Looks like a very small step in the right direction.
Why is the act of self defense a privilage?
I will be contacting my rep. early next week to talk with him about this. I would think because he was one who has recently recieved death threats he might be eager to address this.
Here is an article discussing "rights". Quote:
"Civil rights are those which have no relation to the establishment, support, or management of the government. These consist in the power of acquiring and enjoying property, of exercising the paternal and marital powers, and the like. It will be observed that every one, unless deprived of them by a sentence of civil death, is in the enjoyment of his civil rights, which is not the case with political rights; for an alien, for example, has no political, although in the full enjoyment of his civil rights.
These latter rights are divided into absolute and relative. The absolute rights of mankind may be reduced to three principal or primary articles: the right of personal security, which consists in a person's legal and uninter-rupted enjoyment of his life, his limbs, his body, his health, and his reputation; the right of personal liberty, which consists in the power of locomotion, of changing situation, or removing one's person to whatsoever place one's inclination may direct, without any restraint, unless by due course of law; the right of property, which consists in the free use, enjoyment, and disposal of all his acquisitions, without any control or diminution, save only by the laws of the land."
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/q167.htm
If personal security is considered by law as a right, perhaps the statute should refer to personal security.
What bothers me is the "reasonably believe that death or great bodily harm" requirement gives a DA the ability to charge an individual for protecting themselves. It gets back to the old you cannot use deadly force to protect property debate. To not get charged what are the parameters that that would be considered "reasonable?"
When this type of legislation was introduced in the last session I asked Fleebagger Senator Miller to support it. He said he would not because it did not require the individual to show self defense.
If someone who is unarmed kicks down your door and you kill them immediately shooting from another room is that reasonable?
You hear a noise, investigate, see someone you do not know in you home, you shoot them, you say that you feared that you would be harmed, there is no sign of forceable entry as you left the doors unlocked, is that reasonable?
You hear a noise, investigate, see someone, you hide in an bedroom, call 911, say you are scared, individual starts to leave you shoot him/her in the back, no sign of forceable entry, is that reasonable?
Same thing, except burglary tools were found, no evidence that forceable entry occurred.
The proposed language should be be changed to get rid of the term "forceable" and just refer to "unlawful entry," with the meaning of unlawful entry defined as entering without permission or implied permission.