erik the bold
February 23, 2006, 02:36 PM
The local radio station here announced this morning that SB1046, the Senate bill similar to Florida's "stand your ground" law moved out of committee yesterday, and on to the full Senate.
Unfortunately, I have been unable to confirm.......
Anyone else hear this ??
(If so, methinks it's time to start warming up the phone lines to Lansing :D )
February 23, 2006, 03:44 PM
I would start calling, if I were you. I am not sure if it is moving yet, but the various anti-gun factions have been having press conferences. Carolynn Jarvis (from MPPGV) and some MMM'er were on the local news last night. They mentioned that this law was a bad thing and would lead to (I'll have to paraphrase, since I don't have the exact quote) bar room shootouts and kids shooting other kids on the playground.
My senator is anti-gun, but I'll contact her, anyway.
February 23, 2006, 09:06 PM
Action on this bill is currently halted in committee, pending definition of a "Forcible Felony".
SB 1046 (Cropsey), which provides that a person who has forcibly entered an occupied dwelling or vehicle is presumed to intend great bodily harm or death. Further, that a person who is in a place he is entitled to be does not have a duty to retreat from forcible attack. Lastly, and most importantly, this bill provides immunity from criminal or civil prosecution for a person who defends himself under the circumstances described in this act.
A number of people testified on this bill, including representatives of the "Million" Mom March. The majority of the instances that they described were circumstances completely unrelated to the provisions of this bill. In particular, most of the Detroit shootings that were described were by people illegally in possession of firearms and thus exempt from the protections of this bill.
Lee Zeidler of MCRGO gave an excellent description of the reasons why this bill is needed. In particular he described a home self-defense shooting in the Grand Rapids area where the homeowner was exonerated by the prosecuting attorney but was then sued by the relatives of the criminal; the intended victim lost his house and two million dollars as the result of the civil lawsuit.
David Felbeck also testified briefly to note that a person who is awakened at 3:00 a.m. by an intruder is expected, under current law, to establish within seconds whether the intruder intends great bodily harm or death. Such a requirement is unreasonable, for any person who forcibly enters a home surely intends harm, and the homeowner should not be required to have to prove this to a court.
Patty Schneider of Kingsford, in the U.P., told of two harrowing personal experiences involving invasion or attempted invasion. At her home one day, she heard a noise in the other end of her house, investigated, and found her husband bound and on the floor with a man wielding a sawed-off shotgun. When she ran into the next room, the man fired but missed her so she was able to run to a neighbor for help. Her husband was not harmed. Later, she protected herself from an attempted car-jacking by driving away; she was lucky that she was not boxed in. She now has a CPL.
A technical definition of "forcible felony" is apparently lacking in Michigan law. The Committee decided to defer action on the bill until this matter is resolved.
We are grateful to MCRGO directors Representative Sheltrown, Senator Cropsey and Representative Casperson, who has submitted an identical bill in the House, for their support in this important area of firearms rights.
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.