Well, Dang!! there IS some good news.......

B

brian roberts

New member
the "Civil Immunity" bill passed in Maryland's legislature this year, I'm told. Hope this cuts down on the break-ins, burglaries, & home invasions for those folks. They've been trying to get that passed for the last eight years, but always the same A-hole trial lawyer kept it from a vote, even a discussion, and he had prosecuted many homeowners who'd shot the miscreants involved. The bill says if you shoot or kill "uninvited guests" in, breaking in, walking in, invading, or coming down the chimney, and they're killed, or just terribly *&%$%ed-up, you won't or can't be prosecuted criminally OR civilly. I haven't read it yet, but it should have been passed fifty years ago, the lack of it has cost hundreds of lives, tranquility, peace of mind, sleep, anger, frustration and loss for many good people there. San'ny Clause better knock, too.:eek::D
 
A fair number of states have passed a version of that bill, usually it is called "Castle Doctrine". Down here in Florida, the concept has been extended in that you are protected in the use of deadly force to defend yourself and with no duty to retreat if you are in any location in which you have a legal right to be. The usual groups made the usual predictions of "blood will run in the streets", but of course it didn't happen.
 
AZ enacted the Castle Doctrine a couple of years ago. As Tom said, it applies to anywhere that you can legally be, not just your home. It also provides that if the survivor or family decide to sue you, the burden of proof is on them, not you.

AZ just last week enacted the legal concealed carry law. We also enacted a law that exempts AZ manufactured firearms from any Federal regulations as long as the firearm stays in the state. If that was not enough, the Gov also signed into law a restriction on local governments from regulating firearms and ammunition and prohibits local govt from banning firearms in parks.

Some have predicted that AZ will come to an end in a very short time. Stay tuned.:rolleyes:

Ray
 
I thought all that was granted in common law and didn't need to be covered again but then I am a Texan.

Concho Bill
 
TomD said:
A fair number of states have passed a version of that bill, usually it is called "Castle Doctrine". Down here in Florida, the concept has been extended in that you are protected in the use of deadly force to defend yourself and with no duty to retreat if you are in any location in which you have a legal right to be. The usual groups made the usual predictions of "blood will run in the streets", but of course it didn't happen.
Click to expand...
In general, remembering that I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.

The Supreme Court ruled long ago that a man had no obligation to retreat since reteat can simply invite pursuit and turning your back puts you at an even worse disadvantage, and that if you see a gun in someones hand you can open fire without preliminaries. The deadly action of a firearm being near instantaneous theres no time to make a decision other than to defend oneself.
They also once gave the opinion summed up as "there is no calm reflection in the face of an upraised knife".

Unfortunately many Judges and Prosecutors studied under Dr, Zaius who's moto is "Humans have no rights under Ape Law".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A few years back there were several home invasions here. A local cop was on one of the local tv stations saying that a resident couldn't just shoot someone who kicked their door in because the door kicker, "had as much right to be there as anyone." I nearly swallowed my teeth on hearing that, and figured that must have been the party line from the anti-gun RINO county attorney and had very little basis in state law.

Since then a "castle doctrine" law has been passed, and a couple of years before that a civil immunity law was passed so that the injured criminal couldn't sue or the dead criminals survivors couldn't either. The trial lawyers who represent, uh, scumbags were somewhat upset by both laws. The prosecutors like ours who don't believe in self defense aren't happy either.

Life's tough, it's even tougher when you don't get your own way and you're a whiner. :D
 
Larry Elliott said:
A few years back there were several home invasions here. A local cop was on one of the local tv stations saying that a resident couldn't just shoot someone who kicked their door in because the door kicker, "had as much right to be there as anyone." I nearly swallowed my teeth on hearing that, and figured that must have been the party line from the anti-gun RINO county attorney and had very little basis in state law.

The prosecutors like ours who don't believe in self defense aren't happy either.

:D
Click to expand...

I suspect a lot of those attitudes are based on "That's in my job description"
caveat.
 
Well it certainly is................

decades overdue, however, it seems the only way to get some action is to threaten to knock some politicians away from their spot at the gravy trough, obviously that gets their attention. Maybe there ought to be some armed guardians in select areas 20-30 miles inland. :eek: Oooh, Oooh.;):D
 
Such laws can be effective. Mississippi passed this several years ago. Recently, home invasions have drastically increased here on the coast. This week, the invader struck the homeowner with a hammer as he came in. The homeowner was able to retrieve his weapon (yes, it's a weapon) and took out the invader. Prosecutors were called to the scene during the investigation and no charges were filed. The case will be presented to the grand jury as a formality.

Stryker60
 
NOOOOooooo, its not a..........

"weapon" UNTIL it is used OFFensively, or DEfensively. At all other times I may have an "Anti Car-Jacking Repulsion Device", or "Emergency Life-Saving Instrument", or a simple "tool". Too many prosecutors resort to poisoning the well by shading a jury's perception of the individual's actions as premeditated, rather than a condition of preparedness. The accused can object to the court, repeatedly, and DEMAND that only his(the accused's) definition be accepted so as to not predjudice the jury's perception of the necessary actions taken. An old boy who has more knowledge and experience in the courtroom than most attorneys, and over 50,000 pages of documented citations at law told me, "Its all about language, its about status, its about jurisdiction." Use the language, he said, to change your status, and reduce their jurisdiction. They use this in other ways, too, such as now there are no "accidents", only "crashes", which, it was announced some time ago when this definition was initiated, that this new word, "...placed GREATER RESPONSIBILITY ON THE DEFENDANT." Now, some defendants may need some responsibility enhancement in their sentencing, but this technique is contrary to our concept in law that one is innocent UNTIL proven guilty, ANYthing else is just not the American Way, no matter how much we dislike it, because it may not appeal to our personal perception of the concept of just retribution or punishment. :)
 
Watching a tv show the other night instead of doing something useful, and a guy had a "sniper rifle". You betcha, a Remington 700 with a scope on it and a laser that was good at 200 yards too! As I told the finance secretary that meant that every rifle I have except an air rifle must be a sniper rifle because they all have scopes on them. :eek:

A firearm is no more a weapon than a knife, hammer, baseball bat, length of wood, or cast iron skillet or anything else until it's used as a weapon. If it's used in self defense it may be a weapon, but if some prosecutor wants to hang someone up they're sure to mention the "weapon" they used for self defense. To the great unwashed a "weapon" or "sniper rifle" or "assault rifle" is something wicked and evil.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top