|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
Military.com Forums Hot Topics & Current Events In the News Attorney General Bob Cooper says landlords can ban tenants from having firearms|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
|
New Member |
"http://politics.nashvillepost.com/2009/10/28/landlords-can-ban-tenants-from-having-guns/"
One thing the country doesnt need is criminals confident that there isnt a firearm inside of a house they are considering robbing. This has got to be quite possibly the worst position to take on the issue. Is it a throwback to the DC ban being overturned? A hamfisted attempt at trying to curb a separate issue or appease some niche demographic? Dunno, but it reeks. |
||
|
Sarcastic Member |
Sorry, but this is a private property issue. When you own the property you can make the rules. |
|||
|
Experienced Member |
It all goes back to simple economics. If majority of people feel guns are security requisite, they will not rent with landlords who ban them, and in turn that landlord will loose money.
 "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -Johann Wolfgang von Goethe |
|||
|
Ubi est mea anaticula cumminosa? Volo anaticulam cumminosam meam!  |
While I am all for individual property owners rights and all, one cannot deprive another of their rights. If I am reading this right, I do think the AG may loose on this one if it gets to the USSC.
On one hand you have Title 42 and 18 USC Sec 1983, 85, 86, 241, 241 in favor of the gun owners, in the other you have the rights of the property owner to say who/what can or cannot be allowed on their property up to a point (fair/equal housing act) Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of the laws; or if two or more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector for President or Vice President, or as a Member of Congress of the United States; or to injure any citizen in person or property on account of such support or advocacy; in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators. Every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done, and mentioned in section 1985 of this title, are about to be committed, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses so to do, if such wrongful act be committed, shall be liable to the party injured, or his legal representatives, for all damages caused by such wrongful act, which such person by reasonable diligence could have prevented; and such damages may be recovered in an action on the case; and any number of persons guilty of such wrongful neglect or refusal may be joined as defendants in the action; and if the death of any party be caused by any such wrongful act and neglect, the legal representatives of the deceased shall have such action therefor, and may recover not exceeding $5,000 damages therein, for the benefit of the widow of the deceased, if there be one, and if there be no widow, then for the benefit of the next of kin of the deceased. But no action under the provisions of this section shall be sustained which is not commenced within one year after the cause of action has accrued. Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death. |
|||
|
|
Ubi est mea anaticula cumminosa? Volo anaticulam cumminosam meam! |
Agreed! |
|||
|
Member |
Not if your rules violate the Bill Of Rights. |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
There is nothing in the Bill of Rights that allows you to have a gun on somebody else’s property.  "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -Johann Wolfgang von Goethe |
|||
|
|
Member |
Where in the Bill of Rights does it say that a landlord's rights trump the Constitution? If that were the case we'd still have Jim Crow laws in effect. If this tenant has a carry permit the landlord's prohibition will ultimately fail in court. |
|||
|
|
New Member |
That seems reasonable on the surface, "oh I dont want my bar, church, daycare center etc a shooting gallery, so lets give the people that own the building the option to call the cops if they feel threatened". but it isnt reasonable, it threatens to create a class divide where one set of people cant own guns; so the principle needs to be discarded altogether. If someone is threatening you, you can call the cops on them for that even if they dont have a gun. If someone is simply in possession of a firearm, but isnt doing something to threaten you, you arnt being threatened. (not waving it around like a crazy person, or making veiled references to using it). or perhaps we are going to start kicking people out of places for being too muscular as well? Peoples fears are not inherently legitimate. Anyone who gets a jolt of fear /fight or flight response /adrenaline rush from simply seeing a firearm has been watching waaaaaaaaay too many movies and should really get professional help. |
|||
|
Highly Experienced Member |
So you're saying you think that I have a right to carry a firearm in your home, even if you don't want me to have one there - provided I have a carry permit? |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member ------------------  Proud Member Derelict Veterans Group OF MUNERIS UT TOTUS (Of Service To All) ------------------  |
Landlords can say what they want but they can not break the law either. Just so happens that the State of Tennessee has a Castle Doctrine Law on the books which gives anyone the right to defend themselves. Many states has this doctrine now. Alot of democrats want to limit it effectiveness or it's elimination but that is typical. Times are changing that many politicians are starting to see, everyone can not carry with them a cop but they can a gun to defend themselves and their homes.....unless you live in Chitown, then only the punks and politicians have rights.
