Revised Castle Doctrine

After the passing of the revised castle doctrine by Govenor Jay Nixon on Tuesday, July 13, 2010, I was wondering what your opinions were on the new additions to the law; including expanding it to property lines. Does anyone have any concerns over the current law or the new additions? How and why do you believe that these new additions will benefit self defense and property owners?

I look foward to all your thoughts

Here is the link to the actual bill the Governer signed and the additions are in bold.

http://forums.1911forum.com/showthread.php?p=2776763

For some reason the direct link wont work so I had to post another that will show you the link and then you must click on it to see the bill. Sorry....

bad link

I clicked on your link and it broke.

Agreed bad link.

ALOTAGLOCK said:

Agreed bad link.

Click to expand...

Well thats crap. It worked when i posted this. I will find another... :cuss:

I would like it to mirror other states and be modified to "anywhere you have a legal right to be" meaning I do not have to be limited to just property I own or lease. It is a significant reduction in the possibilities of getting sued for a justifiable action. As it is, it is a vast improvement from its infancy when one indeed did have to leave their own home under the "duty to retreat" part which sucked.

The political climate is a whirlwind all the time and regaining our rights that were stripped from us is an incremental exercise, just as they were stripped incrementally and I am not a patient man, just in case you had not noticed.

LMTD said:

I would like it to mirror other states and be modified to "anywhere you have a legal right to be" meaning I do not have to be limited to just property I own or lease. It is a significant reduction in the possibilities of getting sued for a justifiable action. As it is, it is a vast improvement from its infancy when one indeed did have to leave their own home under the "duty to retreat" part which sucked.

Click to expand...

Yes, agreed. There are alot of "shoulds" including common sense incorporated into the bill, but we may never see that...

I am not a patient man, just in case you had not noticed.

Click to expand...

yes i noticed.

Has a firearm or projectile weapon readily capable of lethal use on his or her person, while he or she is intoxicated, and handles or otherwise uses such firearm or projectile weapon in either a negligent or unlawful manner or discharges such firearm or projectile weapon unless acting in self-defense;

(6) Discharges a firearm within one hundred yards of any occupied schoolhouse, courthouse, or church building; or

(7) Discharges or shoots a firearm at a mark, at any object, or at random, on, along or across a public highway

Click to expand...

Does this mean I have to look around at my surroundings BEFORE I can lawfully act in self defense? Im not sure what they're saying here....

Just about every city has a law against firing a gun within the boundaries of that city. You may not target practice in your back yard, this exempts you from being charged under that law if you are acting in self defense.

To a degree some laws are written seem like there is no need as it is common sense, but that is an oxymoron as common sense is kind of uncommon or we would not need such laws and exemptions.

Cities that have live fire ranges usually have an exemption for licensed ranges as well which once again is uncommon sense.