Guns, medicinal marijuana, stream access, the death penalty, and a new blog

I find opposition from the left odd duck (0.00 / 0)

Usually, the left stands up against corporations against violating constitutional rights of their employees...right?  However, the fact that an employer in Montana can tell me to check the constitution at the parking lot is odd.  I rarely want to the government to make more laws, but all this one does is protect my persons and protect my rights.  Plus, it makes the workplace considerably safer.  All good goals.  HB228 is a fantastic piece of legislation that protects me if I investigate a noise down the hall.  This saves the police countless 911 calls of noises.  Currently in other states that do not have a Castle Doctrine investigating a noise that turns out to be a murderer/rapist, which forces me to protects my persons.  Thats a felony against me.  Mainly this allows me to walk around my house freely, without fear of somebody trying to kill me in my own house and me be prosecuted for self defense.

---

by: Widowmaker @ Wed Jan 21, 2009 at 16:39:45 PM UTC

The courts have found repeatedly (0.00 / 0)

that employers have the right to control the workplace, even if it limits constitutional rights in some manners. Furthermore, the government has the ability to codify and regulate how constitutional rights are applied in public settings--which includes the workplace.

How limits on our constitutional rights are initiated by the courts occurs when one right must be balanced against another. Or when one's exercise of a right endangers another, i.e.

Just as an employee at a movie theater cannot maliciously yell "fire" even though he may assert he has a first amendment right to do so, neither should that employee be allowed by law to wave a gun in the air to prevent another employee from yelling fire. Both acts are equally dangerous to patrons of the theater.

Though a bullet can silence a preacher, the fact that the former is more lethal than the latter does not convey supra-constitutional powers. The 2nd amendment is as susceptible to balancing by the courts and the legislatures or congress as much as any other provision.  

---

by: JC @ Wed Jan 21, 2009 at 18:19:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

to clarify... (0.00 / 0)

...the castle doctrine clarification is found in different bills than Kerns' HB228. The crit in this post was directed at Kerns' bill, specifically:

-- his mandate over private property and business owners
-- the authorization for private citizens to use force make citizens' arrests...

---

by: Jay Stevens @ Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 03:12:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Everyone packing a piece to work makes for a safer workplace? (0.00 / 0)

I'll take my chances that a crazed killer will show up at my place of employment and start blasting everyone in sight.  I've made it this long.  Somehow, having everyone working around me armed to the teeth doesn't make me feel more secure.

And we're not supposed to call 911 anymore when we hear suspicious noises?  Just come out shooting?  I'll bet the chiefs of police around Montana will be thrilled with this new legislation.    

---

by: pete talbot @ Wed Jan 21, 2009 at 18:33:32 PM UTC

They are thrilled (0.00 / 0)

Actually Pete, Missoula Police support this legislation.  And no, "not come out shooting".  But this legislation would allow you to even entering your living room and turning on a light if you heard something.  But also Pete, there are no known cases of a person with a concealed weapons permit breaking a firearm law in the history of CCW's.  But, I can find at least one case of somebody shooting an unarmed person that doesn't have one.  Therefor, I feel safer knowing that trained and law-abiding citizens who have gone through the process of background checks and firearm instruction are allowed to carry a gone.  Right now, I am being stuck in a "Gun Free Zone", otherwise known as "Shooting fish in a barrel Zone".  No thanks, I won't be an easy victim because some people don't know and have not taken the time to actually understand CCW laws and the crime statistics.  For instance, did you know that safety and Brady Grades have an opposite correlation?  States with "F"'s are safer than "A"s?  

---

by: Widowmaker @ Wed Jan 21, 2009 at 19:28:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Can you show me where it says Missoula Police support this bill, Widowmaker (0.00 / 0)

Everything that I've read says this bill is unnecessary, that Montana already has a "castle doctrine," and that a bill presented by Jack Wells in the last legislature to expand the doctrine was opposed by law enforcement and county attorneys.  

---

by: pete talbot @ Wed Jan 21, 2009 at 20:56:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You're making up a causal relationship (0.00 / 0)

For instance, did you know that safety and Brady Grades have an opposite correlation?  States with "F"'s are safer than "A"s?

Even though your point is speciously correct, there is no proof (or even good argument) that stiff gun laws are anything but coincidental to higher crime rates.  In fact, using a little common sense, it's pretty obvious that restrictive gun legislation is usually the effect of higher violent crime, not the cause of it.  We could argue until the cattle come home about whether or not those gun laws work (I'm ambivalent about their effectiveness), but the NRA has pulled this false causation fallacy way too many times.  The only way to argue honestly about these issues is to make certain that the arguments are honest, and that one ain't.

And Pete is correct.  Montana already has a 'castle doctrine' law on the books.  The problem with this stiffening of wording is that includes a provision as fact that has not once been proven:

"Section 1,  (6) the use of firearms for self-defense discourages violent crime and prevents victimization;"

And places the financial burden for disproving claim of that 'fact' on the state and it's representatives.  So, your drunk neighbor opens your door by mistake, you waste him, and it's up to the state to prove that you over-reacted, didn't just shoot him because he pees on your begonias when he comes home from the bars, and I have to pay if that can't be proven.  I gotta call bullshit on that, my friend.  That's not defending anything except your right to take my money if you plug somebody on your property and it boils down to how scared you can act in court.  It is the bastard stepchild of the castle doctrine and the Bush doctrine (strike first, whine later.)

The part of the bill I find truly heinous is this:

Section 9.  Employer prohibition of means of self-defense.

That is just wrong, and the Chamber is right to oppose it.  The actions of criminals are just that, criminal.  This section of law makes your employer assure you that somebody else will pay if you are the victim of said criminals under the assumption that you are, or think yourself, some kind of vigilante, or deputy (or gun-wielding-super-hero.)

Finally, as a gun-owner and shooter, I find it absolutely amazing how all these brave citizens who think firearm saturation is the answer to life's setbacks are cowering at the idea that someone else can decide that they may not be as awesome as they think they are.  I've written many times that harm from gun use is almost always a matter of initiative, and preparedness is only part of any answer.  You can prepare for hiding or escaping in the workplace.  But unless your real job is to shoot bad guys, I highly doubt anyone's preparedness to effectively return fire in an ambush situation.

A hypothetical:  Badguy invades your workplace, and you are armed.  You shoot Badguy, but injure (or kill) one of your coworkers in the process.  Who is liable?  Who pays?

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Wed Jan 21, 2009 at 21:37:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Another hypothetical... (0.00 / 1)

You enter a business that's a "gun free zone"....you disarm...while in the business a Badguy enters and injures (or kills) you, is that business now liable seeing as they disarmed you while at the same time having no "trained" security on site?

But unless your real job is to shoot bad guys, I highly doubt anyone's preparedness to effectively return fire in an ambush situation.

Typical Liberal.  "ONLY THOSE WITH GOV'T TRAINING SHOULD USE GUNS!!111! ONLY COPS AND THE MILITARY ARE TRAINED TO USE THEM!!11!!"  I get it Wulfy, you feeeeel that the gov't is better at doing everything and only people who are "properly trained"  or dare I say "tax termites" are qualified to protect themselves.

You can prepare for hiding or escaping in the workplace.

You can run and hide (college text books are as good as kevlar, I'm sure you'll be fine)...let the adults (real men & women) handle the problem.

---

by: Rusty Shackleford @ Wed Jan 21, 2009 at 22:04:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Actually (0.00 / 0)

I have not personally met Wulfgar Rusty,but he's a bona-fide gun owner and shooter.  And, very knowledgeable about the subject.  His brother writes a very fascinating new blog, which he just did a great write up on the DMPS .308.

---

by: Widowmaker @ Wed Jan 21, 2009 at 22:18:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Care to go shooting sometime, Rusted? (0.00 / 0)

Or are you scared of being shown up by a 'librul'?

Pull your head out and read what I wrote, not what those voices in your head tell you.  PRACTICE makes perfect, not government training.  How much do you, or anyone, practice armed assault and defense?  Don't answer that.  You'll just lie anyway, and/or appear more paranoid than you already do.

Your response, or the wailing that passes for such, completely avoids the issue at hand.  Widowmaker was at least willing to discuss the topic.  You're just trolling.  If Widowmaker is true to his request earlier, he will smack you on your little puppy nose, just as I have. My hypothetical actually dealt with the bill in question.  Yours is juvenile ignorance.

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Wed Jan 21, 2009 at 22:20:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Let's try this again.... (0.00 / 0)

But unless your real job is to shoot bad guys, I highly doubt anyone's preparedness to effectively return fire in an ambush situation.

Only those who are issued firearms because of their "real job" should be allowed to protect themselves, correct?  

The only people who should be issued a CWP are those whose "real job" involves using a firearm, correct?

To answer your question...I haven't been shooting near as much as I'd like to.  Since the election of The Messiah the cost of ammunition (when you can find it) is through the roof.

---

by: Rusty Shackleford @ Wed Jan 21, 2009 at 22:55:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Supply and demand, kitten (0.00 / 0)

Get used to it.  You have no idea how much the escalation in price of 7.62 x .39 since Iraqapalooza began has irritated me.

Now, if you care to get back on topic, if HB228 is passed, please answer the following:

A hypothetical:  Badguy invades your workplace, and you are armed.  You shoot Badguy, but injure (or kill) one of your coworkers in the process.  Who is liable?  Who pays?

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Wed Jan 21, 2009 at 23:18:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Line of fire (0.00 / 0)

As you know, every shooter should know their line of site.  I agree thats possible in its current form, but that is why I really want some kind of training.  But in the case of a through in through, I say the bad guy.  He was the one committing a crime at the time of the injury.  Much like if somebody comes into my office right now, guns akimbo.  And I tackled him, and he gets thrown into my co-worker who falls, breaks her head open.  Now in the case of somebody tunnel visioning and losing whats around and behind the target.  I don't know, a good question.

---

by: Widowmaker @ Wed Jan 21, 2009 at 23:29:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sadly, (0.00 / 0)

I don't think that's the way this law is being written.

I think it's a gun-slinger law.  Nice in view, but it will cause legal problems later.  Just my opinion, but when would you bet against lawyers finding fault ...

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Wed Jan 21, 2009 at 23:57:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

OK, I'm getting Pissed (0.00 / 0)

I'm surprised at Wulfgar's restraint here.  Where did he say, or even imply, any of this:

Only those who are issued firearms because of their "real job" should be allowed to protect themselves, correct?  

The only people who should be issued a CWP are those whose "real job" involves using a firearm, correct?

What I read was that one must be PREPARED and EFFECTIVE.  That doesn't mean hitting a little circle on a piece of paper every day.  That means being able to accurately, safely, and willingly place a bullet into an assailants skull while knowing that if you miss, the next bullet that flies will likely go through your own head.

Further, I've about had it with with this "typical liberal/conservative schtik."  The world, and especially our little Montana blogosphere, is full of people who don't actually get their opinions from the back of the partisan cereal box.

---

by: TMM @ Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 04:52:45 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Excellent Point Wulfgar (0.00 / 0)

This Wulfgar is why I enjoy posting on this site and getting responses.  You make excellent, thought provoking points.  I would love to be able to protect myself and my family and be innocent until the state spends the money to prove me guilty.  I am in full thought that I would rather be judged by 12 strangers than carried by 6 friends.  The problem is; I don't know a persons intent when they break into my house.  If the house is empty, I have insurance.  If they just want to steal something, then please wait until I am not home.  Quite honestly the largest item of value I have in my home is my M4.  Which if I am home, I guarantee you will get to meet.  I now have multiple signs on every ground level window and door.  I have clear warnings that firearms are on the premise and I will assume they are trying to kill me if they break in.  The signs are clear and I even have lights shining on them.  One must literally move the sign over to break in.  As for my training in returning fire.  I did my training at Ft. Benning.  I have spent literally hundreds of hours learning to clear rooms and houses with an M4 and M11.  Would you consider a clause that only if you have certified training and only if you have a CCW?

---

by: Widowmaker @ Wed Jan 21, 2009 at 22:15:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes, (0.00 / 0)

YES, for God's sake, yes.  With yearly tested renewal.

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Wed Jan 21, 2009 at 22:26:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Some thoughts... (0.00 / 0)

I really want to know if you think the recent bank robbery at Missoula Federal Credit Union would have turned out better if the employees had tried to shoot the suspect instead of pressing the little red button.  For those who don't know, the police successfully apprehended the robber after receiving tips from citizens, not after the citizens tried to apprehend him on their own.  I don't think the result would have been as good if it turned into a shootout.

Also, the real problem in self defense of property cases is that there are usually no witnesses if the alleged enterer is killed. It's pretty easy to kill somebody and break a window later.  Shifting the burden to the prosecution in self defense cases makes zero sense and has been roundly rejected by courts in many states.  

---

by: Kilgore @ Mon Jan 26, 2009 at 00:27:02 AM UTC

Actually, its not (0.00 / 0)

Kilgore, actually its nearly impossible, if completely impossible, to kill somebody and move the body as you put it.  Why?  Well, my personal protection is a custom made round for 5.56 mm out of an M4.  I guarantee you the exit wound will be the size of an orange to a grapefruit.  The blood spatter plus the excessive heat coming from the brass itself all gives sufficient evidence to where the firearm was fired from.  The bullet, while heavily fragmented inside the body, will also lend evidence with the exit wound matter.  911 will already be on call (it takes SECONDS for the bad guy to kill me, and the Cops are just MINUTES away) when I approach the criminal in my house.  If he is still set on murder/rape and does not comply, the blood will be warm when the cops show up.  Warm blood, liver and whats left of the organs temp, exit wound trajectory, hot brass and the 911 call all lend to sufficient proof of when the shots were made.  Not to mention that I live in an apartment and my surrounding neighbors I assume would call the police on hearing gunshots (the 5.56 is very loud).  I'm fairly certain somebody would see me try to break the window and setup a crime scene, fake an impossible crime scene.  Not to mention, the damage to my own lungs, ears and property from the discharge of the firearm.  When I bill the bad guys estate for all of that, I'd have a clear timeline and proof of events.  

---

by: Widowmaker @ Mon Jan 26, 2009 at 20:17:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]