Arizona Bill Bans De-facto Registration

[Scouse]

I'm going to make it easy on everyone and post the operative section of the Bill so that nobody even has to look in the Bill to read it. It says:

B. A PERSON HAS NO DUTY TO RETREAT BEFORE THREATENING OR USING DEADLY
PHYSICAL FORCE PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION IF THE PERSON IS IN A PLACE WHERE THE
PERSON MAY LEGALLY BE AND IS NOT ENGAGED IN AN UNLAWFUL ACT.

I think that this is very simple and concise. If you think that this shifts the burden of proof away from the prosecution; I don't think so but, you're entitled to your opinion. I have been pushing to get this signed. I also agree with "Kudos" to Gov. Jan Brewer.

I agree with you!

This sntence needs to be struck...AND IS NOT ENGAGED IN AN UNLAWFUL ACT. This is wide open to interpretation, what came first, the chicken, or the egg kind of statement.

[wolfhunter]

I'm going to make it easy on everyone and post the operative section of the Bill so that nobody even has to look in the Bill to read it. It says:

B. A PERSON HAS NO DUTY TO RETREAT BEFORE THREATENING OR USING DEADLY
PHYSICAL FORCE PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION IF THE PERSON IS IN A PLACE WHERE THE
PERSON MAY LEGALLY BE AND IS NOT ENGAGED IN AN UNLAWFUL ACT.

I think that this is very simple and concise. If you think that this shifts the burden of proof away from the prosecution; I don't think so but, you're entitled to your opinion. I have been pushing to get this signed. I also agree with "Kudos" to Gov. Jan Brewer.

This doesn't go beyond Florida's Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground law. In addition, Florida's law precludes any Civil suit against any person who defends themselves in a situation covered by CD/SYG.

[GOV5]

This doesn't go beyond Florida's Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground law. In addition, Florida's law precludes any Civil suit against any person who defends themselves in a situation covered by CD/SYG.

S.C. is the same way as Florida. You can't be sued in a civil court either.

There are some here, it seems, that are confusing the "no retreat necessary" law and the Castle Doctrine. They are two entirely different concepts. The Castle Doctrine says that you can use deadly force in your car or home...period. It also encompasses the 'No retreat necessary" provision. However, outside of your house or car, there are some states they REQUIRE you to retreat, if at all possible. The obvious problem with this stance by the courts is that a decision on an incident is being made after the fact, in a safe haven of a courtroom, with no fear of loss of life or bodily injury, and all the time that is needed, to come up with the decision. On the street, you have only a few seconds to decide what to do, and how. It isn't a fair situation in which to put anybody. And the thought in the back of the mind of a costly court fight could make a person hesitate at the EXACT time they need to be pulling the weapon and firing.

[utimmer43]

One great law after another. I LOVE this woman. If she isn't re-elected by a landslide, I'll be quite surprised.

AZ is quickly moving to the top of my list of "sanctuary" states, should I find it necessary to get the hell out of dodge.

[wolfhunter]

I agree with you!

This sntence needs to be struck...AND IS NOT ENGAGED IN AN UNLAWFUL ACT. This is wide open to interpretation, what came first, the chicken, or the egg kind of statement.

This phrasing is used because a person can legally be in convenience store, but if they are robbing it, the illegal act keeps the use of a weapon in the crime. Otherwise, some lawyer would try and argue to have the "armed" part of the "armed robbery" dismissed.