Constitutional Carry & Castle Doctrine Committee

Philip works extremely hard for Virginia's gun owners, I hate to see him insulted.

Click to expand...

While, I may disagree with how somethings are done, I have the utmost respect for this gentleman.

...and I expect that those are things that we all strongly support.

Thanks Peter Nap.

Click to expand...

1+

Peter the "I" man knows!

Click to expand...

Peter is effective and without his tireless help things would be alot different (WORSE):exclaim:

We all have our differeneces, it's what brings us together that makes us powerful.

peter nap said:

What TFred said plus, the door is open now and sooner or later some fool i going to reintroduce CD.

I'd rather it be a well researched, matter of fact, User Document than a knee jerk Ex NRA lawyer or even worse, new lawyer, bill that takes away rather than preserves.

I have included a failsafe valve to make sure that type of bill doesn't come out of this group.

Click to expand...

Hopefully your "fail-safe" provision will allow for the possibility that current case-law/common law cannot be improved with a CD bill. Not an easy conclusion to make, though.

"Castle Doctrine" or "Stand your Ground"

A question.

Should the emphasis continue to be "Castle Doctrine" or should the scope be enlarged to "Stand your Ground" legislation as some other states have done?

peter nap said:

There are a few board members including Philip, that if they were to be removed, I'd probably not renew.

Click to expand...

What about the opposite? Are there any Board members, if they were replaced, would cause you to be more likely to renew?

Repeater said:

A question.

Should the emphasis continue to be "Castle Doctrine" or should the scope be enlarged to "Stand your Ground" legislation as some other states have done?

Click to expand...

a couple passages from Dan's most current version:

SELF DEFENSE AND DEFENSE OF OTHERS, GENERALLY:
A person in any place who is not at fault in bringing about a conflict
such appropriate force up to and including deadly force that he
deems necessary to protect himself whenever he has a reasonably
faith belief, based on objective fact, that he or another innocent person
with an imminent and immediate threat of serious bodily injury.

Click to expand...

JUSTIFIABLE AND EXCUSABLE USE OF FORCE
Any person having a reasonably held, good faith belief, based on objective fact,
that a situation warrants a lawful defense, and if such person is free from fault
in creating the situation, engaged in lawful activities, and in any place where
he may lawfully be present, then he shall have absolutely no duty to retreat,
break off contact, or attempt to flee, but shall be entitled to remain where he is
and take such action, become the aggressor, and use such appropriate force,
as he reasonably deems necessary in order to defend himself, his family, his
home, and innocent third parties.

Click to expand...

and the title is:

A BILL TO CODIFY THE COMMON LAW RIGHTS OF PERSONAL DEFENSE

Click to expand...

all seems to pretty much cover 'stand your ground'.

reading the document and working through the extensive commentary have been very educational for me. i have a new appreciation about how complex the common law is and how carefully it must be codified if it's to be taken to statute.

mk4 said:

Reading the document and working through the extensive commentary have been very educational for me. i have a new appreciation about how complex the common law is and how carefully it must be codified if it's to be take to statute.

Click to expand...

Indeed. So I'm wondering if we should continue using the CD phrase. The VCDL ALERT on this topic declares we are a Stand Your Ground state anyway, provided you are not part of the the problem.

As I recall the whole thing, "Castle Doctrine" became the buzzword that held the meaning of civil/criminal immunity. There was a prolonged discussion about the need to be extremely clear about which concept folks were suporting/advancing.

Unfortunately, folks still conflate "castle doctrine" with civil/criminal immunity.

This needs to be addressed at all levels, so that there is no confusion about what we are supporting and what we are asking for.

As much as folks get tired of hearing it said, words actually do have meanings of their own. Humpty Dumpty is just never going to prevail in the drafting and interpretation of legislation, no matter how earnestly either side wants that to come about.

stay safe.

As I currently understand it, the ultimate desire is to codify the set of Common Laws and case histories that provide a law abiding citizen the freedom to protect themselves or innocent bystanders from unprovoked attack by using appropriate force, up to and including deadly force, without fear of criminal prosecution, or civil liability.

I'm just not sure how we can squeeze that into an 8 or 10 syllable caption.

