Montana's new castle doctrine law in action!

by: Jay Stevens

Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 09:04:39 AM MST

A man who police said shot his Wal-Mart co-worker in a dispute over the length of a work break has been released from custody because his actions may be protected by Montana's recently enacted "castle doctrine" law.

The shooting, which took place Monday evening, is under investigation by the Billings Police Department and could still result in charges. But Yellowstone County Attorney Dennis Paxinos said language in the "castle doctrine" bill passed during the last session of the Montana Legislature required him to release the shooter until more information becomes available.

The law asserts, among other things, that a person has a "natural right" to use firearms for self-defense and is not required to summon law enforcement assistance before using "justifiable" force to ward off an attack.

Discuss.

What the hell is going on?

by: Jay Stevens

Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 07:04:02 AM MST

I'm a native Montanan and am hard-pressed to see how the rights of American citizens should include owning firearms with the verb "assault" in the name. When the original ban was passed in 1994, critics and supporters alike acknowledged that it was mostly symbolic, a way to initiate tighter regulations that never materialized. On the 10-year anniversary of the Columbine massacre and after a gruesome month in which 57 people have been killed in eight mass shootings, a ban on assault weapons would be a welcome symbol of stricter regulation.

Or Kossak and Westerner, mcjoan, who thinks the debate over the ban on loaded guns in National Parks is hoo-hah:

Yup, Ronald Reagan put us on the slippery slope to the UN confiscating everyone's guns in order to impose one world order by ruling that people couldn't take their loaded, concealed weapons on their national park vacations. They could only have their unloaded, safely stowed weapons with them. And how could people protect themselves and their guns from the marauding hordes of international troops coming to take their guns away while they are on vacation in a national park if there gun was unloaded and in the trunk?

Or something.

This is really just about the least real gun issue imaginable. Really. Ronald Reagan put the regulations in place. Can they really be that much of a threat to America's gunowners?

Mcjoan also notes that park rangers are "12 time more likely to be killed or injured as a result of assault than FBI agents," and wonders who the lifting of the ban would help.

In the end, I have to agree with David Sirota on these issues:

Perpetuating this expenditure, bloodshed and posture in a nation of dwindling resources, humanitarian self-images and anti-interventionist impulses requires a culture constantly selling violence as a necessity. It's not just video games - it's the nightly news echoing Pentagon propaganda and "hawkish" politicians equating militarism with patriotism and "embedded" journalism cheering on wars and every other suit-and-tie-clad industry constantly forwarding the assumption that killing is a legitimate form of national ambition and self-expression. Is it any wonder that a few crazies apply that ethos to their individual lives, and begin seeing violence as a reasonable means to express their own emotions?

Sure, the assault weapons ban's expiration is an abomination. Absolutely, some video games are appalling. But we could ban all guns and video games and there would still be mass murders because neither the availability of firearms nor of Grand Theft Auto creates the original desire for violence.

Until we face that complex reality - or at least ask different questions - we'll continue being terrorized by Columbine killers.

Well, except that I'm not sure I support the ban on assault rifles. The point here is that there's a systemic problem with violence in this country that isn't really talked about in these gun debates. And obviously gun control isn't the solution. Gun control is a placebo.

And what seems to be going on in wake of the election and the recession is that a lot of folks are feeling adrift and powerless, especially conservatives, and rushing to stockpile arms. Guns, after all, are more than just a symbol of power, they're actual manifestations of physical power. Owning a gun means you have the power of life and death over your neighbors.

And lately buying guns has been seen as a way of voicing opposition to the current state of politics. But what does that mean, that arms symbolize opposition? How can that be seen as anything but a violent response to the democratic process?

DC gun ban overturned

by: Jay Stevens

Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:52:55 PM MST

I seriously doubt that anyone reading this blog needs a recap of what was at stake, but in short the idea that firearms should be limited to "well regulated militias" has effectively ceased to be a constitutional argument.

