RSS
Home
Montana lawmakers have it right with new statute on self-defense
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer this week signed into law a new self-defense statute that will “steal the thunder” from gun prohibitionists who invariably whine that armed citizens might “take the law into their own hands.”
The new statute squarely puts the law in the hands of the citizens, by plainly stating they have no duty to retreat if attacked in a place where they have a right to be. The law also allows armed citizens to use force or threaten the use of force when he or she reasonably believes an attack is about to occur, or to stop an attack already in progress.
There is also a section on citizen’s arrest, and one that codifies the legality of open carry.
It is a gun prohibitionist’s nightmare, but for the armed Montana citizen – or anybody visiting the Big Sky Country – it may just be the best news they’ve had this year.
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.
Gary Marbut, president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association (MSSA) sent an e-mail the other day that applauded several people, including NRA's Brian Judy, but criticized others. In particular, he leveled his remarks against “the few law enforcement administrators and prosecutors who are so afraid of armed citizens that they lied and claimed end-of-life-on-Earth in opposing HB 228.”
“You need to work locally to replace these people,” Marbut observed. “They just don’t have a Montana attitude.”
And what is the “Montana attitude?”
It has to do with not being robbed, raped, beaten, burglarized or murdered. While these things may be an “acceptable risk” in other parts of the country, where people like Milwaukee Police Chief Ed Flynn orders his cops to confront and disarm law-abiding citizens who are open-carrying for their protection (because Wisconsin has no concealed carry law), they do not stand too well in the West.
Washington remains part of the West as well. Here, the State Supreme Court has already held that “the law is well settled that there is no duty to retreat when a person is assaulted in a place where he or she has a right to be.”
Washington statutes on the use of force, including lethal force, have been in effect for several years, and they are solid.
Likewise in Montana, where under the new statute, a person does not even have to call the police for help before acting in self-defense.
Under Section 2 of the new Montana statute:
(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.
In the section dealing with citizen’s arrest, “A private person may arrest another when there is probable cause to believe that the person is committing or has committed an offense and the existing circumstances require the person’s immediate arrest. The private person may use reasonable force to detain the arrested person.”
It appears Montana just got a whole lot safer.
On the other hand, disgraced former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer certainly wins an award for brass gonads for his recent piece on Slate.com headlined Gun Control without Gun Laws: How Obama can used government procurement regulations to limit gun violence.
Spitzer is something of an authority on “procurement,” but it would be nice if he would not try to restore his tarnished image by taking on the gun issue, and it would be doubly nice if someone would tell this sleaze that guns and hookers aren’t exactly the same thing.
Eliot asks, “Why do we buy guns from companies that permit their products to be sold to bad guys?”
Well, riddle me this, Spitzer: “Why do arrogant politicians buy sex from women who sell it to other people as well?”
Spitzer argues that “Governors and mayors and federal officials should buy guns from only manufacturers that control their product distribution, from manufacturers that cut off dealers whose guns end up disproportionately in the hands of criminals.”
Spitzer argues that “Governors and mayors and federal officials should buy guns from only manufacturers that control their product distribution, from manufacturers that cut off dealers whose guns end up disproportionately in the hands of criminals.”
Just as we now "purchase" good corporate behavior in the financial industry, let it be so with guns.
Frankly, Eliot, those same standards ought to apply to high-rent call girls, don’t you agree?
But here’s the proposition (no pun intended…well, maybe) that should convince anyone that Spitzer has lost his marbles: “If government cannot legislate the conduct it wants, then it can use market power to buy it.”
Eliot, Eliot, Eliot; you of all people should realize that government has never been able to legislate good conduct, and when it comes to using market power to purchase a specific type of conduct, your starting offer is, what was that again, $1,000 a night?
Visit with other Gun Rights Examiners:
For more info: Montana Shooting Sports Association
Related Articles:
Comments
Many people will sympathize with an Arlington, WA man who fired a couple of shots at a burglary suspect who later turned up dead with jewelry …
For the second time this year, the Maersk Alabama came under attack from Somali pirates on Wednesday, and the incident should provide an object lesson …
