Self Defense bill – HB 228

Since my report on Senate Judiciary carving on HB 228, several of you have replied to ask, as stated by one list member, “Is the creation of two more kill zones worth the passage of this bill?” Good question.

Like many of you, I am VERY frustrated by the expansion of the “prohibited places” law, 45-8-328 to include “health care facilities.” The only good news is that this expansion does not include doctors’ offices (small good news, I admit). The amendment adds a new 1(d) to 45-8-328 (places where permittees may not exercise a CWP) to include “health care facilities as defined in 50-5-101.” The definition there is this:

” (23) (a) “Health care facility” or “facility” means all or a portion of an institution, building, or agency, private or public, excluding federal facilities, whether organized for profit or not, that is used, operated, or designed to provide health services, medical treatment, or nursing, rehabilitative, or preventive care to any individual. The term includes chemical dependency facilities, critical access hospitals, end-stage renal dialysis facilities, home health agencies, home infusion therapy agencies, hospices, hospitals, infirmaries, long-term care facilities, intermediate care facilities for the developmentally disabled, medical assistance facilities, mental health centers, outpatient centers for primary care, outpatient centers for surgical services, rehabilitation facilities, residential care facilities, and residential treatment facilities.
(b) The term does not include offices of private physicians, dentists, or other physical or mental health care workers regulated under Title 37, including licensed addiction counselors.”

Like you, any expansion of the stupid “prohibited places” law gets my dander up. Even the “authorities” don’t understand that the poorly-drafted prohibited places law does not prohibit open carry (let’s not tell them just yet), nor does it contain ANY exception for police. So, if HB 228 passes as it now is and an armed police detective goes to the hospital to interview a victim and forgets to take off his coat before entering, he becomes a criminal under state law (let’s not tell them this either – they’d just exempt police). Further, we all know that if criminals want to conceal their guns, they’ll just do it. Actually, it violates the Constitution to try to force criminals to expose their guns because that would violate their right to freedom from self-incrimination! What a mess the prohibited places statute is!

The balancing questions are, how much would trying to fight this amendment to HB 228 jeopardize HB 228, and how does loss of CCW in hospitals weigh against what we would gain with HB 228, as is?

There’s still a LOT of good stuff in HB 228. I believe that the shift in burden of proof and therefore guaranteeing the presumption of innocence in self defense is HUGE. Some consulting attorneys even argue that this is the most important feature of the whole bill. Even though rearranged and, I think, watered down some, the defensive display section is important too. It affirms for the first time ever that open carry is okay in Montana, that it is acceptable to announce “I have a gun and I will defend myself” if needed, and more.

Plus, there are a bunch of second priority items still included – landlords and tenants, police investigation not to overlook evidence of self defense, police may not destroy guns, and use of reasonable force to effect citizens’ arrest.

Of course it’s agonizing to attempt to make the call – are we better off getting HB 228 as is or not? I have been in constant consultation with Brian Judy, our most helpful NRA State Liaison (he’s really a good guy, whatever you think of the NRA) about HB 228. Here’s our bottom line recommendation:

Go with HB 228 as is. Contact your and other senators and ask them to support HB 228 when it comes up for Second Reading in the Senate. There is no chance, because of legislative deadlines, to get HB 228 amended on the Senate floor. Let’s push it as is.

However, HB 228 will have to go back to the House to see if the House will concur with Senate amendments. If the House does not concur, then HB 228 goes to a “conference committee” to work out differences between the Senate and House versions. There is a whole batch of risks associated with what a conference committee might do. But, we are exploring now what might be done in conference committee about the “health care facility” and Alaska carry issues. No guarantees and plenty of risks, but we’re looking into it.

In the meantime, my net advice is, contact your senator and any other senators and ask them to support HB 228. Even though it’s not as juicy as it was, I think it’s will worth supporting.

Best wishes,

Gary Marbut, president
Montana Shooting Sports Association
http://www.mtssa.org
author, Gun Laws of Montana
http://www.mtpublish.com