[sm]

21 "Stand Your Ground" Bills

http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/InTheNews.aspx?ID=7337

>>

http://pasco.tbo.com/pasco/MGBTC7C5QKE.html

By TODD LESKANIC tleskanic@tampatrib.com

Published: Mar 13, 2006

Twenty-one states are considering laws modeled on the "Stand Your Ground" legislation passed in Florida last year.

[AirForceShooter]

once again Florida leads the way.
Now we're going to stop employers and shopping area's from not letting you have your ccw in your car.

Can you guys please catch up and maybe even pass us.

AFS

[Johnnybgood]

MOVE TO FLORIDA!:neener:

[Maxwell]

Trouble is many anti-guns hate violence and crime too. Just like other citizens they shop for the best places to live, which includes those areas where rkba and well thought out law helps to keep the peace.
Once they arrive, shock of shocks, theres guns everywhere that need to be removed so they can feel even more secure.

Moving away from them just means they will move towards us later on. Like the lady who always wanted to live in farm country, then complained about the cows.

[V4Vendetta]

Please tell me NC is one of the states considering this law.

[El Tejon]

Florida "leads the way"???:confused: Nah, y'all are just catching up to something we Yankees have had for nearly 150 years.:D BTW, wasn't Oklahoma the first state with the employee protections?

Glad to see media calling it "stand your ground" rather than "castle doctrine". That was just a slight pet peeve for me.:evil: I am delighted that we are on the attack rather than the defensive! Hoozah, rally, boys, take the fight to our enemies.:cool:

[44Brent]

Please tell me NC is one of the states considering this law.

Please tell me that there is somewhere in N.C. in which licensed individuals are NOT prohibited from carrying. The list of prohibited places makes it almost useless to get a license in N.C. N.C. has one of the worst CCW laws in the country among "shall issue" states.

http://www.packing.org/state/north_carolina/#stateoff_limits

[V4Vendetta]

"Please tell me that there is somewhere in N.C. in which licensed individuals are NOT prohibited from carrying."

There's your home & the grocery store* & pizza hut*.

*Depends on store.

Edit: I just read your link & the only thing on the list I go to is the bank.

[Rockrivr1]

If I was a betting man I would put cold hard cash down that Massachusetts is not one of those states. :(

[LAR-15]

The NC GA cannot consider any new legislation until 2007.

This year is the 'short session'

[Mongo the Mutterer]

Yup. Sent an e-mail to my Representative this morning thanking her for co-sponsoring the bill...:)

[AirForceShooter]

DO NOT move to Florida, Please!!
We have enough people already. We're all filled up.
Remember we have hurricanes.
And all that sand at the Beaches. We're trying to clean that up but it keeps washing back.
We weren't the first?? See, you want to go someplace else.
I know!!! TEXAS!!!
Go there.

AFS

[Larry Ashcraft]

Colorado has a "no duty to retreat" law, according to our CCW instructor.

I don't know how long its been that way though.

[Mongo the Mutterer]

More importantly, Larry. Does Colorado immunize the self defense shooter from civil tort liablility (lawsuits from perp, perp's kin, etc)?

[Larry Ashcraft]

Yes, at least under the "Make My Day" law.
(4) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the use of such force.
Not sure though, about a self defensive action "on the street". I need to do more research.

[k_semler]

WA has no duty to retreat, and a case dismissed in a ruling of self-defense is completly paid for by the prosecuting party. There is also immunity from civil suit by either the suspect, or thier families.

[Chipperman]

"If I was a betting man I would put cold hard cash down that Massachusetts is not one of those states."

We don't need to. MA has had "Castle Doctrine" for years.

[Rockrivr1]

Chipperman Stated:

"If I was a betting man I would put cold hard cash down that Massachusetts is not one of those states."

We don't need to. MA has had "Castle Doctrine" for years.

If I was a betting may, I guess by Chipperman's answer I would be losing said cold hard cash. This is actually a good surprise for me in that I thought our laws in MA required us to retreat above all else before taking lethal action.

[DunedinDragon]

I think a lot of people miss the point here. Stand Your Ground isn't at all the same as Castle Doctrine. Quite frankly, the most important aspects of the Florida law, and hopefully others that are coming along like it, is protection from civil suits and arrest. THAT is HUGE in my opinion. Far more important than not having to retreat.

The law has always tended to be on the side of someone in a viable self-defense situation, but it's the costs involved in "proving" it was self-defense and defending against the civil lawsuits from family members. What the media overlooks in this situation, but every gun owner understands, is the impact of the aftermath, which is what these laws REALLY intend to overcome.

[Chipperman]

I don't have the actual MA law code available from a quick search, but I have read it before.
Here are a couple of references I found:

http://www.massgunlaw.com/hot_issues_in_massachusetts_fire.htm
" If you are in your own home, there is no duty to retreat, but you may use deadly force only to repel an intruder's deadly force attack against you or your family. "
===========================

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3197/is_n8_v36/ai_11199334

This is from Ayoob: "The one exception to this was a period of time from the late '70s to the early '80s in Massachusetts, where it was widely accepted that the caselaw of Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Lynn Schaefer held that when attacked in one's home, one had to try to climb out the windows before resorting to a gun in self defense. This was actually a rather nebulous case and never got to the higher courts where it would have been shot down. In any case, during a brief flash of collective sanity between the Dukakis administrations, the Bay State elected John King as governor and he promptly signed into law a "castle doctrine" that brought Massachusetts into line with the rest of the civilized world.

Massachusetts was neither the first nor the last state to enact what pro-gunners call a "castle law" and anti-gunners call a "Death Wish law" or a "kill thy neighbor" law. Be advised that these laws DO NOT permit the indiscriminate shooting of any intruder caught inside the dwelling! They permit the use of deadly force ONLY when the intruder seriously poses an immediate threat to the life and limb of someone therein. Castle laws have been widely and horribly misinterpreted by a large number of professionals in the firearms field who should have known better."
==========================


Now it would be preferable, of course, if the law more clearly stated that anyone in your home uninvited poses a de facto threat, but the MA law is still better than some states.

[cbsbyte]

The Castle law in Massachusetts, and many other states only applies to using deadly force against an attacking assliant in ones owns place of residence or business. It does not apply to outside that residence or allow one to 'blow away' an unarmed burgler who is stealing your TV or car. In Florida, the "Stand your ground law" allows one to stand their ground in public and use deadly force if nessecery if attacked.

[DunedinDragon]

cbsbyte,
The Castle law in Massachusetts, and many other states only applies to using deadly force against an attacking assliant in ones owns place of residence or business. It does not apply to outside that residence or allow one to 'blow away' an unarmed burgler who is stealing your TV or car. In Florida, the "Stand your ground law" allows one to stand their ground in public and use deadly force if nessecery if attacked.

The law in Florida doesn't allow you to blow away someone that's stealing your TV or car either. True, the law does allow use of deadly force against certain types of felonies which can be assumed to have a threat associated with them such as burglary or robbery, but property theft is not among them.

The biggest differences from what I can tell is it allows you to protect yourself AND OTHERS that are in imminent deadly harm. It can't be interpreted to mean that you can shoot someone as they run away from a burglary however. It's only while the threat exists.

[Zen21Tao]

From what I've read there seems to be some confusion as to what exactly the "stand your ground" law is and how it differs from the castle doctrine. The castle doctrine removes the duty to retreat when in one's own home. What Florida did with the "stand your ground" law does was they removed the duty to retreat from PUBLIC places as well. For example, if someone tries to rob you at an ATM you can defend yourself rather than run away (as cowardly libs would have you do). The stand your ground law doesn't change the necessary requirement for the use of deadly force in any way shape or form. The law has always said the deadly force is ok to defend one's own life, the life of another and to prevent/stop a forcible felony.

[cbsbyte]

No I was not stating Flordia law allowed people to "blow away" people stealing TVs from someones home. I was comparing the Mass castle law and Flordia "Stand your ground" laws.

[Hawkmoon]

Moving away from them just means they will move towards us later on. Like the lady who always wanted to live in farm country, then complained about the cows.
How do you know my wife? :evil:

[bratch]

BTW, wasn't Oklahoma the first state with the employee protections?

As far as I know you are correct. It was tied up in court and I haven't heard much about it latley.

I know OK protects you from civil shoots for a shoot inside your house. I haven't been able to find anything about the use of CCW but it would be wonderful if we did.

[Azrael256]

AFAIK, Oklahoma doesn't protect you from civil liability outside your home. That particular law refers only to an occupant of the dwelling.

There are three things I want at home in Texas (at least): A good stand your ground law, civil liability immunity when the criminal court calls it a good shoot, and unlicensed open carry. I should have a choice to retreat, I should not be liable for shooting an attacker, and the idea that a Texan, of all people, can be criminally prosecuted for carrying his six-gun on his hip is morally and ethically repugnant.

[DunedinDragon]

Here's the way the Florida law addresses criminal and civil liabilities. I think they did a pretty decent job:

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.--

(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term "criminal prosecution" includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

History.--s. 4, ch. 2005-27.

[c_yeager]

once again Florida leads the way.
Now we're going to stop employers and shopping area's from not letting you have your ccw in your car.

Can you guys please catch up and maybe even pass us.

AFS


You do realize that many states, uncluding some "blue states" like washington, never put that "duty to retreat" nonsense in the books in the first place. You dont need a law telling you that you dont have to run away from people, what you need is to avoid laws saying that you do. I guess Florida is leading the way by passing new laws to fix old laws. I personally think its better not to pass bad legislation in the first place, at least you guys are trying :neener:

[AirForceShooter]

And in Fla you don't have to be at home.
Any place you're legally entitled to be and you're threatened or someone else is, you're pretty much entitled to shoot. No duty to retreat or anything. And, if it's deemed a good shoot you can't be sued.

AFS

[45crittergitter]

The MS bill has passed the legislature and is awaiting gubernatorial action. He's likely to sign IMHO, but the MS Prosecutors Association opposes it, because it makes them prove a person guilty, instead of presuming he/she is guilty like the current law.

[joab]

Any place you're legally entitled to be and you're threatened or someone else is, you're pretty much entitled to shoot.The Stand Your Ground Law seems to be one of the most misunderstood laws in the history of Fla.
many have taken the anti's interpretation as fact.

The law does little to change when it is acceptable to use deadly force. You still have to show that you had to use deadly force to protect yourself. If it can be shown that you had a viable escape route that would have protected you and therefore there was no need to use deadly force you can still be charged.

Before you had to show that you had no choice but to shoot and that there was no reasonable escape route. Now you don't have to prove that you had no way of retreating.

But if you think just a little
If there is a viable escape route shooting would not be necessary.

The only real update on the law is that you cannot be sued if it is found that the deadly force was necessary

[45crittergitter]

The MS bill has been signed into law by the governor, and will take effect July 1.