TFred

TFred said:

.... I'm just not sure how we can squeeze that into an 8 or 10 syllable caption.

TFred

Click to expand...

"Let me defend myself and my family."

11 syllables. Was 10 truely a maximum limit?

stay safe.

TFred said:

As I currently understand it, the ultimate desire is to codify the set of Common Laws and case histories that provide a law abiding citizen the freedom to protect themselves or innocent bystanders from unprovoked attack by using appropriate force, up to and including deadly force, without fear of criminal prosecution, or civil liability.

I'm just not sure how we can squeeze that into an 8 or 10 syllable caption.

TFred

Click to expand...

Defense of Self, Home and Family

TFred said:

As I currently understand it, the ultimate desire is to codify the set of Common Laws and case histories that provide a law abiding citizen the freedom to protect themselves or innocent bystanders from unprovoked attack by using appropriate force, up to and including deadly force, without fear of criminal prosecution, or civil liability.

I'm just not sure how we can squeeze that into an 8 or 10 syllable caption.

TFred

Click to expand...

Legal Defense of Life.

2a4all said:

Hopefully your "fail-safe" provision will allow for the possibility that current case-law/common law cannot be improved with a CD bill. Not an easy conclusion to make, though.

Click to expand...

It does!
If the failsafe triggers we will drop it like a hot potato. Everything is on a vote basis except for that.
It's the only rule I set up when the group was I. Now it's we.

I don't want to egt into the details of the failsafe just yet but the number one priority of this is "DO NO HARM"!

My view is that "Personal Defense" should be a new article in Title 9.1, "Commonwealth Public Safety". Hence, "Article 14: Personal Defense". That article would contain sections numbered, 9.1-1401, etc., for each of the major sections in the proposed bill. So, 9.1-1401 would be, "Definitions", and so forth. I don't think that it should go into 18.2, 19.2, or 8.01, because it covers both criminal and civil matters, and it should go into 9.1 because the law of personal defense is as close to "Commonwealth Public Safety" as you can get, since each of us has the right, power, and duty, to protect ourselves, our homes, and our familes, as citizens of this Commonwealth. That's where the rubber meets the road as far as "national security" is concerned, by my lights.

user said:

My view is that "Personal Defense" should be a new article in Title 9.1, "Commonwealth Public Safety". Hence, "Article 14: Personal Defense". That article would contain sections numbered, 9.1-1401, etc., for each of the major sections in the proposed bill. So, 9.1-1401 would be, "Definitions", and so forth. I don't think that it should go into 18.2, 19.2, or 8.01, because it covers both criminal and civil matters, and it should go into 9.1 because the law of personal defense is as close to "Commonwealth Public Safety" as you can get, since each of us has the right, power, and duty, to protect ourselves, our homes, and our familes, as citizens of this Commonwealth. That's where the rubber meets the road as far as "national security" is concerned, by my lights.

Click to expand...

It's for the children!

But seriously... what good does it do if Dad saves his little boy's life from a violent attacker, only to grow up in poverty or as an orphan because Dad was sued or incarcerated?

This is the battle of ideology that we need to win! Opponents are going to balk when they see how extensive Common Law self defense protections are.

TFred

2a4all said:

Hopefully your "fail-safe" provision will allow for the possibility that current case-law/common law cannot be improved with a CD bill. Not an easy conclusion to make, though.

Click to expand...

peter nap said:

It does!
If the failsafe triggers we will drop it like a hot potato. Everything is on a vote basis except for that.
It's the only rule I set up when the group was I. Now it's we.

I don't want to egt into the details of the failsafe just yet but the number one priority of this is "DO NO HARM"!

Click to expand...

Ah! The Prime Directive!

2a4all said:

Ah! The Prime Directive!

Click to expand...

Yep!:uhoh:

In essence, Dan has already done the work. I think we have to accept that as the ultimate summation of the common law.

It may be that it cannot be changed, shortened reworded, or minor changes made. The first step is to see what key members of the General Assembly feel is necessary to pass it.

If we reach a point it will not be feasible to pass it without damaging the existing common law, it will be dropped. If the group votes to make changes anyway, there are two people outside of the group, that have the authority to pull the plug.

After the exact form of the bill has been decided on, the education phase will begin. As next years session gets started, we will encourage everyone that owns a means of self defense, to put pressure on their representative and keep the heat on.

States like Arizona have already done a lot of the work on Constitutional Carry.

Primum non nocere - "First, do no harm"

TFred said:

It's for the children!

But seriously... what good does it do if Dad saves his little boy's life from a violent attacker, only to grow up in poverty or as an orphan because Dad was sued or incarcerated?

This is the battle of ideology that we need to win! Opponents are going to balk when they see how extensive Common Law self defense protections are.

TFred

Click to expand...

As to point one, there is no way to avoid the imposition of a criminal charge, nor the possibility of a civil suit. We need to get better about the selection of judicial candidates, an area in which the public is now completely shut out, and also to be able to identify what I've called "good" lawyers. In theory, where there's a good defense to the charge or suit, the whole thing should be over in weeks on motions. The "bad" lawyers will tell their client that they're probably going to jail and play up the risk in order to sell them on a plea bargain. The "average" lawyers will go to trial and try really hard, but without a good understanding of the defenses available and how to present evidence in order to establish the defense. It isn't enough to identify "gun friendly lawyers"; in fact, a "good" lawyer may hate guns and gun owners, but he'll do a good job for his client regardless of his personal feelings in the matter. And a good lawyer will learn everything he needs to know about the defenses quickly and well and will file the motions promptly that are necessary to get the case knocked out of court.

But we also need diligent, conscientious, knowledgeable, and intellectually honest judges. And the process of judicial selection is a closed-door process right now. I was recently on a judicial selection committee, and after we made our recommendations, someone was selected to fill the vacancy, but I never heard another thing about it - I don't know what went on to hone the selection process to a single person. It is a political process, and people with an interest in both personal defense and politics need to pry that closed door open and get inside.

I agree as to point two, particularly as to the no-knock warrant thing. There has never been legislation in Virginia authorizing the use of no-knock warrants, and as far as the common law is concerned, their use is prohibited. Judges have been using them without authority to do so because the U.S. Sup.Ct. says that they meet the minimum standards set by the Fourth Amendment for what constitutes "reasonable" searches and seizures for evidentiary purposes. But Virginia law is not required to conform to the minimum standards, even though the Virginia Supreme Court keeps saying that federal minimum standards govern Virginia civil rights jurisprudence. That's just a way of giving law enforcement as much room against the citizens as possible. But because of the separation of powers doctrine enunciated in the Virginia Constitution, only the legislature can make that determination. So there will be some balking, especially by people who want to be able to do whatever they want to do, regardless of your "rights".

This is very much a watershed issue, and your freedom is at stake.

I spotted this today: http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2012/mar/11/tennessee-legislative-gunfight-prompts-search/

It applies in VA because of the issue and because of the quote that I paraphrase as: my rights don't make it outside my front door. It is sad that we have to legislate unalienable rights and protect our freedoms in such a manner. I will call my state representatives on a daily basis for this issue if needed.

Please keep us up to date, especially with Mr. Hawes posts and opinions on the matter.

peter nap said:

I began choosing the core team about a month ago Ed. They were chosen as the most even tempered and intelligent people with a few specialties, I could find. They were also chosen for location (North, South and Central Va), lack of attachment to other groups and ability to deal with members of the legislature and ALL gunowners rather than a select few.

Your list includes some fine people, but unfortunately none were chosen. Philip will of course be consulted but as far as lawyers, too many or lawyers with agendas, only cause poorly written bills.

As of yesterday, the core group of leaders took over. It's a democratic process now and while we may still bring in a couple more core members, that's a group decision. We've made the decisions about Advisers also and that niche is fully staffed.

Since Constitutional Carry is one of our two goals, I'm surprised your list didn't include John Pierce who penned this years bill. I did consider him but felt he just couldn't give the time necessary at this point in his life.

To sum it up, there were a lot of people to choose from to spearhead this, and I chose the ones that fit the mold the best. We are looking forward to working closely with other groups but the bottom line is every gun owner in this state needs a say because they are the one's who have to live with the consequences and they are the real power to drive this through.

Click to expand...

Do you plan to disclose who is on it?