Defensive Carry banner

Montana - Self Defense - HB 228

1K views 8 replies 5 participants last post by  Captain Crunch 
#1 ·
Hopefully, these government employees (Peace Officers and Attorney's) were not on the taxpayer clock and were not traveling at taxpayer expense, while expressing their personal opinions, since whatever they said is just their personal opinion.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary Marbut-MSSA" <mssa@mtssa.org>
To: <mssa@mtssa.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 5:53 PM
Subject: Report HB 228, HJ 14, SB 183


> Dear MSSA Friends,
>
> A bunch of pro-HB 228 folks showed up at the hearing today - THANKS SO MUCH TO ALL OF YOU WHO CAME!!!!!!
>
> A larger bunch of police officers, sheriffs and county attorneys showed up to oppose HB 228. Sheriffs were led by Sheriff Anderson of Lincoln County, current president of the Montana Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association. HB 228 was also opposed by a batch of folks representing various aspects of the Montana University system. That is a bit of a mystery because HB 228 basically will not affect the U. system.
>
> After hearing the testimony of proponents and opponents, HB 228 was assigned by Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Gary Perry (R-Bozeman) to a subcommittee made up of senators Jim Shockley (R-Victor), Dan McGee ((R-Laurel) and Larry Jent (D-Bozeman). Senator McGee will chair this subcommittee.
>
> Brian Judy of the NRA and I have discussed with Senator Shockley several amendments to HB 228 that in net, will have little overall effect on the bill. They will improve some sections and mildly hamper some sections. But, if the proposed (so far) Shockley amendments are applied at the recommendation of the subcommittee, HB 228 will remain in pretty good shape. Many of the proposed amendments are to rephrase and tighten up language in HB 228 - no loss. Some gain some ground for gun owners, and some concede a bit of ground, but nothing fatal to any section of the bill.
>
> The subcommittee must render its report to the full Committee within one week. I will be working with subcommittee members concerning concepts and language.
>
> Senator Larry Jent (D-Bozeman) asked a series of full-auto questions of witnesses, questions that were clearly hostile to HB 228. We may need to begin calling him full-auto Larry.
>
> Stay tuned on HB 228.
>
> In the hearing on HJ 14, supporting the Department of Interior regulation change to allow self defense in National Parks, there were a number of proponents and only the Montana Human Rights (no human rights in National Parks) Network, an entity that is irrelevant. I predict that HJ 14 will clear Committee with no problem. There was a suggestion by Senator Jesse Laslovich (D-Anaconda) about dropping the section that urges the Montana Attorney General to intervene in a lawsuit by the Brady Bunch in D.C. to block the new DoI regulations.
>
> The hearing on SB 183 (MSSA's Wolf Recovery Act) was held in the Senate Finance and Claims Committee while the rest of us were tied up in the Senate Judiciary Committee, so we were unable to attend. I'm told that sponsor and MSSA Board member Senator Joe Balyeat did a good job of presenting information about the SB 183 Fiscal Note to Committee members. Stay tuned on SB 183 too.
>
> That's the report.
>
> Gary Marbut, president
> Montana Shooting Sports Association
> Montana Shooting Sports Association
> author, Gun Laws of Montana
> Gun Laws of Montana
>
 
See less See more
#2 ·
Hi Gary,
It was announced on the local new last night KULR Channel 8
That this bill passed.
Can you confirm this? if so this is a great bill passed and thanks for all the hard work.
Longbow
 
#3 ·
This is not Gary Marbut. See the link below, bill did not pass and was not voted defer for a week to try to resolve differences. "Some" Montana Peace Officers and Attorneys" spoke against the bill, maybe includes Yellowstone County, call your Sheriff and County Attorney and ask them.

http://laws.leg.mt.gov/laws09/LAW0203W$BSRV.ActionQuery?P_BLTP_BILL_TYP_CD=HB&P_BILL_NO=228&P_BILL_DFT_NO=&P_CHPT_NO=&Z_ACTION=Find&P_SBJ_DESCR=&P_SBJT_SBJ_CD=&P_LST_NM1=&P_ENTY_ID_SEQ=
 
#4 · (Edited)
I looked up the bill today with the Senate Judiciary committee ammendments. You too can look it up, search for HB 228 at:

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

The provision that allows concealed carry (45-8-316) by making concealed carry an offense only if committing a criminal offense was struck from the bill. Unless someone convinces me otherwise, I'd say that this bill was pertty much gutted. Oh, and the bill now adds healthcare facilities to the list of places where CC is prohibited. Anyone know what happened?
 
#5 ·
Oh, and the bill now adds healthcare facilities to the list of places where CC is prohibited. Anyone know what happened?
This will explain it. Basically, they blind-sided us. From MSSA:

Like many of you, I am VERY frustrated by the expansion of the "prohibited places" law, 45-8-328 to include "health care facilities." The only good news is that this expansion does not include doctors' offices (small good news, I admit). The amendment adds a new 1(d) to 45-8-328 (places where permittees may not exercise a CWP) to include "health care facilities as defined in 50-5-101." The definition there is this:

" (23) (a) "Health care facility" or "facility" means all or a portion of an institution, building, or agency, private or public, excluding federal facilities, whether organized for profit or not, that is used, operated, or designed to provide health services, medical treatment, or nursing, rehabilitative, or preventive care to any individual. The term includes chemical dependency facilities, critical access hospitals, end-stage renal dialysis facilities, home health agencies, home infusion therapy agencies, hospices, hospitals, infirmaries, long-term care facilities, intermediate care facilities for the developmentally disabled, medical assistance facilities, mental health centers, outpatient centers for primary care, outpatient centers for surgical services, rehabilitation facilities, residential care facilities, and residential treatment facilities.
(b) The term does not include offices of private physicians, dentists, or other physical or mental health care workers regulated under Title 37, including licensed addiction counselors."
 
#6 ·
I'm not very versed on this topic or the full content of the bill but from reading that health care facility expansion, it might be best to kill that bill.

Hello people, have they not seen the recent nursing home shooting in SC?
 
#7 ·
I'm not very versed on this topic or the full content of the bill but from reading that health care facility expansion, it might be best to kill that bill.
No, we don't want to kill it. The bill has a "no duty to retreat, AKA stand your ground" provision.

We need that law in Montana.

Life is full of compromises.
 
#8 ·
It's not that it's a bad bill, it just started so much better. I listened to the Senate Judiciary hearing and couldn't bear to listen to all the opposition (you can listen to archived hearings). We are presumed to be guilty by many of the LEOs.
 
#9 ·
Yeah, I agree, in its original form it was much better, although I think it was a bit over-ambitious to start with. That was a lot of language to put in one piece of legislation. MSSA had to have known that the bill wouldn't survive without a lot of trimming.

Like I said, life is full of compromises.

I was surprised with the LE opposition, tho. That's unusual for Montana.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top