Your Home is Your Castle and You Have a Right to Defend it
Results 1 to 9 of 9
Like Tree10Likes
  • 3 Post By Oldgrunt
  • 5 Post By Ringo
  • 2 Post By Nightmare45

Your Home is Your Castle and You Have a Right to Defend it

This is a discussion on Your Home is Your Castle and You Have a Right to Defend it within the Politics forums, part of the Main Category category; Filed under: From CTD Webb Site: home defense — CTD Suzanne Since a young Oklahoma widow shot and killed a ...

  1. #1
    mmckee1952 is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    2,388

    Default Your Home is Your Castle and You Have a Right to Defend it

    Filed under: From CTD Webb Site: home defense — CTD Suzanne




    Since a young Oklahoma widow shot and killed a home intruder on New Year’s Eve 2010, the Castle Doctrine law has been making the national news. In the last few weeks, there has been a bigger push for states that do not have a Castle Doctrine law enacted to start one and even extend Castle Doctrine laws for states that have a form of the self-defense law. Most recently was Virginia’s House Bill 48 that passed the Senate on Friday, February 3, 2012 on a 12 to 6 vote and now will move to the Senate.

    Castle Doctrine law is the 1985 “Make My Day Law” in Colorado, which extended Colorado’s Castle Doctrine law to grant immunity to the victim who must use lethal force.

    Another landmark case of the passing of a Castle Doctrine law was Florida in October of 2005 called the “Personal Protection Bill” which extended the rights of citizens to protect themselves with deadly force not only in the home, but also to vehicles, places of business, and anywhere else someone legally has a right to be. The “Personal Protection Bill” also grants Floridians immunity against civil lawsuits or charges in cases of lethal self-defense.


    In some states you still have to try and escape.

    Originating from Old English Law, the Castle Doctrine and forms thereof give you the right to protect yourself in your home from threat. The Castle Doctrine is not a federally mandated law; no one yet has proven in a court of law that the Second Amendment extends that right. Each individual state must adopt its own Castle Doctrine laws.

    In general, Castle Doctrine means that to use lawful deadly force, you must feel threatened by an intruder who has entered your home illegally and intends to do you harm or commit a felony. Some states have extensive Castle Doctrine laws, while others have stringent ones; meaning some states require you, by law, to attempt to retreat before using lethal force against a threat.

    Currently, 25 states have passed the NRA-model of the Castle Doctrine, with several others having a form of the law. This year, many more states are pushing to enact or extend Castle Doctrine laws.


    Her home is her castle.

    The Colorado House committee passed a bill, called “Make My Day Better” on February 2, 2012 extending their “Make My Day Law” to the workplace. Massachusetts was set to hear Bill S. 661 on February 7, 2012. Minnesota introduced the Defense of Dwelling & Person Act HF1467/SF1357. The bill was approved last year in the house and on February 9, 2012, it passed through the Senate Finance Committee with a 10 to five vote. It will now go to the full Senate. Governor Mark Dayton has not made a statement on whether or not he will sign the bill or veto it.

    Nebraska had a hearing on LB804 on January 31, 2012. No news on an update has been found for these proposed bills as of this posting. North Carolina successfully extended their Castle Doctrine law early January to include vehicles and places of work. Unfortunately, both Oregon and Washington’s purposed bills have stalled.

    Does your state have a Castle Doctrine? Why do you think the passing of the Castle Doctrine is so important?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    3,502

    Default

    Alabama has the Castle Doctrine Law as do several other states. I don't really want to shoot anyone or for my wife or me to be shot or otherwise harmed. It is nice to know that the law does exist and I shouldn't have to fear prosecution for self defense. I really wonder, however, how will that really hold up in a real situation. I refer particularly to the case in Florida about Travon Martin. The "facts" and "eyewitness" testimonies have changed so many times because of race down there that no one really knows what happened but, I can almost guarantee you that the shooter will go to jail regardless. That will be because race is the driving factor. It is a shame that a kid died regardless of color but I have to ask, would there have been an uproar if the kid had been white or hispanic? What about in Chicago and other large cities? Would it be the same?

    I am old and walk with a cane. I can not fight one of these young kids anymore, consequently, a weapon is my only defense. If the attack on me or my wife starts, I could care less about the ethnicity of the assailant, he is going to get hurt and/or seriously dead. I will have been able to defend myself. Now if I were to shoot a person of color, will I be justified in the shooting or does he have to be of a particular ethnic group, white, black, hispanic, middle eastern or what? In actuality, race has absolutely nothing to do with it, only the fact I would have been threatened and defended myself. In a shooting, I would expect the police to investigate and, when proven justified, that would be the end of it. To me, that is the purpose of the law. Most shootings bring instant media attention by the liberal media but, in case you haven't noticed, any shooting that has been justified like some of the cases you read about in the NRA magazine where innocent citizens defend themselves are rarely mentioned. The anti-gunners are hard at work!

