[Scott]

http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/articles/2005/02/18/news/guns.txt

Very interesting that you could produce a gun for self-defense only if it isn't pointed at anyone.

Now the other part seems ok. Forcing employers who prohibit the carrying of guns for self-defense to provide the same level of security as the gun owner would have enjoyed.

-Scott-

 

[nighthawk]

I can't imagine this being real? :listen:

 

[BassDaddy777]

Hostage Situation

Sounds like a hostage situation in the making. You can't point your gun at the Bad Guy, so it would most likely be pointed at someone else. Which means you are basically telling the BG "Stop or I'll have to shoot... er... somebody else?"

:headscrat

 

[F350]

I don't know, it seems to fit with what I have done in the past. In the early stages of a situation it would allow you to "uncover" or remove from holster in a "high or low ready" well in advance of the need to shoot. Funny the attitude adjustment 4 guys armed with tire tools and chains make when they see a 1911 held at "high ready" from 30-40 feet away. Here in Missouri I could probably be charged with brandishing for that. I consider the progression to be, 1} display 2} aim and warn 3} fire, this would give you legal protection to commence stage 1 at a longer distance, not eliminating stage 2

 

[The Tourist]

Let's not be too hasty.

I was always taught to point the firearm in a downward angle until the action started.

The position is called "depressed pistol," and I still use it in practice before coming to a modified Weaver with finger off the trigger.

I believe most of us baby-boomers got that same training.

 

[Captain Crunch]

Here's the link the that text of the bill:http://data.opi.state.mt.us/bills/2005/billhtml/HB0693.htm

 

[Captain Crunch]

Montana Self-Defense Bill Update

http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/articles/2005/02/18/news/guns.txt

Very interesting that you could produce a gun for self-defense only if it isn't pointed at anyone.

Now the other part seems ok. Forcing employers who prohibit the carrying of guns for self-defense to provide the same level of security as the gun owner would have enjoyed.

-Scott-

This extensively amended bill (HB693) was passed 16-2 in the House Judiciary Committee and is scheduled for first reading in the full House today.

The part about producing a gun for self-defense only if it isn't pointed at anyone simply means that "brandishing a firearm" is not a crime in Montana.
That provision remains in the bill.

The second part has been deleted & replaced with "An employer may not prohibit an employee from keeping a firearm in a vehicle owned by the employee and parked at the workplace".

Another important provision of the bill says that a citizen has no duty to summon law enforcement or retreat if attacked. That provision remains.

The Judiciary Committee effectively killed the provision that would have given Montana "Vermont-Alaska" style concealed carry.

This is the link to the Montana Shooting Sports Association wed site for Chairman Gary Marbut's comments on this bill. http://www.mtssa.org/legisupdates.phtml?legupdate_id=77

 

[Scott]

So I assume Montana doesn't have a brandishing exemption for legitimate self-defense?

In VA you can draw your firearm and not be charged if it is legitimate self-defense. The law doesn't address where you point it.

-Scott-

 

[Captain Crunch]

So I assume Montana doesn't have a brandishing exemption for legitimate self-defense?

In VA you can draw your firearm and not be charged if it is legitimate self-defense. The law doesn't address where you point it.

-Scott-

Right now, it's a gray area not specifically codified by statute. Historically, County Attorneys have declined to prosecute brandishing a firearm in legitimate self-defense cases when the evidence clearly indicates such.

But the absence of a brandishing exemption statute means they could prosecute, but they don't, unless it's an obvious criminal violation, like pointing a gun at a guy that cut you off on the highway.

 

[Scott]

Followup

http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?id=1&display=rednews/2005/03/03/build/state/69-gun-bill.inc

Brandishing in self-defense is not a crime and employers cannot prohibit lawfully possessed firearms in the parking lots etc. 'Alaska Carry' was stripped however.

-Scott-

 

[Captain Crunch]

http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?id=1&display=rednews/2005/03/03/build/state/69-gun-bill.inc

Brandishing in self-defense is not a crime and employers cannot prohibit lawfully possessed firearms in the parking lots etc. 'Alaska Carry' was stripped however.

-Scott-

Yeah, the House screwed us over on the "Alaska Carry" provision, but the other provisions are still alive, as well as the "No Duty To Retreat" provision.
The bill should pass 3rd reading in the House today, then on to the Senate.
So far, so good.

Scott, FYI, to track the progress of this bill, go to http://www.mtssa.org/, click on "Legislative News". This will give you more reliable info than the newspapers.