 |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member ------------------ Proud Member Derelict Veterans Group OF MUNERIS UT TOTUS (Of Service To All) ------------------ |
Anyone with a CC permit 'MUST' follow the laws of the state they are in, living in or traveling through. Every CC person knows that. |
|||
|
New Member |
As far as the bill of rights go Private property rules have been ruled that do go against the bill of rights, Private property owners do not have to allow free speach or assembly or guns this is not new. If you don't think so make up a protest sign and go to your local mall. You will be told to leave with in a very few minutes. In every state that I know of having a permit does not give you the right on private property, there are signes in every mall I have been to that forbid weapons off all kinds permit or not. While I agree that this is a bit differnt since the property is housing but I would not be so sure that it would be overturned if challenged. Saying that property owners can not restrict what happens on thier property goes against thier rights so you might have to pick your poison. Or if you want a gun don't live there. |
|||
|
Experienced Member |
My land- my rules. You can own all the weapons you want- you just can't bring them on my land unless I allow you to.
Don't like it? Rent somewhere else. |
|||
|
|
Highly Experienced Member |
You just proved my point, albeit likely unknowingly. If you're on someone else's private property, and they say "no guns allowed" and you proceed to carry them there anyway, you're setting yourself up to lose that CC license. |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member ------------------ Proud Member Derelict Veterans Group OF MUNERIS UT TOTUS (Of Service To All) ------------------ |
That is true to a point. If it is 'your' abode, yes, if it is someone elses abode (castle), no, even if you are the 'landlord'. It's not your 'abode'. |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
The owner of rental property is ultimately responsible for everything that happens on the property, so they can set the rules. |
|||
|
Experienced Member |
It boils down to this. If a owner does not want a tenant in a residence (for what ever reason) they will find a way to boot them out or turn them down no matter what laws are on the books, they will skirt around them like they do now. No since in wasting time and money on taking this to court or making yet even more rules, laws and regulations that could never be enforced. If the tenant does not like it best thing they can do is buy themselves their own property or find another place to live. Nuff said.
|
|||
|
|
Experienced Member ------------------ Proud Member Derelict Veterans Group OF MUNERIS UT TOTUS (Of Service To All) ------------------ |
Sorry, but you can not take away the rights, either, state or federal and you can not discriminate against people who have rights to defend themselves. I don't usually quote Wiki, but Wiki is pretty much up to date on the Castle Docrines in force. Castle Doctrine in the United States From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Redirected from Castle Doctrine) Jump to: navigation, search A Castle Doctrine (also known as a Castle Law or a Defense of Habitation Law) is an American legal concept arising from English Common Law[1] that designates one's place of residence (or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such as one's car or place of work) as a place in which one enjoys protection from illegal trespassing and violent attack. It then goes on to give a person the legal right to use deadly force to defend that place (his/her "castle"), and/or any other innocent persons legally inside it, from violent attack or an intrusion which may lead to violent attack. In a legal context, therefore, use of deadly force which actually results in death may be defended as justifiable homicide under the Castle Doctrine. A man's house is his castle, and God's law, as well as man's, sets a guard upon it; he that assaults it does so at his peril. – Matthew Henry’s Commentary on Exodus 22 Castle Doctrines are legislated by state, and not all states in the US have a Castle Doctrine. The term "Make My Day Law" comes from the landmark 1985 Colorado statute that protects people from any criminal charge or civil suit if they use force – including deadly force – against an invader of the home.[2] The law's nickname is a reference to the famous line uttered by Clint Eastwood's character Harry Callahan in the 1983 film Sudden Impact, "Go ahead, make my day." This legal doctrine concerning the rights of homeowners to bear arms for self-defense, was recently argued in the Supreme Court case of District of Columbia v. Heller which addressed its relation to the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Contents [hide] 1 Conditions of use 1.1 Immunity from civil lawsuit 1.2 Duty-to-retreat 1.3 Stand-your-ground 1.3.1 Adoption by States 1.3.1.1 Delaware 1.3.1.2 North Carolina 1.3.1.3 New Mexico 1.3.1.4 Washington 1.3.1.5 West Virginia 1.3.1.6 Wisconsin 2 Origins 3 State-by-state positions 3.1 States with a Stand-your-ground Law 3.2 States with a Castle Law 3.3 States with weak Castle Law 3.4 States with no known Castle Law 4 In other countries 5 See also 5.1 Related sayings 6 References [edit] Conditions of use Each state differs with respect to the specific instances in which the Castle Doctrine can be invoked, and what degree of retreat or non-deadly resistance (if any) is required before deadly force can be used. In general, one (sometimes more) of a variety of conditions must be met before a person can legally use the Castle Doctrine: An intruder must be making (or have made) an attempt to unlawfully and/or forcibly enter an occupied home, business or car. The intruder must be acting illegally—e.g. the Castle Doctrine does not give the right to attack officers of the law acting in the course of their legal duties The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon an occupant of the home The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit some other felony, such as arson or burglary The occupant(s) of the home must not have provoked or instigated an intrusion, or provoked or instigated an intruder to threaten or use deadly force The occupant(s) of the home may be required to attempt to exit the house or otherwise retreat (this is called the "Duty to retreat" and most self-defense statutes referred to as examples of "Castle Doctrine" expressly state that the homeowner has no such duty) In all cases, the occupant(s) of the home must be there legally, must not be fugitives from the law, must not be using the Castle Doctrine to aid or abet another person in being a fugitive from the law, and must not use deadly force upon an officer of the law or an officer of the peace while they are performing or attempting to perform their legal duties. Note: the term "home" is used because most states only apply their Castle Doctrine to a place of residence; however, some states extend the protection to other legally-occupied places such as automobiles and places of business. [edit] Immunity from civil lawsuit In addition to providing a valid defense in criminal law, many versions of the Castle Doctrine, particularly those with a "Stand-Your-Ground clause", also have a clause which provides immunity from any lawsuit filed on behalf of the assailant for damages/injury resulting from the use of lethal force. Without this clause, it is possible for an assailant to sue for medical bills, property damage, disability, and pain and suffering as a result of the injuries inflicted by the defender, or for their next-of-kin to sue for wrongful death in the case of a fatality. Even if successfully refuted, the defendant (the homeowner/defender) must often pay thousands of dollars in legal costs as a result of such lawsuits, and thus without immunity, such civil action could be used for revenge against a defender acting lawfully. The only exceptions to this civil immunity are generally situations of excessive force, where the defender used deadly force on a subdued, cooperative, or disabled assailant. A situation meeting this exception generally invalidates the criminal "castle defense" as well. In addition, someone who uses deadly force in self-defense is still liable for any damages or injuries to third parties who were not acting criminally at the time of the defensive action. [edit] Duty-to-retreat "Castle laws" remove the duty to retreat from an illegal intruder when one is lawfully in one's home.[3] Therefore, any state that imposes a duty to retreat while in the home does not have a "Castle law": the duty-to-retreat clause expressly imposes an obligation upon the home's occupants to retreat as far as possible and verbally announce their intent to use deadly force, before they can be legally justified in doing so to defend themselves. For states that do not require the announcement to be "verbal", other indicators may be used. These are typically not defined by statute, and would be left to the court's interpretation, but may include things such as laser sights or the cocking of a firearm, such as a shotgun. Care should be exercised in studying applicable individual state laws. In the majority of jurisdictions warning shots are illegal, and even brandishing the weapon in a threatening manner can result in criminal charges. [edit] Stand-your-ground Other states expressly relieve the home's occupants of any duty to retreat or announce their intent to use deadly force before they can be legally justified in doing so to defend themselves. Clauses that state this fact are called "Stand Your Ground", "Line In The Sand" or "No Duty To Retreat" clauses, and state exactly that the shooter has no duty or other requirement to abandon a place in which they have a right to be, or to give up ground to an assailant. States often differentiate between altercations occurring inside a home or business and altercations in public places; there may be a duty to retreat from an assailant in public when there is no duty to retreat from one's own property, or there may be no duty to retreat from anywhere the shooter may legally be.[4] Other restrictions may still exist; when in public, a person must be carrying the firearm in a legal manner, whether concealed or openly. "Stand your ground" governs U.S. federal case law in which self-defense is asserted against a charge of criminal homicide. The Supreme Court ruled in Beard v. U.S. (1895) that a man who was "where he had the right to be" when he came under attack and "...did not provoke the assault, and had at the time reasonable grounds to believe, and in good faith believed, that the deceased intended to take his life, or do him great bodily harm...was not obliged to retreat, nor to consider whether he could safely retreat, but was entitled to stand his ground."[5][6] In a Minnesota case, State v. Gardner (1905) where a man was acquitted for killing another man who attempted to kill him with a rifle, Judge Jaggard stated: The doctrine of "retreat to the wall" had its origin [in Medieval England] before the general introduction of guns. Justice demands that its application have due regard to the general use of and to the type of firearms. It would be good sense for the law to require, in many cases, an attempt to escape from a hand to hand encounter with fists, clubs and even knives as a justification for killing in self-defense; while it would be rank folly to require [an attempt to escape] when experienced persons, armed with repeating rifles, face each other in an open space, removed from shelter, with intent to kill or cause great bodily harm[7] Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. declared in Brown v. United States when upholding the no duty to retreat maxim that detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife.[8] Most anti-gun right groups, such as the Violence Policy Center and the Brady Campaign denounce "Stand-Your-Ground" clauses as "Shoot First" laws (as in "shoot first, ask questions later"), asserting that the presumptions and other protections afforded to gun owners allow them virtual carte blanche to shoot anyone who is perceived to be trespassing. They also claim it will lead to cases of mistaken identity, so-called "shooting the milkman" scenarios. Pro-gun rights groups, such as the National Rifle Association claim that such scenarios are unlikely and are not protected under most Castle laws; the shooter is only justified if the assailant broke into the home or attempted to commit some other property crime such as arson, and simple trespass is neither. [edit] Adoption by States Alabama,[9] Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah[10] West Virginia and Wyoming have adopted Castle Doctrine statutes, and other states (Montana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington) are currently considering "Stand Your Ground" laws of their own.[11][12][13] Some of the states that have passed or are considering "stand your ground" legislation already are considered "stand your ground" in their case law. Indiana and Georgia, among other states, already had "stand your ground" case law and passed "stand your ground" statutes due to possible concerns of the case law being replaced by "duty to retreat" in future court rulings. Other states, including Washington, have "stand your ground" in their case law but have not adopted statutes; West Virginia had a long tradition of "stand your ground" in its case law[14] before codifying it as a statute in 2008. These states did not have civil immunity for self defense in their previous self defense statutes. Utah has historically adhered to the principles of "stand your ground" without the need to refer to this new legislation. The use of deadly force to defend persons on one's own property is specifically permitted by Utah state law.[15] The law specifically states that a person does not have a duty to retreat[16] from a place where a person has lawfully entered or remained. In Oklahoma (according to the Oklahoma State Courts Network), the amendment changes a number of other aspects of the Oklahoma Self Defense Act, the statutes concerning justifiable homicide. As 21 O.S. 2001, Section 1289.25 now lists circumstances in which it is presumed that a person who uses deadly force "reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony." In addition, it helps to protect law-abiding citizens from arrest when using deadly force. Law enforcement agencies must now have probable cause to believe that the use of deadly force was unlawful before an arrest can be made. [edit] Delaware Justification—Use of force in self-protection.[17] (a) The use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the defendant believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting the defendant against the use of unlawful force by the other person on the present occasion. (b) Except as otherwise provided in subsections (d) and (e) of this section, a person employing protective force may estimate the necessity thereof under the circumstances as the person believes them to be when the force is used, without retreating, surrendering possession, doing any other act which the person has no legal duty to do or abstaining from any lawful action. (c) The use of deadly force is justifiable under this section if the defendant believes that such force is necessary to protect the defendant against death, serious physical injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat. (d) The use of force is not justifiable under this section to resist an arrest which the defendant knows or should know is being made by a peace officer, whether or not the arrest is lawful. (e) The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section if: (1) The defendant, with the purpose of causing death or serious physical injury, provoked the use of force against the defendant in the same encounter; or (2) The defendant knows that the necessity of using deadly force can be avoided with complete safety by retreating, by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that the defendant abstain from performing an act which the defendant is not legally obligated to perform except that: a. The defendant is not obliged to retreat in or from the defendant's dwelling; and b. The defendant is not obliged to retreat in or from the defendant's place of work, unless the defendant was the initial aggressor; and c. A public officer justified in using force in the performance of the officer's duties, or a person justified in using force in assisting an officer or a person justified in using force in making an arrest or preventing an escape, need not desist from efforts to perform the duty or make the arrest or prevent the escape because of resistance or threatened resistance by or on behalf of the person against whom the action is directed. [edit] North Carolina Use of deadly physical force against an intruder. (a) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence is justified in using any degree of force that the occupant reasonably believes is necessary, including deadly force, against an intruder to prevent a forcible entry into the home or residence or to terminate the intruder's unlawful entry (i) if the occupant reasonably apprehends that the intruder may kill or inflict serious bodily harm to the occupant or others in the home or residence, or (ii) if the occupant reasonably believes that the intruder intends to commit a felony in the home or residence. (b) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence does not have a duty to retreat from an intruder in the circumstances described in this section.[18] [edit] New Mexico Section 30-2-7A NMSA 1978 provides that a homicide is justifiable when committed in the necessary defense of property. Although this statute has been a part of New Mexico law since 1907, the New Mexico appellate courts have never given the statute a broad interpretation. The New Mexico courts have consistently held, not always referring to the statute, that one cannot defend his property, other than his habitation, from a mere trespass to the extent of killing the aggressor. State v. McCracken, 22 N.M. 588, 166 P. 1174 (1917); State v. Martinez, 34 N.M. 112, 278 P. 210 (1929); State v. Couch, 52 N.M. 127, 193 P.2d 405 (1946). [edit] Washington The statute in Washington state appear to be very simply and broadly stated.[19] The law allows use of deadly force in the lawful defense of oneself, a family member, or any other person, when there is reasonable ground to prevent action(s) of the person slain to commit a felony or to do injury or harm, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or in the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, on those in their presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which they are. Washington state doesn’t have a specific Castle Doctrine law, but has no duty to retreat as precedent was set when the State Supreme Court found "that there is no duty to retreat when a person is assaulted in a place where he or she has a right to be."[20][21] [edit] West Virginia §55-7-22 of the Code of West Virginia (a) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence is justified in using reasonable and proportionate force, including deadly force, against an intruder or attacker to prevent a forcible entry into the home or residence or to terminate the intruder's or attacker's unlawful entry if the occupant reasonably apprehends that the intruder or attacker may kill or inflict serious bodily harm upon the occupant or others in the home or residence or if the occupant reasonably believes that the intruder or attacker intends to commit a felony in the home or residence and the occupant reasonably believes deadly force is necessary. (b)A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence does not have a duty to retreat from an intruder or attacker in the circumstances described in subsection (a) of this section. (c) A person not engaged in unlawful activity who is attacked in any place he or she has a legal right to be outside of his or her home or residence may use reasonable and proportionate force against an intruder or attacker: Provided, That such person may use deadly force against an intruder or attacker in a place that is not his or her residence without a duty to retreat if the person reasonably believes that he or she or another is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm from which he or she or another can only be saved by the use of deadly force against the intruder or attacker. (d) The justified use of reasonable and proportionate force under this section shall constitute a full and complete defense to any civil action brought by an intruder or attacker against a person using such force. (e) The full and complete civil defense created by the provisions of this section is not available to a person who: (1) Is attempting to commit, committing or escaping from the commission of a felony; (2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself, herself or another with the intent to use such force as an excuse to inflict bodily harm upon the assailant; or (3) Otherwise initially provokes the use of force against himself, herself or another, unless he or she withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force. (f) The provisions of this section do not apply to the creation of a hazardous or dangerous condition on or in any real or personal property designed to prevent criminal conduct or cause injury to a person engaging in criminal conduct.[22] [edit] Wisconsin A Wisconsin "Castle Doctrine" bill, 2007 Assembly Bill 35, passed the Assembly on Friday, May 11, 2007; it died in the Senate and, therefore, did not become law. The bill would have created immunity for an act of self-defense for any person who uses deadly force while in his or her residence and is not engaged in illegal activity. [edit] Origins The American interpretation of this doctrine is largely derived from the English Common Law as it stood in the 1700s. In Book 4, Chapter 16[23] of William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, he says: And the law of England has so particular and tender a regard to the immunity of a man's house, that it stiles it his castle, and will never suffer it to be violated with immunity: agreeing herein with the sentiments of ancient Rome, as expressed in the works of Tully;[24] quid enim sanctius, quid omni religione munitius, quam domus unusquisque civium?[25] For this reason no doors can in general be broken open to execute any civil process; though, in criminal causes, the public safety supersedes the private. Hence also in part arises the animadversion of the law upon eaves-droppers, nusancers, and incendiaries: and to this principal it must be assigned, that a man may assemble people together lawfully without danger of raising a riot, rout, or unlawful assembly, in order to protect and defend his house; which he is not permitted to do in any other case. As described in the Torah, the ancient understanding of the prohibition of murder made an exception for legitimate self-defense. A home defender who struck and killed a thief caught in the act of breaking in at night was not guilty of bloodshed. “If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; but if it happens after sunrise, he is guilty of bloodshed.”[26] A man's house is his castle, and God's law, as well as man's, sets a guard upon it; he that assaults it does so at his peril. – Matthew Henry’s Commentary on Exodus 22 [edit] State-by-state positions For the states with a Castle Doctrine, an external link is provided to the text of the specific statute, if available. If a direct link is unavailable, for example if the destination website uses Java, the statute name and/or number is listed. This list was last verified to be current on June 21, 2008. [edit] States with a Stand-your-ground Law No duty to retreat anywhere. This section may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please improve this section if you can. (August 2007) Alabama Arizona Florida Georgia Indiana Kentucky Louisiana Oklahoma Title 21§1289.25 South Carolina (Persons not "required to needlessly retreat.") Texas Tennessee 2007 Tenn. Pub. Acts Ch. 210 (Amends Tenn. Code. Ann. § 39-11-611) Utah Washington (Homicide justifiable in the lawful defense of self or other persons present; and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished ...or in the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony... or upon or in a dwelling, or other place...) [edit] States with a Castle Law No duty to retreat if in the home. Alaska California (California Penal Code § 198.5 sets forth that unlawful, forcible entry into one's residence by someone not a member of the household creates the presumption that the resident held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury should he or she use deadly force against the intruder. This would make the homicide justifiable under CPC § 197[1]. CALCRIM 506 gives the instruction, "A defendant is not required to retreat. He or she is entitled to stand his or her ground and defend himself or herself and, if reasonably necessary, to pursue an assailant until the danger ... has passed. This is so even if safety could have been achieved by retreating." However, it also states that "[People v. Ceballos] specifically held that burglaries which 'do not reasonably create a fear of great bodily harm' are not sufficient 'cause for exaction of human life.'”) Colorado "...any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant." 18-1-704.5 Use of deadly physical force against an intruder. Connecticut Hawaii (Retreat required outside the home if it can be done in "complete safety.") Kansas (§ 21-3212. Use of force in defense of dwelling; no duty to retreat. Maine (Deadly force justified to terminate criminal trespass AND another crime within home, or to stop unlawful and imminent use of deadly force, or to effect a citizen's arrest against deadly force; duty to retreat not specifically removed)[27] Maryland See Maryland self-defense (Case-law, not statute, incorporates the commonlaw castle-doctrine into Maryland self-defense law. Invitees or guests may have duty to retreat based on mixed case law.) Massachusetts Michigan (more recent law—Act 309 of 2006—does not relieve duty to retreat "unless [deadly force is] necessary to prevent imminent death;" this represents no change from common law, which does not require retreat unless it can be safely done) Minnesota No duty to retreat before using deadly force to prevent a felony in one's place of abode; no