  3. #3
    Ringo's Avatar
    Ringo is offline Politically Incorrect
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Arizona/Tri-State
    Posts
    4,127

    Default

    I like our Arizona law. In Arizona the full burden of responsibility is put on the prosecutor to be able to "prove beyond a reasonable doubt" that the shooter did not "believe" that their life was in danger before they can bring charges. Think about that. Also, no civil lawsuit may be brought against the shooter by any relative of the assailant.
    The World Isn't Falling Apart, It's Falling Into Place

  4. #4
    Nightmare45's Avatar
    Nightmare45 is offline NRA LIFE MEMBER
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Houston Metro Area, Texas
    Posts
    2,940

    Default

    Texas has the castle doctrine and it protects you anyplace you have a legal right to be, with that said, would not matter, I am going to protect myself and family. Note to BG's, go to church with your family and earn an honest non violent living, or your family will be taking you to church. Those individuals who do not want said law aid and abet the criminal and or no better than the criminals they protect.

  5. #5
    blinddog is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    169

    Default

    In Mississippi the CD you are allowed to defend yourself if someone is breaking into your home. You don't have to wait for them to get all the way in. Also there is protection from civil law suits in a lawful shooting. Also protecting yourself in a place of business or in your vehicle is covered under the CD. Mississippi is a pretty good place to live, the self defense laws are in favor of the responsible gun owner.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    State of Confusion
    Posts
    6,227

    Default

    In NYS, Article 35 of the penal law provides for the right to use deadly physical force to "thwart a burglary." There is no duty to retreat in one's home. Case law finds the home extends to where you're sleeping; hotel, camper, etc.

    Article 35 also requires the duty to attempt retreat when in a public place, if you can do so with complete safety to self and others. A parent walking to the car with a child in tow cannot safely retreat. Neither can an elderly or disabled person. But the law only requires an attempt at retreat until the actual attack commences. It's designed to get people to back down in confrontation to keep an altercation from beginning. But once you are attacked the duty to retreat no longer exists.

    An example of each...

    1. Walking into a store from the parking lot. Goblin tells you he wants to kick your @ss. You continue about your business. You don't reply, you ignore him. You follow the NRA teachings in PPOTH of awareness, avoidance, deterrence, de-escalation. You're complying with state law.

    2. Same scenario, only the goblin gets out of the car and attacks. You no longer must retreat. You may defend yourself. You match force with equal force. If there exists the imminent threat of grave bodily harm or death you may use deadly physical force.

    This part of NY law is often misunderstood. Many think duty to retreat means you run screaming like a little girl in a dodgeball game. I believe an attempt at retreat, for purposes of avoidance and de-escalation is a smart thing. The NRA agrees which is why NRA PPOTH instructors must teach this as part of the PPOTH syllabus in every state. But once an attack commences you dance, and end it quickly. My father once told me, "if you feel the need to bang every asshat, you'll spend your life banging asshats. And that's gonna be a whole lotta legal bills." Smart man my dad.
    GOD, GUNS and GUITARS

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    3,502

    Default

    BC1: I would think that would be applicable only outside NYC, considering how Bloomberg is fanatical about the common folks even owning guns. Glad I live in the South!

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    State of Confusion
    Posts
    6,227

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oldgrunt View Post
    BC1: I would think that would be applicable only outside NYC, considering how Bloomberg is fanatical about the common folks even owning guns. Glad I live in the South!
    Yes, true. NYC has amended the state penal law to have special licensing provisions and prohibiting all carry. The NYC criminal code also has significant restrictive measures.

    However, people in NYC are allowed to have guns, even handguns, in their homes as long as they're properly licensed. NYC has no special provisions when it comes to self-defense. They must also follow article-35 of the state penal law. We must remembr that self-defense and deadly force need not apply to a firearm or even a knife. Any improvised weapon or in some cases a well trained fighter can deliver a deadly force response to an attack. S/he is equally protected by state statute and not prohinbited from such affirmative defense by NYC codes. Thank God it hasn't gotten that far yet.

    How about an occupy movement in front of city hall where everyone drinks a two-liter bottle of soda...
    GOD, GUNS and GUITARS

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    9

    Default

    Oklahoma has the Castle domain in place as well as "Stand Your Ground". It seems more and more states are trying to use some common sense in protecting their citizens from rampant criminals who have had more rights than the victims have had over a number of years. Gotta love the ACLU.....NOT!!!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •