Self-defense laws on the rise

[RACastanet]

This is great news for self defense:

States Signing on to Deadly Force Law

By ROBERT TANNER AP National Writer
© 2006 The Associated Press

— A campaign by gun rights advocates to make it easier to use deadly force in self-defense is rapidly winning support across the country, as state after state makes it legal for people who feel their lives are in danger to shoot down an attacker _ whether in a car-jacking or just on the street.

The law has spurred debate about whether it protects against lawlessness or spurs more crime. Supporters say it's an unambiguous answer to random violence, while critics _ including police chiefs and prosecutors _ warn that criminals are more likely to benefit than innocent victims.

Ten states so far this year have passed a version of the law, after Florida was the first last year. It's already being considered in Arizona in the case of a deadly shooting on a hiking trail.

Supporters have dubbed the new measures "stand your ground" laws, while critics offered nicknames like the "shoot first," "shoot the Avon lady" or "right to commit murder" laws.

At its core, they broaden self-defense by removing the requirement in most states that a person who is attacked has a "duty to retreat" before turning to deadly force. Many of the laws specify that people can use deadly force if they believe they are in danger in any place they have a legal right to be _ a parking lot, a street, a bar, a church. They also give immunity from criminal charges and civil liability.

The campaign is simply about self-defense, said Oklahoma state Rep. Kevin Calvey, a Republican and author of the law in his state. "Law-abiding citizens aren't going to take it anymore," he said.

For the complete article:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/ ... 86791.html

Rich

[RACastanet]

The positive trend continues:

On Thursday, June 1, the Senate passed H 4301, the Castle Doctrine bill that would remove the “duty to retreat” if a law-abiding citizen is attacked anywhere that person may lawfully be. The Senate amended the legislation by adding sections unrelated to the Castle Doctrine, the House concurred with some of the amended language and sent it back to the Senate, where the final bill was passed and sent to Governor Sanford.

Finally, a conference committee took up S 1261, a bill originally introduced to allow qualified individuals who own property in South Carolina but do not reside in the state, to apply for a Right-to-Carry (RTC) permit. After passing the Senate in early May, the House amended the bill to remove the ability of local governments to restrict the use, sale, or transportation of firearms during a state of emergency, and to prohibit South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED) from releasing the personal information of RTC permit holders unless the request for the information is part of an investigation by law enforcement.

[RACastanet]

A bit late but here it is:

KY - Senate Bill 38, "The Castle Doctrine" signed by Governor Fletcher Today, April 21!

This is a link to a newsletter discussing details of Kentucky's latest legislation:

http://www.kc3.com/pdf/APR_2006_Newsletter.pdf

Rich

[IJ]

Rich, I heard one lawyer complain on a televised interview about the matter that saying you can use deadly force whenever wherever you feel threatened without having to retreat first leads to excusing unecessary violence the shooter has a role in creating. For example, let's say someone has been having a road rage duel at 80mph on a highway. They're just cutting each other off, then Car A becomes more aggressive. Car B's driver remembers:

"Many of the laws specify that people can use deadly force if they believe they are in danger in any place they have a legal right to be _ a parking lot, a street, a bar, a church. They also give immunity from criminal charges and civil liability."

and figures:

1) he's got a legal right to be there
2) he believes he is in danger
3) so he can shoot the driver of Car A.

True? Don't get me wrong, I first don't know if the precise wording of the laws would allow that and second would be a big proponent of letting people defend themselves with all necessary force if they are put on the defensive. I just wonder how these laws define "feeling you're in danger." There were a number of cases successfully defended with a gay panic defense, such that an assailant or killer felt that a person might have been or was gay and might have been or was asking him out which led to a defensive attack... opens the door for all kinds of nonsense like shooting a homeless person that asks you for change because you felt endangered. Just what does the supposed aggressor and would-be lethal force user have to do or feel to bring this clause into play?

[RACastanet]

Hello Ian.

Florida is the leader in putting 'Castle Doctrine' and 'Stand Your Ground' laws on the books. The actual common law has been in place for decades but the new laws codify the practice, and more importantly protect someone in a self defense situation from frivolous civil lawsuits from families of the injured or departed perps.

So far, the blood in the streets predicted by the nanny staters has yet to occur. As time goes by and more states come on line with these types of laws we will get a better idea of their effect. Most likely there will be a few aberrations but they will be statistically insignificant. When the 'shall isue' CHP laws took hold 10 years ago the predictions of a wild west attitude were rampant. Instead violent crime rates have fallen by about 50% in the last 10 years in shall issue states.

The same concerns were stated two years ago when the so called Clinton 'assault weapon' ban was allowed to sunset. Violent crime has continued to go down and in the states that did not pass their own version of the ban 'assault weapon' crimes dropped.

The concept works, IMNSHO, because the bad guys never paid much attention to the law and the law abiding folks like me are not going to go out and start shooting people over parking spaces. I expect a few cases that the naysayers will point to but overall violent crime will continue to drop. Some crimes will not be committed simply because criminals in 'Doctrine' states will rightly fear being shot by an armed citizen.

Regarding the use of lethal force, you must be completely innocent, having done nothing to provoke or escalate a situation to the level of lethal force. If you are truly innocent the 'reasonable man/woman' concept prevails in the eyes of the law. So, if you cut someone off, and/or escalate a road rage incident you are not innocent. Period.

If you brandish your weapon in a non-lethal situation you have really opened a can of worms. If you have been drinking or are otherwise inpaired the firearm immediately becomes an illegal weapon and you have really upped the ante.

