, along with some version of a fiscal impact review..... in addition, the effort needed to do a lot more than an email campaign to get 8 committee chairs to move it through each committee to a public hearing. Add to that the fact that the committee "do pass" recommendations are sequential, and it makes it all that much harder...if it stops in any one of the committee's is will die there.

As I've said before, it is much easier to get a legislative change shut down than it is to get one passed....you just need enough dogs barking in the yard to let the legislators know that the issue doesn't have consensus not on the merits of it being right or wrong.

Quite frankly, although I agree and see the need for clarification as great as anyone here, the likely lack of enough legislative experience and networking of this group being successful, is low....

And so, not to throw water on anybody parade, with that said, is there anyone who can offer this?:

1.) The names of at least two pro-gun Democrats and Republicans on the WEST side that you have a working and personal relationship with. (Note that one each, has to be in the House and one each, from the Senate)...who also happen to be the chairs of (any of) the respective committee's that will get the bill for consideration.

2.) The willingness to contact their office and ask for them to take a meeting....(and set a date).

3.) The willingness to get the 40-60 people on this forum to agree on legislative change language to bring forward.

4.) The ability to get the first three steps accomplished by no later than November 10th.

....because that's when the process for legislative bills to be dropped will begin....about 4,000 of them...all to be put into the process (meat grinder) and handled in the upcoming legislative session.

.........and if you can, then I'm in all the way!

(OK, Flame ON)

I can't see any legitimate reason for flaming when all you are doing is putting forth a well thought idea and pointing out the grim realities. It's clear that something needs to be done and it will take persistence. As you pointed out it may be too late for this session but certainly not for the next. A plan would be nice so everyone could explore those "relationships" that are essential for legislative success.

 

[Ruby]

I've been mulling over the same thought for a couple of days now. Repealing 9.41.270 in its entirety is probably a "non starter" in the Legislature for now. However, what about the addition of a simple statement in the list of exceptions? Something like:

"subsection (1) shall not apply to the carry of a holstered firearm absent any other prohibited actions"

or:

"a holstered firearm, absent any prohibited actions in subsection (1) shall not in itself be considered sufficient to warrant alarm"

Those are merely my first thoughts on this and I'm sure that others could add to it. As I see it, it would be easier to slip wording like this into the existing law and still leave the anti's something. I don't think anyone here wants to see it perfectly legal to carry a firearm in an irresponsible or intimidating manner so leave that part. Just make it perfectly clear that just carrying a firearm in a holster, visible or not, is not in itself sufficient to warrant alarm. That should take away this "tool" that police officers are relying on to do their "stop and ID's".

I also had the idea of using the Initiative process to accomplish this. Unfortunately, it might be that this November's election may make that very difficult for the next couple of years. As I understand, the signature requirement is based on a percentage of voters who voted in the last general election. If the turnout is as high as expected in two weeks, one will have an extremely high hurdle in order to get the proposal on the ballot. Waiting until after a "ho hum" election would take at least two years. Rather than initiative then it would be more sensible to put the full court press on individual legislators. Start with the newly elected and also those in key positions that could effect the change. Leave the parts that make sense for the "Anti's" and possibly catch some of them sleeping.

Now for others thoughts on this (I'm going for more coffee).

"a holstered firearm, visible or not, is not in itself sufficient to warrant alarm."

I read on a thread here a while back, and I don't know where to find it, I know I should cite and I will when I find it and learn to post links better, but the Washington State Supreme Court has already ruled that " a properly holstered firearm is not sufficient to warrant alarm in a reasonable person." I need to learn where to find these things. I apologize for not citing.

 

[Trigger Dr]

Ruby,
I believe that quote came from Casad

 

[joeroket]

Ruby what you read was from the appellate court case State v. Casad, which is unpublished and means next to nothing. The court stated that "It is not unlawful for a person to responsibly walk down the street with a visible firearm, even if this action would shock some people."

 

[Bill Starks]

"a holstered firearm, visible or not, is not in itself sufficient to warrant alarm."

I read on a thread here a while back, and I don't know where to find it, I know I should cite and I will when I find it and learn to post links better, but the Washington State Supreme Court has already ruled that " a properly holstered firearm is not sufficient to warrant alarm in a reasonable person." I need to learn where to find these things. I apologize for not citing.

State V Casad
[there is nothing to indicate that the officers had any reasonable
belief that the Defendant constituted a danger, even though the
Defendant was armed ... The defendants' [sic] action of simply
carrying a weapon in and of itself would not have raised a
reasonable fear that the Defendant was dangerous ... [There was
no more reason to seize Mr. Casad for walking down the street
carrying a rifle pointed at the ground, than there would to be seized
[sic] any sportsman during hunting season who might have a rifle
in his car.

State v Spencer
Spencer argues that RCW 9.41.270 improperly narrows an individual's right to bear arms in
self-defense. However, as discussed, supra, we have concluded that the statute's restriction on
self-defense is minimal because (1) weapons may be carried in response to "presently threatened unlawful
force by another" and (2) if there is no present threat, weapons may be carried in a manner that does not
warrant alarm in others. We have further determined that the statute is narrowly drawn to promote a
substantial public interest and that the statute's language demonstrates the Legislature's concern with
preserving the individual's right to bear arms in self-defense. For these reasons, we reject Spencer's claim
that the statute is unconstitutionally overbroad.

 

[Ruby]

Thanks guys, I appreciate the help. I think I have some reading to do!

 

[dizzle2]

I do have something along this line I am undertaking.If my plan comes together then I will put it out here.If it does come to fruition I have in mind some folks I'll ask to help .If it doesn't I'll back the truck up and start over.I should know in a few days.And you don't even have to use resources to pay me a salary.I have all the time in the world I can put into this.To try and set something up to use resouces that quite possibly could be used for legal etc to pay a salary or salaries is way premature and in light of how well we have done to date without it isn't nessesary.
Anyway I will keep you posted as I work this out.I have already lit some fires.

Great Idea! maybe some lawyers willing to help extend age to 18 for obtaining a CPL.....:lol:

 

[ak56]

Sorry AK 56...(post # 40) I would have to disagree on this approach.....for me it's "shoot for the moon, you might land on the roof"....

...because any modification to the existing statute, opens it up for any amendment by anyone...anti legislators as well as anti groups. IMO, I don't see any reason in the world to leave the anti's "something" if an effort to mount a legislative change/clarification was made...you are assuming that they are happy with the status quo....they clearly are not.....ie: Where do you think the WSP, Washington County Sheriffs Association, 2/3rds of the county PA's, let alone the local city PA's would come out on this?...and that's not even considering the general population anti groups. They're well organized and have enough money to push back and push back hard....

That's not to say that it couldn't be successful, but it would need a serious plan, resources and strategy to succeed....my analogy is hitting Omaha Beach with half the force and only 1 bullet per soldier and then landing the invasion force exactly where they thought we were going to land....we don't have to convince ourselves this makes sense....we have to convince everyone else.

A lot of the language in the MT statute makes it crystal clear on what is allowed and what is enforceable....I also like the recognition in the language that recognizes police response is not in one's decision making process, when reasonably threatend, and any subsequent investigation is tilted toward support the self defense nature of the investigation, not the other way round....and being able to inform your assailent that you are armed is not a crime, as thatcould be construed as "intimidating" and warrenting alarm (in your assailent) in the current WA law.

A change in WA law would be a long and arduous process (at least two years) to move it through the legislature....so you may as well go for the full monty.....claim as much political ground as you want and work back from there in the legislative process.....

I've done this before....it has to be well organized and takes an inhuman amount of commitment...there are at least 8 committee hearings (four on each side of house) that the language change would have to be marshalled through, along with some version of a fiscal impact review..... in addition, the effort needed to do a lot more than an email campaign to get 8 committee chairs to move it through each committee to a public hearing. Add to that the fact that the committee "do pass" recommendations are sequential, and it makes it all that much harder...if it stops in any one of the committee's is will die there.

As I've said before, it is much easier to get a legislative change shut down than it is to get one passed....you just need enough dogs barking in the yard to let the legislators know that the issue doesn't have consensus not on the merits of it being right or wrong.

Quite frankly, although I agree and see the need for clarification as great as anyone here, the likely lack of enough legislative experience and networking of this group being successful, is low....

And so, not to throw water on anybody parade, with that said, is there anyone who can offer this?:

1.) The names of at least two pro-gun Democrats and Republicans on the WEST side that you have a working and personal relationship with. (Note that one each, has to be in the House and one each, from the Senate)...who also happen to be the chairs of (any of) the respective committee's that will get the bill for consideration.

2.) The willingness to contact their office and ask for them to take a meeting....(and set a date).

3.) The willingness to get the 40-60 people on this forum to agree on legislative change language to bring forward.

4.) The ability to get the first three steps accomplished by no later than November 10th.

....because that's when the process for legislative bills to be dropped will begin....about 4,000 of them...all to be put into the process (meat grinder) and handled in the upcoming legislative session.

.........and if you can, then I'm in all the way!

(OK, Flame ON)

No flame, because I agree with you. My point was more about what I thought was more
likely to get passed, but considering the amount of work involved, 'shooting for the moon' may be a better approach.

 

[Bill Starks]

FYI - four lawyers I have on speed dial

J. Andrew Lauer 360-406-4685 (OlypenDrew)
www.j-andrew-lauer.com

Mark Knapp 253-202-2081 (also teaches classes on "what happens when you pull the trigger) http://www.firearmslawyer.net/

David Newman 425-748-5200
Firearm Rights and Restoration of Gun Rights

Jeff Goldstein 866-678-1382
criminal law, litigation & appeals



Andrew