Michigan considering new updated Gun law

Status
Not open for further replies.

LaVere

Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2003
Messages
321
Location
Michigan
This bill would do basically three things:

One: It establishes, in law, the presumption that a criminal who forcibly enters or intrudes into your home or occupied vehicle is there to cause death or great bodily harm, therefore a person may use any manner of force, including deadly force, against that person.

Two: It removes the "duty to retreat" if you are attacked in any place you have a right to be. You no longer have to turn your back on a criminal and try to run when attacked. Instead, you may stand your ground and fight back, meeting force with force, including deadly force, if you reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to yourself or others.

Three: It provides that persons using force authorized by law shall not be prosecuted for using such force.

It also prohibits criminals and their families from suing victims for injuring or killing the criminals who have attacked them.

In short, it gives rights back to law-abiding people and forces judges and prosecutors who are prone to coddling criminals to instead focus on protecting victims.

This is Michigan's "meet force with force" or "no duty to retreat" Bill.
In part, it reads:

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
click HERE.
The gun-defense bills are House Bills 5142 & 5143
This legislation was "introduced" today, no vote or action has been taken so far.

This bill would do basically three things:

One: It establishes, in law, the presumption that a criminal who forcibly enters or intrudes into your home or occupied vehicle is there to cause death or great bodily harm, therefore a person may use any manner of force, including deadly force, against that person.

Two: It removes the "duty to retreat" if you are attacked in any place you have a right to be. You no longer have to turn your back on a criminal and try to run when attacked. Instead, you may stand your ground and fight back, meeting force with force, including deadly force, if you reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to yourself or others.

Three: It provides that persons using force authorized by law shall not be prosecuted for using such force.

It also prohibits criminals and their families from suing victims for injuring or killing the criminals who have attacked them.

In short, it gives rights back to law-abiding people and forces judges and prosecutors who are prone to coddling criminals to instead focus on protecting victims.
 
It also prohibits criminals and their families from suing victims for injuring or killing the criminals who have attacked them.

I don't see that it prohibits a criminal's relatives, etc from suing you in civil court.

(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney 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).

However, if you are immune from prosecution, you will be compensated? Doesn't say by whom... :confused:
 
I think the point is, anybody can sue for any reason. Even though the case will be tossed out, you will still incur some legal fees.
 
Text of the bills:

5142

September 7, 2005, Introduced by Rep. Casperson and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.

A bill to amend 1927 PA 175, entitled

"The code of criminal procedure,"

(MCL 760.1 to 777.69) by adding section 21c to chapter VIII.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT:


CHAPTER VIII

Sec. 21c. It is a defense to a prosecution for any crime

involving the use or attempted use of deadly force that the person

acted in lawful self-defense or lawful defense of another person.

The duty to retreat before using deadly force does not apply to any

premises in which the person is dwelling or to the curtilage of

those premises.

5143
HOUSE BILL No. 5143

September 7, 2005, Introduced by Rep. Jones and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.

A bill to clarify the rights and duties of self-defense and

the defense of others; to provide for criminal and civil immunity

under certain circumstances; to regulate the investigation of

incidents involving self-defense or the defense of others; and to

provide for certain remedies.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT:

Sec. 1. (1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable

fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or

herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or

likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if both of

the following apply:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was


in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering, or had

unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied

vehicle, or that person had removed or was attempting to remove

another person against that person's will from the dwelling,

residence, or occupied vehicle.

(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to

believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and

forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply

if any of the following apply:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has

the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling,

residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder,

and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic

violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact

against that person.

(b) The person sought to be removed is a child or grandchild

of, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful

guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is

used.

(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an

unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied

vehicle to further an unlawful activity.

(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a

law enforcement officer who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling,

residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official

duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance


with applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably

should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter

was a law enforcement officer.

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and

who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to

be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her

ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or

she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death

or great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another person or

to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to

enter a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is

presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act

involving force or violence.

(5) As used in this section:

(a) "Dwelling" means a building or conveyance of any kind,

including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is

temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, that has a roof over

it, including a tent, and that is designed to be occupied by

people.

(b) "Residence" means a dwelling in which a person resides

either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited

guest.

(c) "Vehicle" means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not

motorized, that is designed to transport people or property.

Sec. 2. (1) A person is justified in using force, except

deadly force, against another person when and to the extent that


the person reasonably believes that the conduct is necessary to

defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent

use of unlawful force.

(2) A person is justified in the use of deadly force and does

not have a duty under this section to retreat if either of the

following applies:

(a) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary

to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or

herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a

forcible felony.

(b) Any of the circumstances enumerated under section 1.

Sec. 3. (1) A person is justified in the use of force, except

deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the

person reasonably believes that the use of force is necessary to

prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or other

tortious or criminal interference with real property, other than a

dwelling or personal property, that is lawfully in his or her

possession or in the possession of another person who is a member

of his or her immediate family or household, or of a person whose

property he or she has a legal duty to protect.

(2) A person is justified in the use of deadly force only if

he or she reasonably believes that deadly force is necessary to

prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person does

not have a duty under this section to retreat if the person is in a

place where he or she has a right to be.

Sec. 4. (1) A person who uses force as permitted in section 1,

2, or 3 is justified in using that force and is immune from


criminal prosecution and from any civil action for the use of that

force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law

enforcement officer 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, "criminal

prosecution" includes arresting, detaining in custody, 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 shall 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 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).
 
I predict the representatives of the Democratic (sic) party will shriek, howl, screech, and generally voice their opposition: after all, the vast majority of convicted felons vote for them.
 
Good to know

This explains why the local network news interviewed their company lawyer lastnight on the subject of the new Florida law. According to him this is a useless law being pushed by the NRA to flaunt their power. He also claims it does not change our current rights and will only result in the courts being flooded with cases of drunks who've shot their house guest. The young lady agreed with him stating "yeah, if somebody breaks into my house I'd shoot them if I had the means".

The benefit of a law like this as I see it is not having to lie about meeting a threat to my life with fear. That's PC garbage to me. Don't know about y'all but I get seriously mad when people attempt to kill me.

Evading a threat bolsters the badguy's confidence and makes them try harder to succeed next time. Allowing somone who thinks I fear them a better chance to sneak up me doesn't sound very smart.
 
We allready have castle law but this will expand it. There are several other pending laws on the record also

Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 02:54:30 -0400
From: <[email protected]>
Subject: Michigan Legislature Email Update

Michigan Legislature Website <http://www.mileg.org> Daily Update For: Michigan Concealed Gun Owners

Please note: Updates are sent for any change to a given item, including spelling error corrections. Therefore it is possible to be notified that an item has been updated when no legislative activity has occured on the bill.

If you wish to change your notification settings or unsubscribe, please login at the Michigan Legislature Website <http://www.legislature.mi.gov> and visit the Notify page.


Weapons
Updated Bills or Resolutions:

* HB 4642 of 2005
<http://www.mileg.org/mileg.asp?page=getObject&objName=2005-HB-4642>
Weapons; other; licensed spouse to carry or transport another licensed spouse's inspected pistol; allow. Amends sec. 12 of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.432).
* HB 4977 of 2005
<http://www.mileg.org/mileg.asp?page=getObject&objName=2005-HB-4977>
Weapons; licensing; expiration date of concealed weapons permit; revise to individual's date of birth. Amends section 5l of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.425l).
* HB 4978 of 2005
<http://www.mileg.org/mileg.asp?page=getObject&objName=2005-HB-4978>
Weapons; concealed; requirements for obtaining a concealed pistol permit; revise to include requirement of meeting certain federal eligibility standards. Amends 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.421 - 28.435) by adding sec. 6.

Crimes, home invasion
New Bills or Resolutions:

* HB 5153 of 2005
<http://www.mileg.org/mileg.asp?page=getObject&objName=2005-HB-5153>
Crimes; definitions; flight requirement; eliminate.

Criminal procedure, defenses
New Bills or Resolutions:

* HB 5153 of 2005
<http://www.mileg.org/mileg.asp?page=getObject&objName=2005-HB-5153>
Crimes; definitions; flight requirement; eliminate.

Updated Bills or Resolutions:

* HB 5142 of 2005
<http://www.mileg.org/mileg.asp?page=getObject&objName=2005-HB-5142>
Crimes; other; criminal forcibly entering or intruding into home or vehicle; allow person to use deadly force in self-defense. Amends
1927 PA 175 (MCL 760.1 - 777.69) by adding sec. 21c to ch. VIII.
* HB 5143 of 2005
<http://www.mileg.org/mileg.asp?page=getObject&objName=2005-HB-5143>
Crimes; other; right to self-defense and defense of others; clarify and provide for criminal and civil immunity under certain circumstances. Creates new act.

HB 5142 of 2005
<http://www.mileg.org/mileg.asp?page=getObject&objName=2005-HB-5142>
Crimes; other; criminal forcibly entering or intruding into home or vehicle; allow person to use deadly force in self-defense. Amends 1927 PA 175 (MCL 760.1 - 777.69) by adding sec. 21c to ch. VIII.
updated 09/08/2005

HB 5143 of 2005
<http://www.mileg.org/mileg.asp?page=getObject&objName=2005-HB-5143>
Crimes; other; right to self-defense and defense of others; clarify and provide for criminal and civil immunity under certain circumstances.
Creates new act.
updated 09/08/2005
 
How come the media does not report how much crime is down in Michigan directly because of the CCW law?? CBS 9-10 News reported that crime had dropped 600% in Traverse City just 6 months after the CCW law went into effect but said this was "due to better police patrols and better public education". They also reported before the law went into effect that "the new CCW law was for business people and others that had a legitimate need to carry a handgun" infering that it was not for anybody else. I'll bet they have nothing to say on this issue either. :mad:
 
Good law. I hope it passes, and that more states will follow.
However, if you are immune from prosecution, you will be compensated? Doesn't say by whom...
Yes, it does ... indirectly. The law uses the term "award." That's legalese for ordering the other party to pay. Which means it's an empty gesture, because of the bad guy's kin are suing you and they have nada, they won't have any resources to pay your legal bills. It also won't stop them from filing a nuisance suit. In a sane world, the prospect of paying the other guy's legal fees on top of your own is supposed to deter nuisance suits. But if the people filing the suit have nothing ... they are "judgment proof" and the prospect of being ordered to pay with money they don't have doesn't act as any deterrent at all.

That's the only weak area of this proposed bill. There needs to besome mechanism for putting teeth behind that "award" concept.
 
That's the only weak area of this proposed bill. There needs to besome mechanism for putting teeth behind that "award" concept.

One thing it will change is lawyers taking their case on a contingency basis, unless it's a pretty straight forward case that the defendent was wrong. With this bill in place, they will have come up with some really good arguments that they weren't making the defendent in fear of his life.
 
I've always thought that an attorney who accepts a case on a contingency fee basis (that is, if the palintiff wins, the attorney receives a percentage of the civil monetary award) should also be liable for a percentage of the charges if the suit is found to be frivolous.
 
Hope it passes.

All state's should pass protection for property owners to use deadly force. Some wanna be gangsta beaks into my house and Im suppsoed to run out my backdoor and let him have free range of the place? You are out of your mind and out forefathers would shoot you.
 
Who`s introducing it?

Rick Jones, who is the former Eaton County Sheriff and is currently the Speaker of the House. I can't think of the other guys name off the top of my head, but I believe he is the representative from Escanaba.

Do you have the MCL for that law? I thought we did too, but have been unsuccessful in finding the actual text of the law.

The castle doctrine in MI is case law, not statutory law. Currently in MI, a home-owner that shoots someone has to show that they were in imminent risk of death or great bodily harm. The new law creates a rebuttable presumption that an intruder is there to do great bodily harm. If a prosecutor wanted to go after the home-owner, they would have to show that the intruder had a lawful reason to be there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top