VCDL's LOOK AT THE CASTLE DOCTRINE FOR VIRGINIA

mk4 · Jan 17, 2012

user said:
I'm pretty sure they have not. When I saw TFred's post, first thing I did was to send the NRA-ILA a "what, are you nuts?" message via their website contact form. I was a more polite than that, but they clearly don't have a clue.

I had another thought about the proposal I wrote. There's all this stuff about codification of the law as it is, and how we need to wait a year to be sure that I'm right about that. But what difference does that make, really, other than to help the political machine feel comfortable about passing a bill. My feeling is that if this is what we want the law to be, regardless of what it's been, then (dammit) pass that bill.

Btw, in response to another post earlier about the no-knock warrants. That provision I wrote doesn't get rid of no-knock entry, nor does it have anything to do with the evidentiary rulings by the U.S. Sup. Ct. having to do with the reasonableness of a search in connection with the Fourth Amendment and the "exclusionary rule". What it does, and this is the heart of the common law castle doctrine, is to provide that a person who, in good faith, uses force to repel invaders, not realizing they're cops on a lawful mission, is not criminally responsible for the use of force. When people dressed like ninja burglars bust in unannounced and shoot the family dog and aim guns at the children, it is not a criminal offense to shoot them. Any bill that does not contain that provision is not the castle doctrine.

exactly right! we need a patron!

mk4 · Jan 17, 2012

user said:
But all of these purported "castle doctrine" bills eliminate the "reasonably held, good faith belief, based on objective fact" element of personal defense law. These bills all require an actual attack as a matter of scientifically verifiable fact. There's nothing in any of them about a reasonable belief.

And, as pointed out in another post, they also eliminate the defense of habitation law, as well as the defense of stopping a serious felony in progress. Not only that, they require a combination of factors where only one was required before: there has to be both an intrusion AND an attack.

I may be cynical, but I can't help thinking that some organization is behind the scenes attempting to gut the Virginia law of personal defense as a trick designed to turn us all into Marylanders. I think they know perfectly well what they're doing and assumed we could be duped the way people have been in other states that have passed "castle doctrine" bills.

all three points are what make the filed bills scary. and... i'll take your cynicism as expert opinion, motion sustained!

MSC 45ACP · Jan 17, 2012

EF Hutton Speaks...

How many here remember the old "When EF Hutton speaks, People Listen!" TV commercial?

I think it holds true for many of us if we were to substitute "Daniel Hawes, Esq" for "EF Hutton".
Too bad more folks don't share our acumen... We would all be a lot better off.

He would be a valuable advisor to those in positions of Great Responsibility.

Let's see... Mr. Hawes and Sheriff Diggs are well-thought-of and wise Gentlemen.
Why can't we be so fortunate to have folks like them in positions of "Higher Responsibility"?
They are both humble yet effective fellows. Many of us wish they were able to serve us in other positions,
but then we would lose them from their current duties.

Perhaps both have even considered seeking 'higher office', however briefly; only to decide the cost was too great.
I don't blame them. I'm sure we have all noticed how much the office of the President 'ages' a man.
Just go back and look at Inauguration photos and then again at a photo taken 4 years later. They get OLD fast...

m

TFred · Jan 17, 2012

ed said:
There are going to be some Castle Doctrine bills put in by others. VCDL will support them, or stay neutral, as long as the bills do no harm. If they do have the potential to harm our current protections, then we will oppose them.

This was what PVC said in his newsletter on this subject, as posted in the OP.

It would sure seem to me that we have ample evidence that each of the submitted bills will definitely harm our current position. I hope VCDL will actively oppose them, or more appropriately, strongly support tabling them to a study session this summer. We may get to see just how much influence VCDL does have, and whether they can hold back a tide of public desire to push a bill that they do not fully understand.

TFred

2a4all · Jan 18, 2012

I was taken aback when I got the NRA-ILA e-mail to badger my elected representatives to support these "castle doctrine" bills (all of them), as though the chance of successful passage of one would be improved if they were submitted in quantity.

This missive made no mention of current "stand your ground" case law based decisions that have supported the right to defend one's self, home or family. It read as though without "castle doctrine", Virgininas are twisting in the wind when it comes to self defense. I also got the distinct impression that the NRA-ILA had already decided what was needed and had strong-armed someone to sponsor the bill, almost like a straw man patron.

I have read Dan Hawes' proposal, and find it excellent. These NRA-ILA backed submissions pale in comparison, and could leave some Virginians twisting in the wind following a self defense shooting which would otherwise be considered justifiable under current law.

One test might be to "retry" several cases under the proposed legislation and compare the outcome with what really happened. This should also include some of the cases that various Commonwealth Attorneys declined to prosecute.

TFred · Jan 18, 2012

Well, I think we're done.

The VCDL Legislation tracking site is up, and it says VCDL is neutral on all the CD bills.

They will pass, and good people will end up bankrupt and in jail for defending their lives against violent criminals.

I hate sounding so gloomy, but what other position can you take?

Someone please tell me some good news...

TFred

nuc65 · Jan 18, 2012

user said:
But all of these purported "castle doctrine" bills eliminate the "reasonably held, good faith belief, based on objective fact" element of personal defense law. These bills all require an actual attack as a matter of scientifically verifiable fact. There's nothing in any of them about a reasonable belief.

And, as pointed out in another post, they also eliminate the defense of habitation law, as well as the defense of stopping a serious felony in progress. Not only that, they require a combination of factors where only one was required before: there has to be both an intrusion AND an attack.

I may be cynical, but I can't help thinking that some organization is behind the scenes attempting to gut the Virginia law of personal defense as a trick designed to turn us all into Marylanders. I think they know perfectly well what they're doing and assumed we could be duped the way people have been in other states that have passed "castle doctrine" bills.

I am reminded that we are the grass roots of the grass roots... I for one will be calling my state reps and asking that all "castle doctrines" be tabled for study and that a better version is available from VCDL. While neutral I think this bears more thought and a few ounces of prevention may be worth a pound of cure for something that in its current form seems better then what is being attempted. I am with you that something else is behind these "CD" bills and it aint for the good of the people....

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Guns have only two enemies rust and politicians.

2. Cops carry guns to protect themselves, not you.

3. You cannot save the planet, but you may be able to save yourself and your family.

ed · Jan 18, 2012

mk4 said:
any idea if they've seen Dan's draft?

They have NOW.

Ed

peter nap · Jan 18, 2012

I'm not going to start my NRA rant again...They have their followers.

I'm concerned with VCDL's position. This will be a topic for a long time and needs to be discussed with the powers, without banging my shoe on the podium (For you kids, that's an old joke from the Cold War:lol

.

This is a very deep subject that's way over my head. I have to put my faith in the performance record of Dan. If he wrote it, it must be right.

ed · Jan 18, 2012

And here is the most recent copy:

http://virginialegaldefense.com/Stuff/120108_ProposedLegislation.pdf

Ed

Repeater · Jan 18, 2012

No 'Long Gun' bill

ed said:
We have been working on two important gun bills this year. The first is the Castle Doctrine and the second is the Long Gun Bill. The Long Gun Bill will ...

Richard H. Black
Senator-Elect, 13th District
21029 Rodney Lane
Leesburg, VA 20176
(703) 468-1342
SenatorBlack@usa.net
www.DickBlack4Senate.com

Senator Black will NOT patron a Long Gun bill this Session.

Bob1 · Jan 18, 2012

I'm hopeful someone can be found to sponsor User's version 120108 which I picked up at Lobby Day. That's a very good document albeit I suspect the legislative legal arm will claim it has unduly tied the hands of LE personnel. Probably some give 'n take going to be needed in that area but overall I think it's good to go for rigorous debate.

I'd encourage the VCDL leadership to move out on CD this session rather than kicking that can down the road until 2013. What happens if someone in the state senate dies or resigns? Is there an out-of-cycle special election? And couldn't the balance of power end up changing unexpectedly for the 2013 legislative cycle as a result of that special election?

Let's strike while we seem to have the momentum and votes. Usually a 95% solution is better than no solution while we wring our hands and debate CD endlessly!

ed · Jan 18, 2012

Bob1 said:
I'm hopeful someone can be found to sponsor User's version 120108 which I picked up at Lobby Day. That's a very good document albeit I suspect the legislative legal arm will claim it has unduly tied the hands of LE personnel. Probably some give 'n take going to be needed in that area but overall I think it's good to go for rigorous debate.

