« Awesome! | Main | The Rock Star Just Got His Ass Kicked »

March 29, 2007

Comments

moorcat

I tend to get emails sent to me every time a gun related bill hits the legislature (not always just Montana's) and this one was no exception. I haven't posted about it for the same reasons Wulfgar has pointed out above - while I can get behind some of this bill, the way it was written is patently stupid. This is NOT a gun rights bill. It is a "licence to brandish" for those that own guns. Further, the actual language of the bill defeats it's stated purpose.

As one of those "gun nuts", I don't support this bill. I would much rather see well conceived legislation pertaining to gun rights than this drivel. I also cannot ignore the way this bill has been fought out by the Republicans. This is bad politics and bad politics does NOT help with the movement to protect gun rights - it insults it.

Moorcat

Gerik

If only you could crack R's over the head with this type of hard hitting rhetoric. They may well wet themselves upon reading it similar to the Webb incident of this week. Nice work.

If I may take issue with only one point raised...

You never *EVER* pull a weapon on somebody that you don't intend to use. I don't care whether its a knife, a baseball bat or a gun. If you pull it, you will (or should) use it.

I for one am glad that this comment is not the case for my law enforcement father. Though he was certainly capable, he never used his sidearm in the line of duty, despite the numerous times it was pointed with threatening words.

Certainly this action served his true intent, to persuade, not attack. Maybe I am not picking up the finer distinction between civilian "brandishing" and law enforcement "brandishing" but I say your statement here is a bit off.

I support your effort to shoot holes in what appears to be an idiotic piece of legislation, but perhaps "brandish" in this case should be defined differently from "pull" as you put it.

If its on your hip, it should be a legal carry. If its in your hand, you are asking for trouble. Regardless, this legislation...

...prohibits things that are almost impossible to legally adjudicate.

'nuff said, throw the f*cker out.

Matt

From a purely selfish standpoint - I like the fact that I don't have to pay the County the $55 (I'm not sure if that's entirely correct, if not please forgive.) to pack a concealed weapon in city limits under this bill.

I like the fact that I don't have to "explain" to the sheriff why, I, as law abiding citizen want to carry a concealed weapon. There is no form asking why I might need to.

Now, I realize that there are people out there that are not responsible and that we NEED to have laws in place to tell the responsible citizens from the nutters.. and that this bill has more to do with just concealed carry laws, and is poorly written etc...

I just like the fact that I don't have to pay more $$ and give an explanation of why I want to be a law abiding citizen.
If there is any part of this bill I like-it's that. The rest seems excessive.
Maybe that's weak sauce - sorry.

Wulfgar

No need to apologize, Matt. That's one of the things I like about the bill as well.

Gerik, you make a valid distinction, but it ultimately supports my point. Police are trained to intimidate in order to resolve violent situations, without the use of violence. They dress in authoritarian manner. They are taught authoritative speech. They are allowed to point their weapons at a potential threat and they are given the right to shoot a fleeing suspect. Citizens are not, even under this bill.

I've had weapons pulled on me before. I didn't defuse the situation by pointing a gun at the ground and declaring that "If I pointed this gun at you, then I might be able to kill you!" (/haughty British speak). We trust our police to be able to use the weapons given without them using such stupidly. I would bet that every single time your father unholstered his sidearm, Gerik, he pointed it squarely at the suspect with sure and certain knowledge that he may have to use it. Do you really trust your fellow citizens to be that discerning? I don't.

The simple fact, for me as John Q. Citizen, is that if I have to brandish a weapon, then I am more than willing to use it. If I don't, good. But to bet that I won't would be a sucker's bet. Cops get some latitude. Offering the same to the untrained is just silly.

moorcat

As someone who has undergone that training, Wulfgar is actually understating it. Anyone with combat military training would also understand.

The bottom line is exactly what Wulfgar posted - if you pull a gun, you damn well better be prepared to use it. EVERYTIME I have had to "brandish" a weapon, it was done with the certainty that I would have to use it and when the time came for me to actually do it... well, I am still standing. I applaud your father for never having to use his service peice. I only wish I could say the same...

Citizens - in general - are not prepared, trained or ready to weild that authority or responcibility. There may come a time when you have to do it, but in general, I certainly wouldn't trust the basic "John Q Public" with knowing when that time was.

Moorcat

Erox

Just this one part part in Section3 gives me the willies:

A person who displays or shows a firearm for a defensive purpose may not be held accountable for a criminal act.

WHAAAAAT??!??!
So if I take the "defensive" position of brandishing my firearm at the cops after robbing a liquor store (cuz you know these cops don't seem to understand I have little mouths to feed), I'm off the hook? COOL!

This was apparently written to appeal to a group of lobbyists that make the ASSumption that all gun owners are rational, levelheaded, and responsible. (Some are, but not all.)

That part sounds like a defense attorney's wet dream. It's poorly written with way too many loopholes. They can do better than that.

And republicans are still doing the "with us or against us" false dilemma? That is soooo 2002!

billT

So where are the places defined that you can't cary a gun. New Mexico defines them in their law as follows.

Unlawful carrying of a deadly weapon on school or pre-school premises.

Unlawful carrying of a deadly weapon on university premises

Unlawful carrying of a deadly weapon in licensed liquor establishments****

Courts (without the consent of the presiding judge)

Tribal Land (unless authorized by the tribal council)

On a snowmobile (unless there is no round in the chamber)

Airport security zones

State parks

Many federal properties - military bases, national parks, national monuments, etc.

While under the influence of alcohol or drugs

Unlawful carrying of a deadly weapon on a bus

moos

Can I still shoot at coyotes in my pajamas?

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

Read This!

Friends like Family

Blog powered by Typepad