Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: New law

  1. #1
    inNV
    Guest

    Post imported post

    http://www.fox5vegas.com/news/172958...s&psp=news



    LAS VEGAS -- There’s a popular phrase that says "A man's home is his castle." One Valley lawmaker is trying to get a new law passed that goes even further to protect homes and homeowners’ rights.



    It's called the Castle Doctrine, and it's been passed in more than a dozen states, but not without some controversy.



    The law would allow homeowners to use deadly force on a home intruder, with no regard to whether he or she's retreating.



    “I keep a gun in my house. It's close at hand. My children are gone, so it’s ready ... Not cocked, but it's ready,” said assemblyman Harry Mortenson, D-Nev.



    Mortenson said he not only believes in the right to bear arms, but he also thinks homeowners should be able to use that weapon however they feel necessary, if there’s an attacker in their homes.



    “We are having a real spate of break-ins and crimes in this neighborhood, and I'm very disappointed at what's happening lately,” he said.



    According to Metro police crime stats, the southwest area where Mortenson lives has had 34 burglaries and 11 robberies in just the past month.



    “I'm going to protect myself any way I can, and the castle law is part of that,” Mortenson said.



    He is sponsoring the Castle Doctrine bill.



    Most versions of the law now in use allow a homeowner to use deadly force on any attacker -- whether he or she retreats or not.



    “It's presumed that if somebody comes in your house, they intend to hurt you, and you don't have to wait to warn them. You're just going to do whatever is necessary to protect your home and yourself,” said FOX5[/b] legal analyst Bob Massi.



    Critics of the bill said it will encourage vigilantes, but Massi said it makes sense to him, especially since most also include civil immunity, meaning if a criminal is hurt in the process, he can't sue the homeowner.



    “As crazy as it sounds, those kinds of things can, and in some states do, happen,” Massi said.



    The bill draft will now go to a committee, who will decide whether it goes to a vote.



  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    927

    Post imported post

    Absolutely wonderful!

    I anxiously await a copy of the draft bill. Written properly, it should have support from ALL of us!

    And lets hope Ron Longtin defeats Bernie Anderson. If the bill goes before Bernie's Judiciary Committee, who knows what will happen. Bernie has long been known to kill bills by not even allowing discussion in committee.

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Henderson, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    333

    Post imported post

    Go Ron Longtin!

    The castle doctrine is great news... getting rid of Bernie Anderson might be even better.

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
    Posts
    1,413

    Post imported post

    inNV wrote:
    <snip>
    Critics of the bill said it will encourage vigilantes, but Massi said it makes sense to him, especially since most also include civil immunity, meaning if a criminal is hurt in the process, he can't sue the homeowner.
    <snip>
    Vigilantes? Don't vigilantes seek out bad guys? Not invite them into their homes!

    On the other hand, doesn't castle doctrine also extend to your vehicle as well? That argument might sound legit if so. But if Florida is any indication, the castle doctrine will not increase violence.

    In Florida, opponents argued that the castle doctrine would result in shootouts at traffic accidents, because cars could be considered weapons of deadly force.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    32

    Post imported post

    bernie anderson is a waste of a chair. I've been in front of him, gave testimony before his committee, and answered their many questions. He kills everything good. I don't like him at all.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    927

    Post imported post

    Same situation here, Wheel - agreed!

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Henderson, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    275

    Post imported post

    I emailed Senator Heck regarding his opinions and support for the Castle Doctrine and he replied to me that as a CCW holder he fully supports the Doctrine. That's good news to me!

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    Most versions of the law now in use allow a homeowner to use deadly force on any attacker -- whether he or she retreats or not.
    I did not realize this and do not think that is totally correct. However I am open to correction on it. I would be very hesitant to shoot someone in the back that was running away from me even if they had broken into my house and had not harmed anyone.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Henderson, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    275

    Post imported post

    PT111 wrote:
    Most versions of the law now in use allow a homeowner to use deadly force on any attacker -- whether he or she retreats or not.
    I did not realize this and do not think that is totally correct. However I am open to correction on it. I would be very hesitant to shoot someone in the back that was running away from me even if they had broken into my house and had not harmed anyone.
    I understand your POV and do not claim to know where the law stands on this. BUT just because the person appears to be fleeing... How do you KNOW that they aren't running to where they set their gun down???!!!!!???!!

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    SC version of Castle Doctrine. Not the entire thing but the major part to give an idea of it. Whether or not it includes someone retreating I can't say.
    SECTION 16-11-440. Presumption of reasonable fear of imminent peril when using deadly force against another unlawfully entering residence, occupied vehicle or place of business.
    (A) A person is presumed to have a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to himself or another person when using deadly force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury to another person if the person:
    (1) against whom the deadly force is used is in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcibly entered a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if he removes or is attempting to remove another person against his will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
    (2) who uses deadly force knows or has reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act is occurring or has occurred.
    I will say that anytime you shoot someone in the back while they are running away you are going to have problems. It may eventually work out fine but it is going to look bad.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    166

    Post imported post

    Keeping my fingers crossed! Hopefully 1 lawfor our side!:celebrate

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    irish wrote:
    Keeping my fingers crossed! Hopefully 1 lawfor our side!:celebrate

    I am 100% in favor of the Castle Doctrine for all states but articles telling the public how it means you can use it to shoot someone in the back while running away does not sit well with the public. It is alread tagged most places as a "shoot first" ask questions later law or "007 license to kill law". This plays right into the opponents hands.

    The question about how do you know he isn't running to get the gun he has stashed mey be valid but is not going to go over well with the public. The Castle Doctrine lawwhen explained to the publicgets great supportbut it does not take a lot to panic the public into an outcry against even the best laws.

    Be careful of any vigilante talk or shooting while retreating. Both of those can turn people away in a hurry. Focus on the positives that you no longer have to look for your back door to run out of while leaving your family defenseless.


    http://www.scstatehouse.net/code/t16c011.htm

    This is a link to the SC Castle Doctrine Laws, Article Six.

    I think it is a very good version of the Castle Doctrine Law.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Henderson, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    275

    Post imported post

    PT111 wrote:
    irish wrote:
    Keeping my fingers crossed! Hopefully 1 lawfor our side!:celebrate

    I am 100% in favor of the Castle Doctrine for all states but articles telling the public how it means you can use it to shoot someone in the back while running away does not sit well with the public. It is alread tagged most places as a "shoot first" ask questions later law or "007 license to kill law". This plays right into the opponents hands.

    The question about how do you know he isn't running to get the gun he has stashed mey be valid but is not going to go over well with the public. The Castle Doctrine lawwhen explained to the publicgets great supportbut it does not take a lot to panic the public into an outcry against even the best laws.

    Be careful of any vigilante talk or shooting while retreating. Both of those can turn people away in a hurry. Focus on the positives that you no longer have to look for your back door to run out of while leaving your family defenseless.


    http://www.scstatehouse.net/code/t16c011.htm

    This is a link to the SC Castle Doctrine Laws, Article Six.

    I think it is a very good version of the Castle Doctrine Law.
    I know what you are saying and mostly, I agree. One point though if I may, those "tags" that have been given to the law, IMO serve also to instill some fear in the criminal element - and that is a good thing. Maybe the knowledge that the homeowner CAN (legally) shoot and kill "you" might make some stop and think a little bit.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    icode wrote:
    I know what you are saying and mostly, I agree. One point though if I may, those "tags" that have been given to the law, IMO serve also to instill some fear in the criminal element - and that is a good thing. Maybe the knowledge that the homeowner CAN (legally) shoot and kill "you" might make some stop and think a little bit.
    That is one way of looking at it. (glass half full deal) They do have pro's and con's butthey domisrepresent the Castle Doctrine because it simply says you don't have to give in to the BG and can defend yourself. Nothing else. Without it you are supposed to run and then have to justify your actions if you are forced to defend yourself. No man or woman should have to ever justify defending themselves because they did not run when confronted by a BG. The only shoot first part of it is that you get to legally shoot the BG before he shoots you.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Henderson, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    275

    Post imported post

    Agreed

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    32

    Post imported post

    icode
    I know what you are saying and mostly, I agree. One point though if I may, those "tags" that have been given to the law, IMO serve also to instill some fear in the criminal element - and that is a good thing. Maybe the knowledge that the homeowner CAN (legally) shoot and kill "you" might make some stop and think a little bit.


    That is all fine and dandy, but we can worry about that stuff once the bill actually becomes law. Until then, it means nothing, and scares no one. Instill fear after the bill becomes law, for now try not to scare the people away from it. There is a time and place for everything.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •