Montana Gun Bill Being Debated

Montana may be poised to adopt Alaska style carry with a bill that will:
Allow people to carry a concealed weapon without a permit;
Greatly strengthen self-defense protections in the state;
Allow people to display their gun to deter an attack;
Allow people to use a gun whenever at risk of physical harm;
And, in shooting incidents in which the person who fired the gun claimed self defense, require the state to prove that it was not.
I don’t know the specifics of the bill, and some of the points here don’t make a lot of sense. Like number five. Isn’t that how proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt already works? I would have concerns about 3 and 4. Define physical harm? What constitutes an attack? If a kid throws a snowball at me, am I justified in shooting him? If another driver shouts out his windows, “I’m goign to kick your ass,” is that a lethal force scenario? I’d have to see specifics to really understand, because I doubt the journalists really do. But I definitely whole heartedly support points 1 and 2. There are circumstances I would support 3 and 4 as well, but the law probaby already accounts for force disparity. Nontheless, I don’t think a person should have to risk concussion making their head a punching bag for some drunken lout before defending themselves.

from Snowflakes in Hell

2 comments:

Tattoo Jim said...

I know when someone means me harm. Those I'll shoot. Those that are just fuckin' with me, those I'll shoot AT. That's the difference.

VC said...

Mr. Tattoo,

I agree with you I just posted this to further the spread of information.