Good people, such as yourself, Bill G, me, are just not going to start shooting. We are the most law abiding types in the land and will likely continue to carry on as such.

Rich

[Van Canna]

> So, if you cut someone off, and/or escalate a road rage incident you are not innocent. Period. <

So leave your 'Escalade' at home. Drive a MINI

[RACastanet]

Freedom may get a huge boost in a bill introduced by VA's own Senator George Allen:

Senate Version Of National Right-To-Carry Bill Introduced
U.S. Senator George Allen (R-Va.) recently introduced S. 3275--the Senate version of H.R. 4547, a national Right-to-Carry (RTC) reciprocity bill that would provide national reciprocity for state carry licensees. This legislation would allow any person with a valid carry permit or license issued by a state to carry a concealed firearm in any other state if they meet certain criteria. The bill would not create a federal licensing system; it would simply require the states to recognize each other’s carry permits, just as they recognize drivers’ licenses.

Allen has very quietly introduced this bill with little fanfare. A democrat has introduced a similar bill in the House. Since guys like Ted Kennedy and Shumer and Biden do not actually read they have not yet reacted to this great bill. Lets keep it quiet so it slips by them and into law.

Just think Van, I could carry legally in Massachussetts!

Rich

[MikeK]

I could carry in NY? The only problem I could see would be with the local police who didn't read the memo saying my VA CHP is good in NY.

The other question would be could Van carry in Mass? It would be ironic if all us Sudners could carry where the locals couldn't.

[RACastanet]

Da*n... Denver has successfully fought Colorado's state wide preemption law. The criminals are dancing in the streets today!

Jun 5, 1:14 PM EDT

Colo. Court Upholds Denver Weapons Ban

By JON SARCHE
Associated Press Writer


DENVER (AP) -- A divided Colorado Supreme Court on Monday upheld Denver's ban on assault weapons, despite arguments that state weapons laws should trump city ordinances.

The 3-3 vote, with one justice abstaining, ended a high-profile fight between Colorado's largest city and state officials over two state laws enacted in 2003 that pre-empted local regulation of firearms in favor of uniform state regulation.

For the full story:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/D/ ... TE=DEFAULT

rich

[IJ]

I agree Rich... most people aren't going to go nuts using this law. I'd be surprised if the criminal element would be aware, for one, and therefore they wouldn't have the inclination to change behavior in response. What we might see is crazy defense theories after the fact. The more "Investigators" and "Forensics Files" and other law enforcement shows I see, the bigger believer I am in stiff penalties especially for violent crime. It's just so unacceptable. The last FF I watched, someone with an "assault rifle" blew off the head of a passing motorist who he felt had cut him off. After the conviction, he had a letter bomb sent to the key witness, only the step father was killed and the mother maimed, not the target. Defendant was already serving life without parole so there was literally no penalty for this second crime. In the United States of IJ (I'm assuming as well as in the US of Rich) that's automatic death. And perps would also know that invading someone's home can get you maimed or killed and no one is going to cry for you later. Grr.

[RACastanet]

This was in the business section of today's paper. Very telling:


Michael Dan Q & A

Richmond Times-Dispatch Jun 5, 2006


As head of The Brink's Co., Michael T. Dan is a globetrotting business executive who regularly meets with government, military and business leaders around the world. Here are some excerpts from an interview in April:

Q: What are the most dangerous countries?

Dan: It changes. Right now, it's Brazil, Belgium, Ireland. . . . The United Kingdom is very dangerous. . . . You have to understand that property crime in Europe is at much higher levels than in the United States. Violent crime in the U.S. is what you hear about. But property crime, home invasions, auto theft are at much higher levels (in Europe) than in the U.S.

Q: Why?

Dan: Attitude. If someone broke into your home, or broke into my home, we'd feel violated. That's the American reaction. This is my property, you can't do that. . . . It's almost accepted as part of society in the continent and in the U.K. . . . In developing countries, there's a questionable strength of police forces.

[Van Canna]

> After the conviction, he had a letter bomb sent to the key witness <

How can one protect against this possibility, Rich?

[Gene DeMambro]

Massachusetts has a Castle Law:

Chapter 278: Section 8A. Killing or injuring a person unlawfully in a dwelling; defense


Section 8A. In the prosecution of a person who is an occupant of a dwelling charged with killing or injuring one who was unlawfully in said dwelling, it shall be a defense that the occupant was in his dwelling at the time of the offense and that he acted in the reasonable belief that the person unlawfully in said dwelling was about to inflict great bodily injury or death upon said occupant or upon another person lawfully in said dwelling, and that said occupant used reasonable means to defend himself or such other person lawfully in said dwelling. There shall be no duty on said occupant to retreat from such person unlawfully in said dwelling.

Add this one to the list.

Gene

[RACastanet]

Thank you Gene.

We can also add South Carolina...

South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford Signs Two NRA-Backed Bills Into Law

Friday, June 09, 2006


Fairfax, VA-Yesterday Governor Mark Sanford signed two prominent National Rifle Association (NRA)-backed bills into law. The “Castle Doctrine” self-defense bill protects the rights of innocent victims to protect themselves from criminal attack, while the “Emergency Powers Protection” language prevents local governments from confiscating firearms during a state of emergency.

Rich

[RACastanet]

This is a great idea:

Arizona Governor Signs Right-To-Carry Enhancement

Governor Napolitano signed House Bill 2076 which says the state may not prohibit firearms in public buildings unless those buildings provide secure but readily accessible storage for firearms carried by people using the building.

Read About It: Daily Courier

POSTED: 6/9/2006

Self Defense and the Second Amendment are on a roll in the US this year!

Rich