I'd encourage the VCDL leadership to move out on CD this session rather than kicking that can down the road until 2013. What happens if someone in the state senate dies or resigns? Is there an out-of-cycle special election? And couldn't the balance of power end up changing unexpectedly for the 2013 legislative cycle as a result of that special election?

Let's strike while we seem to have the momentum and votes. Usually a 95% solution is better than no solution while we wring our hands and debate CD endlessly!

User's version is not complete yet. and while "a 95% solution is better than no solution" right now we HAVE a solution. When you say 95% you are saying 95% of what we have now. Words can me tricky and crafty.

mk4 · Jan 18, 2012

peter nap said:
I'm not going to start my NRA rant again...They have their followers.

I'm concerned with VCDL's position. This will be a topic for a long time and needs to be discussed with the powers, without banging my shoe on the podium (For you kids, that's an old joke from the Cold War:lol.

This is a very deep subject that's way over my head. I have to put my faith in the performance record of Dan. If he wrote it, it must be right.

agree on concern re: vcdl's position on Dan's draft and stance on prefiled bills. my only reason for asking if nra had seen it, is that there was a previous post stating that the existing bills had their backing/lobbying (vs vcdl's neutral stance).

agree completely with 2nd emphasized statement. met him for the 1st time at the the culpeper dinner and did what grape(?) suggested... raised the cd topic. ;-)

mk4 · Jan 18, 2012

ed said:
User's version is not complete yet. and while "a 95% solution is better than no solution" right now we HAVE a solution. When you say 95% you are saying 95% of what we have now. Words can me tricky and crafty.

so... should vcdl stand neutral on the prefiled cd bills, which by interpretation by people smarter than me by a lot, might only protect a far smaller percentage of what we have now with case/common law?

eta: as Dan has solicited input/feedback on his work from many, including the general forum members, are you at liberty to share what is thought to be the missing 5% from his draft? maybe we can help...

user · Jan 18, 2012

ed said:
User's version is not complete yet. and while "a 95% solution is better than no solution" right now we HAVE a solution. When you say 95% you are saying 95% of what we have now. Words can me tricky and crafty.

It may not be complete in the sense of having given everyone with an interest in tinkering a chance to mess with it. But I think it's complete, comprehensive, and internally consistent, which is a lot more than I can say for lots of things that have already become statutes. (You know my pet peeve on that, the "brandishing" statute.) Like the song goes in the "Mr. Monk" show, "I could be wrong, now; but I don't think so..."

I'd like anyone with information on the missing five percent to report immediately. I've sent copies of this to Cuccinelli, Dick Black, Philip Van Cleave and all the Legislative Advisory Council, other attorneys, other legislators, and I've modified the text according to all the comments I got. It's in final form, now. Hell, I think all those other states that have passed "castle doctrine" statutes ought to ditch what they've already done and use this one.

By the way, we keep referring to this as "my" version. It's true that I compiled it, but I'm not really the author. Almost everything in it is what the common law courts determined, over almost a thousand years of painful experience and incremental decisions, the law ought to be; and which has been ratified and amplified by the Virginia Supreme Court. I didn't make it up (but I wish I had).

mk4 · Jan 18, 2012

user said:
By the way, we keep referring to this as "my" version. It's true that I compiled it, but I'm not really the author. Almost everything in it is what the common law courts determined, over almost a thousand years of painful experience and incremental decisions, the law ought to be; and which has been ratified and amplified by the Virginia Supreme Court. I didn't make it up (but I wish I had).

motion overruled! ;-)

but, i understand what you're saying. you did, though, compile and make eloquent sense of those thousand years of experience, opinions and decisions. no small feat, that.

thank you, Sir!

thebigsd · Jan 18, 2012

mk4 said:
motion overruled! ;-)

but, i understand what you're saying. you did, though, compile and make eloquent sense of those thousand years of experience, opinions and decisions. no small feat, that.

thank you, Sir!

+1, and we appreciate every bit of it Dan!!

TFred · Jan 18, 2012

user said:
It's true that I compiled it, but I'm not really the author.

I think that makes you the editor... no?

TFred

peter nap · Jan 18, 2012

TFred said:
I think that makes you the editor... no?

TFred

Oracle I think:lol:

VCDL's LOOK AT THE CASTLE DOCTRINE FOR VIRGINIA

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Activist Member

Founder's Club Member - Moderator

Accomplished Advocate

Founder's Club Member - Moderator

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member - Moderator

Regular Member

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate