Constitutional Carry & Castle Doctrine Committee

[skidmark]

That knownews.com article is so full of blood-in-the-streets hysteria that you almost need a machete to cut your way through it -- except that doing so would just add more blood to that already (in their minds) in the streets.

stay safe.

 

[peter nap]

Do you plan to disclose who is on it?

Of course Tess. The only reason I haven't so far is I have chosen the core but now that it's done, the others may want to bring in a few more.

So far we have TFred, MK2, Agent19, and RiverRat.
In addition, there are Two Advisory leaders who will operate at an arms length. Grapeshot and User.

They (Grapeshot & User) will contribute their considerable knowledge, common sense and direction and act as the Failsafe I talked about.

After we get rolling, I'll open up a forum I've set up to post updates and get input from almost everyone. I say almost everyone, because I'm not going to put up with the usual trolls. I don't have the time or patience.

Just to be more specific about what we plan, it's presenting the issues to members of the General Assembly and educating them on the merits. We aren't writing anything (Other than The Carry Bill).

History has written Common Law and Dan has captured it. With the exception of making it feasible in the GA without damaging it's content, it's Dan's bill.

 

[user]

By the way, with respect to the kind of acrimony we can expect, I suggest folks go back and re-read this thread:
Ryan Frederick's Case, Chesapeake

There was one guy who posted something about how he did "lawful" home invasion raids as a law enforcement officer and that's why he's an expert on the subject. No explanation as to why he thought they were "lawful" other than the fact that he had a warrant. That would get him out of civil liability under 42 USC 1983, but it should not save him from being shot when he bursts in unannounced.

I'm convinced that Ryan Frederick was railroaded and that took a plea deal when he should have won at trial. I'm still trying to find out about the lawyer he had at the time. All I can tell so far is that he's a good marketeer.

The situation Ryan Frederick was in is almost exactly the same set of facts as represented in the 1604 English case that first used the phrase, "castle doctrine": "A man's home is his castle, and he has as much right to defend his home as the king has to defend his castle." That case has been cited repeatedly in Virginia opinions and is the basis of the "knock-and-announce" legal principle. It has never been revoked by act of the legislature.

I expect this to be the cause of the most serious opposition to enactment of a real castle doctrine statute, because the right to defend the home is the heart of the castle doctrine, but there are people who think that unlawful home invasions are a necessary part of law enforcement, and there are judges who will side with those people, regardless of what the law says. That was the reason The Honorable Ken gave me for why a statute was necessary, btw.

"And the second is like unto it:" there are people who do not want us to have any valid defense against a criminal charge arising out of defensive shootings in the home. I suspect this is precisely why the half-dozen so-called "castle doctrine" bills introduced recently were worded the way they were.

 

[peter nap]

Just to open up a little more sunshine.

This was my idea and goes back a long way based on not having bills I considered either workable or contrary to what they were intended to do, introduced.

One of the main reasons for the problems is that there were too many cooks in the kitchen. Lawyers that had other agendas, lawyers that didn't have much to offer than ego, secrecy in the planning, Etc.

Castle Doctrine was the last straw and as presented and some of the alternatives that have been discussed would have been a disaster and I'm not privy to some of the discussions out there.

The reasons for choosing the people I did. The four core members are distributed throughout Virginia and I make up Southern Va.

Dan Hawes makes up all the legal expertise needed (My opinion and since I started it....) Grapeshot, is intelligent, level headed and is well liked. The same for the others.

That gave us six even tempered, open minded and unbiased people.....and one loose cannon!

As I said above, this isn't about egos. It's about getting bill(s) passed that need to be passed. Everyone in the group has a vote until the initial setup is complete.

Dan and Dale make up the Failsafe.

This week when we finish up the initial stuff, I will give my opinion and support just like everyone else, but I will not have a vote. That eliminates the loose cannon.

Those are the ground rules and organization standards.

 

[45acpForMe]

Can't any bill submitted avoid all conflict with English common law by simply starting with some phrase like the below? (User could better phrase it I'm sure)

"English Common law is to be considered superior to any language in this bill. Being so, any leniency in English common law will set as the basis for this bill. Conversely any area that English common law is more stringent that this bill, English common law will be applied. If any confusion in this bill is found, English common law will be the reference."

While I would be happy to see this process succeed, I would much rather spend the time and energy fighting for state agency preemption and constitutional carry. I see the above work as defensive against future bad bills rather than offensive like preemption and Constitutional Carry.

 

[peter nap]

Can't any bill submitted avoid all conflict with English common law by simply starting with some phrase like the below? (User could better phrase it I'm sure)

"English Common law is to be considered superior to any language in this bill. Being so, any leniency in English common law will set as the basis for this bill. Conversely any area that English common law is more stringent that this bill, English common law will be applied. If any confusion in this bill is found, English common law will be the reference."

That's a deep subject I couldn't start to answer. That would be Dan's Call.

While I would be happy to see this process succeed, I would much rather spend the time and energy fighting for state agency preemption and constitutional carry. I see the above work as defensive against future bad bills rather than offensive like preemption and Constitutional Carry.

Constitutional Carry is what started this process and is one of two issues we will take on.
Those two are a monumental task for a handful of people. State Agency Preemption will either have to wait or taken on by VCDL or some other organization.

,,,

 

[Grapeshot]

Can't any bill submitted avoid all conflict with English common law by simply starting with some phrase like the below? (User could better phrase it I'm sure)

"English Common law is to be considered superior to any language in this bill. Being so, any leniency in English common law will set as the basis for this bill. Conversely any area that English common law is more stringent that this bill, English common law will be applied. If any confusion in this bill is found, English common law will be the reference."

While I would be happy to see this process succeed, I would much rather spend the time and energy fighting for state agency preemption and constitutional carry. I see the above work as defensive against future bad bills rather than offensive like preemption and Constitutional Carry.

The horse is out of the barn, so to speak, on Castle Doctrine. The idea is very much in the minds of our legislators and they have indicated a desire for us to follow through with a recommendation and appreciate the plan to thoroughly vent any proposal first.

IMHO - the primary reason for such a statute is not to strengthen our protections, but rather to reduce the likelihood of possible heavy expenditure of time and money inherent in defending a related charge. As User has said, we Virginians already enjoy an extremely good Castle Doctrine position.

I see the process of tailoring a bill most judiciously to existing case law as not being a defensive position, but as being proactive in the highest sense.

 

[45acpForMe]

The horse is out of the barn, so to speak, on Castle Doctrine. The idea is very much in the minds of our legislators and they have indicated a desire for us to follow through with a recommendation and appreciate the plan to thoroughly vent any proposal first.

IMHO - the primary reason for such a statute is not to strengthen our protections, but rather to reduce the likelihood of possible heavy expenditure of time and money inherent in defending a related charge. As User has said, we Virginians already enjoy an extremely good Castle Doctrine position.

I see the process of tailoring a bill most judiciously to existing case law as not being a defensive position, but as being proactive in the highest sense.

My personal opinion on why the horse is out of the barn is that the legislators see it as an easy Pro-gun bill that really doesn't do much but they can chalk it up to pro-gun campaigning for the next election. I agree with the cause of making sure it doesn't take away any protections and also reduces current cost/harm in defending in court.

I don't think the effort is in vain by any means but am surprised that VCDL or other groups didn't already have a Castle Doctrine bill in their pocket ready for submittal based on wordings from other states as well as taking English Common Law into consideration. We knew that pro-gun legislation was behind the 8-ball the last couple years and finally now have a somewhat positive environment (we'll see who is really pro-2A now that their vote counts) and just NOW start thinking about what bills should look like? By the time this bill is completed the window of opportunity will be lost. Either the anti-2A crowd will be back in power in the legislature or the governorship or the upcoming election a bit down the road will temper how people vote.

I understand that all the work is done by volunteers and I haven't been able to contribute anything (other than opinion here) so don't take my thoughts and assumptions as criticism of people that are actually doing the heavy lifting.

 

[peter nap]

I don't think the effort is in vain by any means but am surprised that VCDL or other groups didn't already have a Castle Doctrine bill in their pocket ready for submittal based on wordings from other states as well as taking English Common Law into consideration. We knew that pro-gun legislation was behind the 8-ball the last couple years and finally now have a somewhat positive environment (we'll see who is really pro-2A now that their vote counts) and just NOW start thinking about what bills should look like? By the time this bill is completed the window of opportunity will be lost. Either the anti-2A crowd will be back in power in the legislature or the governorship or the upcoming election a bit down the road will temper how people vote.

I understand that all the work is done by volunteers and I haven't been able to contribute anything (other than opinion here) so don't take my thoughts and assumptions as criticism of people that are actually doing the heavy lifting.

What's done (or undone) is past, we can't change that.

Philip posted earlier that they had differing legal opinions within VCDL on Castle Doctrine and they were still in the research stage.
I have opinions on some of their so called experts that I won't voice, but they were NOT asked to assist us.