duty to retreat before using deadly force in self defense in one's place of abode [28]) Mississippi (to use reference, select "Code of 1972" and search "retreat") Missouri (Extends to any building, inhabitable structure, or conveyance of any kind, whether the building, inhabitable structure, or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile (e.g., a camper, RV or mobile home), which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night, whether the person is residing there temporarily, permanently or visiting (e.g., a hotel or motel), and any vehicle. The defense against civil suits is absolute and includes the award of attorney's fees, court costs, and all reasonable expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff.) Ohio (Extends to vehicles of self and immediate family; effective September 9, 2008.[29] Section 2901.09) Oregon. (ORS 161.209-229. Use of force justifiable in a range of scenarios without a duty to retreat specified. Oregon Supreme Court affirmed in State of Oregon v. Sandoval that the law "sets out a specific set of circumstances that justify a person's use of deadly force (that the person reasonably believes that another person is using or about to use deadly force against him or her) and does not interpose any additional requirement (including a requirement that there be no means of escape).") New Jersey ("Statutes" link in sidebar, see New Jersey Statutes 2C:3-4, retreat required outside home if actor knows he can avoid necessity of deadly force in complete safety, etc.) North Carolina Rhode Island Utah West Virginia (Senate bill 145 signed March 12, 2008. WV code §55-7-22) Wyoming [edit] States with weak Castle Law The duty to retreat is not removed, but deadly force may be used to end invasion of home without presence of immediate lethal threat. Idaho (Homicide is justified if defending a home from "tumultuous" entry; duty to retreat not specifically removed) Illinois (Use of deadly force is justified if defending a "dwelling" (a building or portion thereof, a tent, a vehicle, or other enclosed space which is used or intended for use as a human habitation, home or residence) from "a violent, riotous, or tumultuous" entry or "to prevent the commission of a felony in the dwelling"; duty to retreat not specifically removed) Montana (Deadly force justified to prevent felony in the home) New York (Deadly force justified to prevent burglary or arson of the home) Pennsylvania 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 505 on the defense of self says there is no obligation to retreat from the home or workplace unless the actor was the initial aggressor or, in the latter case, set upon by a co-worker; however, "surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto" and "complying with a demand that [one] abstain from any action which [one] has no duty to take" are listed in addition to retreating as avenues which, if open to the actor but not taken, invalidate justification for the use of deadly force. Deadly force itself is not justifiable unless "the actor believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat." 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 507 allows the use of deadly force if the actor believes there has been an unlawful entry into his or her dwelling and believes that nothing less than deadly force will end the incursion; if the person on the receiving end of the deadly force is "attempting to dispossess [the actor] of his dwelling otherwise than under a claim of right to its possession;" or if deadly force is the only thing that will prevent a felony from being committed in the dwelling. In any of those cases, the property owner must first ask the interloper to desist — unless the owner believes that doing so would be "useless," "dangerous," or would result in the property being defended coming to substantial harm before the request to desist could be effectively communicated. South Dakota "Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person while resisting any attempt to murder such person, or to commit any felony upon him or her, or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person is." SD Codified Laws 22-16-34 (2005). [edit] States with no known Castle Law Iowa (Law does not require retreat from home, but may require retreat within the home) New Hampshire[30] New Mexico Virginia District of Columbia Above sections provide detail findings for 37 states and the District only. Some sources list 16 states as having "Stand your ground laws",[31][32] but review of the statutes does not make it clear that all listed states have eliminated the duty to retreat outside the home. [edit] In other countries Israel passed a law, commonly known as the 'Dromi Law', defining opposition to intruders as legitimate self-defence in response to the trial of Shai Dromi, a farmer who shot intruders on his farm late at night. [33] [edit] See also Duty to retreat, opposing doctrine Trespasser [edit] Relatedki is pretty much up to date on the Castle Doctrine Laws. |
|||
|
Highly Experienced Member |
yup! just as I thought, shoot now and ask questions later  |
|||
|
| Powered by Eve Community | Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
Military.com Forums Hot Topics & Current Events In the News Attorney General Bob Cooper says landlords can ban tenants from having firearms
