There are a number of broad and sweeping philosophical bills before the Legislature this year.

Some attempt to score incremental wins in the larger spectrum of controversial issues like abortion, health care and gun rights.

Take, for example, House Bill 228.

Some major amendments were made last week to HB 228 - the "gun bill" - that move this highly contentious bill from a one-sided extreme closer to middle ground.

The bill, which looks to clarify and expand gun rights for Montanans, cleared the Senate last Tuesday on a 40-10 vote with those amendments. On Friday, however, since the bill had changed, it went back to the House, where representatives overwhelmingly voted 73-27 to reject those amendments.

HB 228 was then assigned to a conference committee - made up of four Republicans and three Democrats - and is slated for a Senate Hearing Tuesday, thus advancing closer to the governor's desk for approval.

The major change to the bill removed a provision that would have let anyone legally allowed to have a gun carry it in town without a concealed weapon permit - commonly called the "Alaska carry" policy because of a similar lax law in that state. Nearly every law enforcement agency across the state opposed the bill because of this provision.

Other clarifications were also made, adding to the scope and definition of how and when a person can use a gun in self-defense.

Montanans have long championed gun rights, and for good measure. The Second Amendment declares the right of the people "to keep and bear arms," and protecting oneself is exactly what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote it.

It is one of the true palladiums of liberty, and defending this and other inalienable rights is absolutely necessary.

Yet, times have changed drastically since the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791, and while the rights protected therein still apply, it's a different world in which they're governed.

So let's get one thing clear: This and tomorrow's editorial are not about gun rights. These editorials are not about taking away any rights we already own as citizens of the United States and of Montana.

These editorials are specifically about HB 228.

And HB 228 is a dangerous bill that should not pass a final hearing before legislators and, if it does reach Gov. Brian Schweitzer's desk, should be outright vetoed.

This bill is a classic case of creating a solution in search of a problem, and it's been the biggest head-shaker this session.

The language crafted in this bill is a broad effort by primarily the Montana Shooting Sports Association, and backed by the National Rifle Association, to insert all different types of laws that encourage people to do things they shouldn't.

By expanding upon self-defense rights broadly protected under the limited language of the Second Amendment, and within Montana's own Constitution, HB 228 is essentially muddying the water, not clarifying it. The right to protect oneself has never been questioned in Montana, and needs no expansion.

The agenda promoted in HB 228 is not shared by the majority of Montanans, and it would be dangerously irresponsible to sign this incendiary bill into law.

Read tomorrow's editorial as the Independent Record explores the language of HB 228, and why it's those words that cement this newspaper's position.