I would hope that VCDL look at it's criteria for legal advisers.

Do they have a track record with poorly run National Gun Organizations?

Do they have financial ties to Police or other organizations that would oppose a proper bill?

Do they extol the benefits of Giving Power to the Federal Government.

Are they ...Mental?

A yes answer to any of the above should merit the Bums Rush.

 

[Grapeshot]

My personal opinion on why the horse is out of the barn is that the legislators see it as an easy Pro-gun bill that really doesn't do much but they can chalk it up to pro-gun campaigning for the next election. I agree with the cause of making sure it doesn't take away any protections and also reduces current cost/harm in defending in court.

I don't think the effort is in vain by any means but am surprised that VCDL or other groups didn't already have a Castle Doctrine bill in their pocket ready for submittal based on wordings from other states as well as taking English Common Law into consideration. We knew that pro-gun legislation was behind the 8-ball the last couple years and finally now have a somewhat positive environment (we'll see who is really pro-2A now that their vote counts) and just NOW start thinking about what bills should look like? By the time this bill is completed the window of opportunity will be lost. Either the anti-2A crowd will be back in power in the legislature or the governorship or the upcoming election a bit down the road will temper how people vote.

I understand that all the work is done by volunteers and I haven't been able to contribute anything (other than opinion here) so don't take my thoughts and assumptions as criticism of people that are actually doing the heavy lifting.

Not speaking for VCDL, just giving my observations. VCDL was heavily involved with working to present a well vented Castle Doctrine bill from the point of seeing the balance shift in the GA following the elections and committee reassignments. The process selected was not for a quick fix - many of the attorneys initially even recommended doing nothing as our case law was so strong on this issue. The plan was developed to present the conclusion/result to defense attorneys, prosecutors, and others knowledgeable in that area over the spring and summer. I really think that the submission of so many bills at the same time and the amendments made to them during the session caught many by surprise - I know it did me.

This year IMO was not anticipated to be a "golden year" - a good year yes and it has proven to be so. It is next year that I see as potentially the year to be remembered in the annuals of our 2A rights in Virginia. Much is being worked on now and this is only a piece of the action.

We must generate the support in word and deed of an army of pro activists to reach that goal though. Lobby Day participation is great, but the activity must be generated now during the "off season." Cannot leave it to Mikey this time.

 

[2a4all]

By the way, with respect to the kind of acrimony we can expect, I suggest folks go back and re-read this thread:
Ryan Frederick's Case, Chesapeake

There was one guy who posted something about how he did "lawful" home invasion raids as a law enforcement officer and that's why he's an expert on the subject. No explanation as to why he thought they were "lawful" other than the fact that he had a warrant. That would get him out of civil liability under 42 USC 1983, but it should not save him from being shot when he bursts in unannounced.

I'm convinced that Ryan Frederick was railroaded and that took a plea deal when he should have won at trial. I'm still trying to find out about the lawyer he had at the time. All I can tell so far is that he's a good marketeer.

The situation Ryan Frederick was in is almost exactly the same set of facts as represented in the 1604 English case that first used the phrase, "castle doctrine": "A man's home is his castle, and he has as much right to defend his home as the king has to defend his castle." That case has been cited repeatedly in Virginia opinions and is the basis of the "knock-and-announce" legal principle. It has never been revoked by act of the legislature.

I expect this to be the cause of the most serious opposition to enactment of a real castle doctrine statute, because the right to defend the home is the heart of the castle doctrine, but there are people who think that unlawful home invasions are a necessary part of law enforcement, and there are judges who will side with those people, regardless of what the law says. That was the reason The Honorable Ken gave me for why a statute was necessary, btw.

"And the second is like unto it:" there are people who do not want us to have any valid defense against a criminal charge arising out of defensive shootings in the home. I suspect this is precisely why the half-dozen so-called "castle doctrine" bills introduced recently were worded the way they were.

Also, take a look at this "lawful home invasion". This resident was killed by police when he responded to their forced entry into his home to arrest him for selling "prescription drugs".

"HAMPTON, Va. (WAVY) - Hampton Police shot and killed a man who they said fired at them as they tried to serve a drug warrant on him Saturday morning.
A police spokesman said two officers shot the 69-year-old Hampton man at a house in the 100 block of Clifton Street around 10 a.m.
Medics took the man to the hospital where he later died.
No police officers were injured in the incident, Cpl. Jason Price said."

http://www.wavy.com/dpp/news/local_news/hampton/man-shot-by-police-was-heavily-armed

There are far too many of these incidents happening due to the use of aggressive tactics by overzealous law enforcement.

If a Castle Doctrine Bill can be crafted, it should include a requirement that every locality establish a Police Citizen Review Panel to examine all discharges of police weapons and all forced entry situations.

 

[TFred]

Can't any bill submitted avoid all conflict with English common law by simply starting with some phrase like the below? (User could better phrase it I'm sure)

"English Common law is to be considered superior to any language in this bill. Being so, any leniency in English common law will set as the basis for this bill. Conversely any area that English common law is more stringent that this bill, English common law will be applied. If any confusion in this bill is found, English common law will be the reference."

While I would be happy to see this process succeed, I would much rather spend the time and energy fighting for state agency preemption and constitutional carry. I see the above work as defensive against future bad bills rather than offensive like preemption and Constitutional Carry.

User addressed this idea during the late stage panic changes that were made to the last remaining two CD bills. They added the phrase:

"This section shall not be construed to limit, withdraw, or overturn any defense or immunity already existing in statutory or common law prior to the effective date of this law."

User explained that in spite of that disclaimer, the General Assembly is assumed to know how to write laws to say exactly what they mean, so disclaimers like that are useless. My paraphrase, and apologies and corrections pleas, if I messed it up.

TFred

 

[mk4]

User explained that in spite of that disclaimer, the General Assembly is assumed to know how to write laws to say exactly what they mean, so disclaimers like that are useless. My paraphrase, and apologies and corrections pleas, if I messed it up.

probably what made this session's bills so scary.
they severely limited/usurped protections enjoyed in common law. three examples: being narrow as to location of allowable self-defense, by imposing the 'overt act' requirement and by making no mention of 'no-knock' entry protection.

if the courts say "the ga's intent is clear in the enacted statutes", then my read of the bills would have essentially destroyed, for one, the 'true man' concept (what some call 'stand your ground'; ref. User's current bill draft commentary). if i wanted to think cynically, maybe strict limitation/usurpation was the actual intent of some of the introduced bills, disclaimer notwithstanding. i think that everyone who hasn't at least scanned through User's document should do so. it's truly eye-opening and educational.

bottom line: if the courts will assume that the statute is what the ga intended, then the statute *must* be correct, the first time, especially where fundamental rights are at stake.

 

[user]

User addressed this idea during the late stage panic changes that were made to the last remaining two CD bills. They added the phrase:

"This section shall not be construed to limit, withdraw, or overturn any defense or immunity already existing in statutory or common law prior to the effective date of this law."

User explained that in spite of that disclaimer, the General Assembly is assumed to know how to write laws to say exactly what they mean, so disclaimers like that are useless. My paraphrase, and apologies and corrections pleas, if I messed it up.

TFred

Correct, and in addition, the canons of judicial construction also dictate that the General Assembly is presumed to have intended every word in a statute to have meaning. So I think that when that statute got in front of the Sup.Ct., they would have said, Ok, as to that disclaimer, it means what it says, except as provided by the body of the statute. Since, if you take the disclaimer literally, then the body of the statute would have become a nullity, and that can't happen. Nature abhors a vacuum, and the Supreme Court abhors a statute that doesn't say anything. So they'd have taken the position that the disclaimer means almost nothing except the salutory wish that the wonders of the common law might be preserved, except where the body of the statute negated the common law.

 

[user]

Also, take a look at this "lawful home invasion". This resident was killed by police when he responded to their forced entry into his home to arrest him for selling "prescription drugs".

"HAMPTON, Va. (WAVY) - Hampton Police shot and killed a man who they said fired at them as they tried to serve a drug warrant on him Saturday morning.
A police spokesman said two officers shot the 69-year-old Hampton man at a house in the 100 block of Clifton Street around 10 a.m.
Medics took the man to the hospital where he later died.
No police officers were injured in the incident, Cpl. Jason Price said."

http://www.wavy.com/dpp/news/local_news/hampton/man-shot-by-police-was-heavily-armed

There are far too many of these incidents happening due to the use of aggressive tactics by overzealous law enforcement.

If a Castle Doctrine Bill can be crafted, it should include a requirement that every locality establish a Police Citizen Review Panel to examine all discharges of police weapons and all forced entry situations.

I'd like to know more about that case. For example where were the cops when the homeowner began shooting? Within the curtilage or dwelling? Or out in the street? And was the homeowner the proper target, or did they have the wrong house? I suggest you take another look at my proposal which states what I believe the law of Virginia is now (regardless of how the Sup. Ct. would rule if they got the case in front of them tomorrow) as to "no-knock" entry by law enforcement.

CastleDoctrine.pdf, beginning with the second paragraph on page five under the heading, "Home Invasions and Defense of Habitation".

And this from Dennis Fusaro regarding a similar issue in Indiana: http://lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w249.html

 

[2a4all]

I'd like to know more about that case. For example where were the cops when the homeowner began shooting? Within the curtilage or dwelling? Or out in the street? And was the homeowner the proper target, or did they have the wrong house? I suggest you take another look at my proposal which states what I believe the law of Virginia is now (regardless of how the Sup. Ct. would rule if they got the case in front of them tomorrow) as to "no-knock" entry by law enforcement.

CastleDoctrine.pdf, beginning with the second paragraph on page five under the heading, "Home Invasions and Defense of Habitation".

And this from Dennis Fusaro regarding a similar issue in Indiana: http://lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w249.html

I've been looking for more info, but it appears that the local media web sites have purged what they printed last year.

In any event, the individual, William A Cooper, 69 of the 100 block of Clifton St., Hampton was shot dead just after 10 a.m. on June 18 when police — investigating Cooper for alleged sales of prescription painkillers — burst into his home under a search warrant. Cooper opened fire on the incoming officers, with officers shooting back.

There is a civil case on behalf of his estate currently pending in Hampton Circuit Court (Case# CL12000518-00) filed on 02/28/12, but I don't know any details.

The police of course claimed that this was all justified, and much local controversy surrounded the issue. This case was the reverse of Ryan Frederick in that the homeowner was killed instead of a police officer, which unfortunately, leaves only one participant's account of events.

Just found this account.

http://jamesriverjournal.com/james-...killing-of-william-a-cooper.html#comment-1124

 

[Thundar]

Peter,

Thank you for taking the bull by the horns.

Live Free or Die,
Thundar

 

[2a4all]

I'd like to know more about that case. For example where were the cops when the homeowner began shooting? Within the curtilage or dwelling? Or out in the street? And was the homeowner the proper target, or did they have the wrong house? I suggest you take another look at my proposal which states what I believe the law of Virginia is now (regardless of how the Sup. Ct. would rule if they got the case in front of them tomorrow) as to "no-knock" entry by law enforcement.

CastleDoctrine.pdf, beginning with the second paragraph on page five under the heading, "Home Invasions and Defense of Habitation".

And this from Dennis Fusaro regarding a similar issue in Indiana: http://lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w249.html

An update on the William Cooper shooting (from The Daily Press, 5/1/2012):

HAMPTON — Attorneys representing the estate of a 69-year-old man shot and killed during a police raid at his home last June have filed a $10 million wrongful death lawsuit against eight Hampton police officers.

William A. Cooper, of Clifton Street in Wythe, was killed June 18 by officers executing a search warrant looking for evidence that he was selling prescription painkillers.

Cooper was shot in an exchange of gunfire with officers after police broke down his door about 10 a.m. that Saturday, with police saying Cooper fired first.

This article is only available to those who have an on-line Daily Press account.

 

[Repeater]

Free of charge -- if you look

An update on the William Cooper shooting (from The Daily Press, 5/1/2012):

HAMPTON — Attorneys representing the estate of a 69-year-old man shot and killed during a police raid at his home last June have filed a $10 million wrongful death lawsuit against eight Hampton police officers.

This article is only available to those who have an on-line Daily Press account.

What are you talking about? It's free here:

$10 million lawsuit filed in deadly police raid in Hampton - William A. Cooper, 69, was killed in his home last year by officers looking for evidence he was selling painkillers

I simply went to the home page. Geez. Oh, and take a look at all the violence and homicides on the front page. See the mug shots. Blame guns? How about blaming ... oh never mind.

 

[Wolf_shadow]

What are you talking about? It's free here:

$10 million lawsuit filed in deadly police raid in Hampton - William A. Cooper, 69, was killed in his home last year by officers looking for evidence he was selling painkillers

I simply went to the home page. Geez. Oh, and take a look at all the violence and homicides on the front page. See the mug shots. Blame guns? How about blaming ... oh never mind.

Sorry Repeater but when I go to your link another page pops up

Daily Press Exclusive
The content you are trying to access is exclusive, locally-produced material only available to Daily Press readers with a Digital Membership.
Digital Membership is available for the introductory price of 99 cents for the first five weeks and is free to our 7-day print subscribers.
Sign in or sign up right now!