Castle Doctrine Making Its Way Across America

Status
Not open for further replies.

Desertdog

Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2002
Messages
1,980
Location
Ridgecrest Ca
http://www.sierratimes.com/07/04/06/Longenecker.htm
Castle Doctrine Making Its Way Across America
John Longenecker

The Castle Doctrine is now in Texas awaiting Governor Perry's signature. That makes sixteen states now in support of citizens.

Critics opposed to the Castle Doctrine and who are urging Governor Perry to nix it fail to understand the concept. It's not hard to grasp if you love people, it's hard to follow if you disrespect family.

Editorials encourage Texas Governor Perry to veto the bill because it would mean a return to the Wild West, and that more guns would put more people in harm's way. As I said, they fail to understand the concept.

The clue is that these anti-liberty positions basically say that gun owners are the aggressors. Projection. Interference with a civil right and family and personal safety is aggression. Meanwhile, most Americans understand that editorial boards and public officials under oath have no say-so in opposing a civil right - more aggression.

Let's look for a moment at the outright hostility the anti-gun activists exhibit so clearly. Look at it not as a civil right issue - which it is - but also as a how-you-run-your-own-household issue. You are head of a household, and you protect your family. You want to learn what you need to know in making your best informed decisions on how you run your home. You don't want newspapers keeping things from you or officials failing to protect your interests by refusing to mention certain legal facts.

For all their bad advice, three things the anti-guns cannot deny -

1. Police have no duty to protect individuals. In all fifty states, they simply don't really have to come, much less arrive in time. For failure to protect, the Supreme Court held in 2005 no constitutional right to police protection. Been that way since 1845. Tough luck.

2. Citizens in this country are already possessed of all legal authority to use up to deadly force when facing grave danger. This is obfuscated by editorial boards and people who encourage you to dial 9-1-1 and do nothing until they get there. Bad advice to a head of a household responsible for his children and for his/her own life.

3. Police understand that the individual is the first - and last - line of defense in facing grave danger alone and do not oppose guns as advertised. Good to know if you're head of a household.

...so the anti-gun activists try the emotional hysterical language of Wild West, easy access to guns, illegal guns and Harm's Way instead. As if average citizens are completely irresponsible or gun runners.

As always, what some officials think of you shows up as outright hindrance of how you may run your own home.

In criticizing the Castle Doctrine, anti-gun activists are handing out very bad advice - advice that gets people killed by turning their backs on aggressors (walking away), by waiting for police while the aggressors carry on (call 9-1-1 instead), and by being talked out of their legal authority (don't resist violence) - and this is one of the worst offenses against the country - editors and officials talking people out of their legal authority to respond when facing grave danger alone.

And that's why anti-gun is anti-liberty: it talks citizens out of their personal, legal authority.

Your Authority.

That authority is recognized and affirmed by the Castle Doctrine, and it is an expression of respect for the citizen now with the force of law. That authority has been there all along, even when hidden by anti-gun activists, but now clarified and affirmed.

As head of a household, how do you now adjust your preparedness for an encounter with violent crime at home and away from home?

Every state should have a Castle Doctrine law, because it builds rapport between the government and the governed by respecting the citizen immensely. Government's job is not to protect people -- government's job is to protect our rights.

The Castle Doctrine is good for the country. And it's a great plank for 2008 candidates.
 
:confused:

Texas had a duty to retreat even in your home?:confused:

What is really in this legislation and why do people continually use the "Castle Doctrine" misnomer? It's driving me nuts!:banghead:

Need to put "Castle Doctrine" into the same box as "Class 3 guns" and shoot them all into the sun.:D
 
Texans had no requirement to retreat while in their homes. The Castle Doctrine (as far as Texas is concerned) extended it to include areas outside our homes. It will also indemnify us from civil suits from the perps or their families. The ambulance chasers are not too happy about it. :neener:
 
Castle Doctrine" misnomer? It's driving me nuts!

Well, it's not totally inaccurate, but it is more like "Expanded" Castle Doctrine.

Castle Doctrine assumes that your home is inviolable and anyone entering is in, to use the legal term, Deep Dookie.

These laws EXPAND that to include just about any place you have a legal right to be. Your car, the sidewalk, etc.

They assume that your "personal space" is inviolable and you may deal with violators in ways other than having to relinquish YOUR right to be somewhere.

Why should I have to run away from somewhere I have a legal right to be if my life is threatened? I should not have to try to retreat if I didn't ask for the fight, and some scumbags momma should not be able to sue me after an incident because her "good kid" got dead.

These are good laws and only DAs that have quotas, and ambulance chaser lawyers that liked to help the perps momma get some cash disagree with the law.
 
About time Texas followed the footsteps of Glorious Florida (hihihi, my home state)!!!

Congrats to all Texans, and condolences to criminals:evil:
 
Texas, Castle Doctrine has a definition under the law, but politics have contorted into Stretch Armstrong to cover all kinds of things that have absolutely nothing to do with the Castle Doctrine.

Florida joins the majority of the states and eliminates the duty to retreat requirement before deadly force may be employed=Castle Doctrine

Indiana, which abolished the duty to retreat in 1865, recodifies the no duty to retreat ruling in 2006 which in typical Indiana fashion accomplishes absolutely nothing=Castle Doctrine

Texas passes a law regarding civil immunity and has absolutely nothing to do with the Castle Doctrine=Castle Doctrine

Iowa changes its state flower=Castle Doctrine

Oregon passes law exempting men's sandals and peace beads from sales tax=Castle Doctrine

I out of my tiny, little mind, Tex.:banghead: Doesn't take much.:scrutiny: :D
 
I think Wisconsin law says you have to flee your home if a burglar comes in. That's what I was told by the police. I was also told that if I laid a finger on the burglar (unless he was about to hurt me first), then I would be charged with assault and battery. Also, just pointing a gun at the individual would be assault.

We are also one of 2 states that can't get concealed carry passed into law. :rolleyes:
 
Gen, I'd check that. Castle Doctrine is an exception to the general duty to retreat principle.

To my knolwedge the only state that has required retreat from one's home (under very complex facts) was Massachusetts via a judicial decision. That decision was unique to that case.

As to pointing a gun at someone, yes, that it usually a ne plus ultra example of assault, if your state has such a statute.
 
Michigan also has newly enacted a "Castle Doctrine", or "expanded" castle doctrine, or a no-retreat-in-your-own-home law, or whatever you want to call it.

Michigan now also has a "stand-your-ground" law, which eliminated the duty to retreat even when outside your home.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top