I wasn’t able to attend the hearing, but today the Senate Judiciary Committee had the pleasure of an hour and a half of public testimony discussing the pros and cons of HB228. I did, however, listen to the whole thing online, and I’ll hope to spare anyone the exercise of doing the same with this summary:
Shorter Supporters: Freedom! Individual rights! Happy St. Patrick’s Day!
Diminished Detractors: Fear! Criminals break the law! Happy St. Patrick’s Day!
There was one somewhat unrelated, but interesting to me moment, at about 2:36:07 into the audio, wherein Commissioner of Higher Education Sheila Stearns is questioned by Senator Shockley as to whether or not the policy of the Board of Regents could “override” legislation. Her response was that “they do not consider themselves immune from all state regulation…it depends on the particular circumstances” (emphasis added).
Well, dandy. Ain’t it nice to know that the unelected board governing our taxpayer funded institutions of higher education have to follow at least a few of our state laws?
Anyway, it was, as any hearing is, a time for those who believe that saying something face to face with legislators actually makes any sort of difference in what will ultimately happen. The bill was, if I heard it right, sent to subcommittee, with a report due back next week. I’ll be looking for it. Whoops, almost forgot. Most of the question and answer was mildly curt, but not obnoxious, with one glaring exception: Democratic Senator Larry Jent from Bozeman. The way he spoke over, down and through people was just plain ugly. It makes me wonder if he’s trying to warm up for higher office. Oh well, happy St. Patrick’s Day.
Comments 12
Serious question here…do you really think it’s a good idea not to require a permit for concealed carry?
Posted 18 Mar 2009 at 8:42 am ¶Missoula’s nine legilators that said they supported the 2nd amendment during their campaigns, all voted agaist HB228, 3rd reading. I am shocked that they would lie to their constituents, shocked I say.
Posted 18 Mar 2009 at 9:15 am ¶I guess I do Jay, though in a philosophical sense I wouldn’t classify it as being ‘good’ or ‘bad’. For me it’s a question of liberty, which is, or should be, a concept immune from definitions of values.
That stated, I’m happy to throw my philosophy out the window and argue for the “good idea” side of things. The first that comes to mind is that criminals or potential criminals would likely care less if they’re supposed to have a permit to secret a handgun inside their jacket. The only function the permits serve, in my view, is to make those who are nervous about guns feel better about those who are not.
Posted 18 Mar 2009 at 9:38 am ¶I guess I do Jay, though in a philosophical sense I wouldn’t classify it as being ‘good’ or ‘bad’. For me it’s a question of liberty, which is, or should be, a concept immune from definitions of values.
Interesting. Agreed. But by ascribing “good” to the “idea” of conceal carry permits, I wasn’t so much as trying to put a moral value on it as I was a practical value.
Just as the First Amendment has limitations in the public sphere — for example, I think we could both agree that crying “fire” in a crowded theater should be disallowed for reasons of public safety — shouldn’t the Second Amendment?
Would you also be in favor of forgoing all background and permitting requirements to get a firearm? Don’t you think the public good is served by forbidding people who we, as a society, view as dangerous from legally owning a firearm?
And, yes, it’s true that requiring a permit to own a gun or to carry a concealed gun won’t stop somebody from getting a gun or concealing it, but, IMHO, it’s a better outcome to have the bad guy get busted at a traffic stop for carrying than it is to wait until s/he uses it in a crime.
Posted 19 Mar 2009 at 7:10 am ¶As usual, setting aside our grand philosophy gets to the nub of it, Jay; as a practical matter where do we draw the line? I understand your preference for prevention, if that’s what we can call your position. On the other hand, I’m not convinced that these preventative steps have any net effect on crime.
If I’m wrong and they do, then the question becomes a matter of degree, and we’re back to arguing philosophy again; how much liberty are we willing to sacrifice to save how many lives? And to what degree should we be responsible for our own well being? But again, I’m digressing from your point.
I suppose when it comes down to it, I just don’t envision the streets becoming filled with blood in the absence of these restrictions. Further, and importantly, I’m not sure they ever were before we had such requirements.
Posted 19 Mar 2009 at 11:29 am ¶“An armed society is a polite society”
Too lazy to google author.
Posted 22 Mar 2009 at 12:40 pm ¶Robert Heinlein
But you already have the right to carry a gun, just not to conceal it.
This bill may take away a crucial element in the ability of the police to curb criminals carrying guns - the right to ask for that permit if they have reason to believe someone is carrying a concealed weapon. Cops cannot tell just by looking at a person if they have the legal right to posess a weapon, and most criminals would likely wish to conceal the fact that they are in posession of a weapon. More, than say, me. If I want to carry a gun, I really don’t care if it is in plain sight. If I am carrying it as a deterrent to crime, I would rather you know I am carrying it.
Posted 25 Mar 2009 at 1:40 pm ¶Thanks for your thoughts, firefly, but I fundamentally disagree with this statement:
I believe I do have the right to conceal it, whether the law says that I do or not.
Also, I understand your concerns with regard to a criminal in possession, but if the officer has reason to ask for evidence of a permit, shouldn’t he also have reason to run the guys name through whatever database the state uses to keep track of criminals?
Posted 29 Mar 2009 at 7:22 pm ¶Montana Constitution. Article II, Section 12. “Right to bear arms. The right of any person to keep or bear arms in defense of his own home, person, and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but nothing herein contained shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons.”
I posted on this subject.
Posted 30 Mar 2009 at 7:43 am ¶And I read your well considered piece. I was a bit vague in my response. I am familiar with the Section you quoted above, but I believe my rights are not derived from a law or a constitution, but from my humanity. I will not allow a law, a constitution, or a government to prevent me from defending myself or my family in whatever manner I determine to be the most effective at any given moment. Finally, and as strongly as I believe in the right I’ve just outlined, I also believe it is a question that goes beyond just rights to that of responsibilities.
Posted 30 Mar 2009 at 9:48 am ¶Hmm. I guess we can respectfully disagree on what rights are derived from our humanity.
Simply, I would like to know that the person carrying a concealed weapon has demonstrated that they are capable with it and will probably conduct themselves responsibly.
Otherwise, I want to know that they are carrying that weapon.
I am quite comfortable with guns, have a fair amount of experience using them, and confidence I conduct myself in a safe and reasonable manner when in possession of one.
I’m afraid I don’t always have the same confidence in my fellow man.
Posted 30 Mar 2009 at 6:24 pm ¶On this we can heartily agree. I just extend that mistrust to those who are ostensibly our protectors.
Posted 30 Mar 2009 at 9:33 pm ¶Post a Comment