old lady new shooter
Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2015
- Messages
- 30,733
Andrew Branca has a very interesting discussion of this in his blog today:
https://lawofselfdefense.com/churches-as-highly-defensible-property/
He points out how the MSM is completely mischaracterizing the substance (surprise, surprise) and explains exactly what "highly defensible property" means and what effect this will have on defenders in a church situation.
The actual text of the proposed amendment is embedded at the link.
I do find it curious that the language specifically says "church" as opposed to, for example, "house of worship"... Do they really want to exclude defenders of synagogues, mosques, Buddhist temples etc, from the additional protections provided by the proposed new classification? Any folks from Alabama here who can shed light on this?
https://lawofselfdefense.com/churches-as-highly-defensible-property/
He points out how the MSM is completely mischaracterizing the substance (surprise, surprise) and explains exactly what "highly defensible property" means and what effect this will have on defenders in a church situation.
The actual text of the proposed amendment is embedded at the link.
I do find it curious that the language specifically says "church" as opposed to, for example, "house of worship"... Do they really want to exclude defenders of synagogues, mosques, Buddhist temples etc, from the additional protections provided by the proposed new classification? Any folks from Alabama here who can shed light on this?