That said, the Heller decision still left gray areas. The SCOTUSblog's Tom Goldstein:

Individuals have a constitutional right to possess a basic firearm (the line drawn is unclear, but is basically those weapons in general lawful use and does not extend to automatic weapons) and to use that firearm in self-defense.  The government can prohibit possession of firearms by, for example, felons and the mentally ill.  And it can also regulate the sale of firearms, presumably through background checks.  The Court leaves open the constitutionality of a licensing requirement.

The decision also strikes down disassembly laws, but Basically the SCOTUS has upheld the status quo. The decision really doesn't limit or force change on the way most Americans think about guns.

And honestly this decision was no big surprise. It even went further than expected.

Of course, that doesn't mean good ol' Dennis Rehberg isn't mopping his brow in relief that he won't have to back down from his bold secessionist talk. Just a little reminder about our Representative's courage when confronted with authority:

Remember, this group's ringleader - Rehberg - has folded each and every time in the face of government authority when civil liberties have been on the line. Patriot Act. Real ID. Torture. Habeas corpus. Domestic spying. Warrantless wiretapping. He supports waging war without a declaration from Congress, and the theory of the unitary executive. In short, his stance on civil liberties was succinctly expressed by our state's Republicans' choice for president:

"Our most basic civil liberty is the right to be kept alive."

I just wish our representatives were as eager to talk trash over our other constitutionally-guaranteed rights, like those found in the Fourth Amendment, say.

On Dwayne Smail, guns, and the too-often toxic tone of the "debate"

by: Jay Stevens

Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:04:12 AM MST

Some of the good parts from Stokes' piece:

The question is whether we have any good way to prevent gun sales to the stupid at the policy level, as opposed to, say, harshly punishing the Smails of the world. If gun sales were to become illegal tomorrow, there would of course quickly be even more of a flourishing illegal market in the things than there is right now (and it's already pretty flourishing). I'd refer you to, say, the market in illegal drugs, and point out that a lot of people who would like to see a prohibition on gun sales might be open, on the other hand, to a decriminalization of some forms of currently illegal drugs. Of course there are huge distinctions to be made (pot never killed anyone, but handguns - not so much), and I'm not saying that holding the two views makes anyone a hypocrite, but I do think it would be foolish to ignore the apparently powerful desire of vast numbers of people in this country to own guns, and to fail to consider the evidence from the "drug war" that a lot of people are quite willing to disobey laws they consider unjust.

And of course there is that pesky Second Amendment to the Constitution, which I'm afraid I don't see a way to read in a way that would permit the infringement of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and I say that not only as a confirmed political liberal but as a professional editor. We can argue about the "well-regulated militia" part, I suppose, but, if your objections to a "personal right" reading of this amendment rest on comma placement, I hope you realize that this boils down to essentially not having an argument to make.

In short, damn good arguments.

Thoughts on Global Warming & Western Democrats

by: Kilgore

Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 14:21:24 PM MST

Since moving to Montana, I have experienced only one winter that was close to what is refered to as "average".  I love trout more than just about anything (hence my handle) and I depend on the "average" winter for there to be good fishing through the summer.

I now tell people if they want to come visit Montana to fish, they should come no later than early July.  That's because every spring since I have lived here snowmelt has happened in March or April, not May and June. I tried to be a fishing guide, but it's tough when they close the rivers in late July, in the middle of the season.  In the comming years we are going to see more and more outdoor opportunites compromised by climate change. 

These issues are important to ranchers, foresters, outfitters, and recreators.  We can build common ground with this issue. That is now a possibility, where before it seemed unthinkable.

The new western Democrat:  an outdoorsman who realizes the impact of global warming on livelyhoods and recreation, while maintaining our 2nd ammendment rights; a rancher who sees how drought will effect his cattle; the tree farmer who knows that climate change means slower growing trees more susceptible to disease and infestation.