Problem is, that really ain't gonna happen. Nothing in any statute is going to stop people from filing criminal charges or civil suits. Anyone can sue anyone at any time for any reason, good reason, bad reason, or no reason at all. And anyone can go to a magistrate and swear out a complaint. I read one state's new "castle doctrine" statute that purports to limit the ability of a person to file suit against someone who defended himself, his home, and his family with force over the injury or death to the attacker. But even that won't work. Because anyone can file suit. The question is always whether one has a good defense to the suit or charge.
As I've been working on this castle doctrine stuff, I've been persistently attacked by Richard Gardiner, formerly NRA general counsel, who keeps saying there is no "defense of habitation" defense, and challenging me to find him a case from the Virginia Supreme Court in the last fifty years in which someone raised that defense and the court issued an opinion on the subject. Fact is, I've sent him opinions on top of opinions that make reference to it, to the castle doctrine which it implements, and to the same idea in different words (right to defend the home, etc.). But there has not been any such appellate opinion for a really long time. He takes that as proof that there is no such thing. What it actually proves is that where there is such a good, well-founded, and historically authoritative defense, (1) cops don't bother to bring charges; (2) magistrates don't bother to authorize warrants; (3) prosecutors will not prosecute; (4) lawyers will not file suit; and (4) even if none of that is true, the person will win at trial. The only way an appellate opinion is generated is if someone appeals! That means someone has to have attempted to use "defense of habitation" as an affirmative defense at trial, lost, and appealed up through the layers of courts above the trial court. But that hasn't happened.
There is no opinion anywhere that I've been able to find, conclusively finding that the sky is, in fact, blue. That must mean that it isn't really blue, right? Either that, or no one's bothered to have the case tried and lost, such that there is an appellate opinion on the subject.
Here's my point: the best and strongest defense one can have against the trouble and aggravation of litigation is a statute making it clear that you've got a good defense at trial. That way, it is extremely unlikely that anyone will cause trouble, and secondly, it'll all be over pretty quickly and with a minimum of fuss and expense. Even if the statute says, "immunity from civil prosecution", that doesn't mean someone can't file suit against you. There is no magic. But you can, and should, reduce the exposure.
I'm still in the "If you say so it must be true" field Dan and that's based on the information I've been able to glean from the arguments although I assume there are volumes that have been written I don't know about.
Since your version WILL be introduced next year unless you say differently, I have one question. Assuming this years bill is signed into law, will this supersede it or will there be additional work to do?