Firearms Freedom and Castle Doctrine

[Erik_Pakieser]

Six states currently have enacted "Firearms Freedom" legislation, which nullifies Federal regulation of guns manufactured in those states (so long as the gun remains in the state).

I'd like to see a drive to support similar legislation in Minnesota. It was introduced in 2009, but didn't appear to get anywhere.

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill. ... ssion=ls86

And while we're at it...where's our progress on "Castle Doctrine?"

[mnglocker]

GO TEAM EMMER!!

[mrokern]

Six states currently have enacted "Firearms Freedom" legislation, which nullifies Federal regulation of guns manufactured in those states (so long as the gun remains in the state).

I'd like to see a drive to support similar legislation in Minnesota. It was introduced in 2009, but didn't appear to get anywhere.

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill. ... ssion=ls86

And while we're at it...where's our progress on "Castle Doctrine?"

We have castle doctrine. We do not have "stand your ground".

ETA - Deeper explanation below.

[RobD]

We have castle doctrine. We do not have "stand your ground".

Kind of... Only in our residence... Other stated included your vehicle, place of work, etc...

[mrokern]

Castle doctrine by definition refers to a place of residence. It is extended in some states to the car and place of work, but the origins in English Common Law are the place of residence. It's splitting hairs, I'll grant you that, but if you're dealing with politicos and lawyers, it's important.

What we want from a legislation perspective is to rope the "stand your ground" bills into the current castle doctrine, thereby extending the lack of duty to retreat and possibly other clauses into one all-encompassing, carry-friendly set of rules that favor legally armed citizens.

-Mark

[RobD]

Agreed.. Splitting hairs, just saying Castle Doctrine is not always comparing apples to apples in other states. Which I think is out mutual point

[Erik_Pakieser]

I'm using the term "Castle Doctrine" generally. "Stand Your Ground" is what I am talking about.

GOCRA was going to push this after MPPA and Range Protection, but it seems to have fizzled out. How can I get involved?

[mrokern]

PM on its way.

[cmj685]

I think I saw a definition of the castle doctrine (Texas maybe?) which said that anywhere you had a legal right to be was your "residence" at that moment and you had a legal right to defend yourself and your family there under the castle doctrine in that state. I like that definition alot! Of course, I am also old and may be making this all up as I go along too.

[chipster]

I'm using the term "Castle Doctrine" generally. "Stand Your Ground" is what I am talking about.

GOCRA was going to push this after MPPA and Range Protection, but it seems to have fizzled out. How can I get involved?

I'm with Erik here. Wife and I would like to be/get involved. How can we?

[mrokern]

GOCRA had its hands full this year with Paymar. The idea was also to go all-in with NRA support and money, but NRA resources got diverted to Iowa and WI.

I know it's on the agenda for next session along with a few other things. Paymar now owes Joe O. one for his help on the "doggy bill". Smart move on Joe's part...a major opponent now owes a favor to GOCRA.

-Mark

[XDM45]

Hello all,

Brand new member here with my first-ever post on this board..... so what better way to start by a little messageboard necromancy. Let's revive a dead post!!

So it looks like the H.R. Bill for Castle Doctrine was vetoed and killed by the Governor on March 5th, 2012 ( this link talks about it and has a link to the actual letter he sent to veto it ---- http://www.startribune.com/politics/sta ... 97673.html ) - so my thoughts and questions are:

1) What do you think about this bill and the vetoing of it?

2) What can I / we do to help something like this get on the books and pass in the future?

3) I've researched the web and have read many of the laws complete, overviews, breakdowns of them, but it seems especially when it comes to self-defense, there's a lot of vague ambiguity out there about it, so where can I go to get a complete rundown on the law as relating to pistol firearms, the storage, use, transportation of, as well as the use of in self-defense?

[DanM]

Hello all,

Brand new member here with my first-ever post on this board..... so what better way to start by a little messageboard necromancy. Let's revive a dead post!!

So it looks like the H.R. Bill for Castle Doctrine was vetoed and killed by the Governor on March 5th, 2012 ( this link talks about it and has a link to the actual letter he sent to veto it ---- http://www.startribune.com/politics/sta ... 97673.html ) - so my thoughts and questions are:

1) What do you think about this bill and the vetoing of it?

2) What can I / we do to help something like this get on the books and pass in the future?

3) I've researched the web and have read many of the laws complete, overviews, breakdowns of them, but it seems especially when it comes to self-defense, there's a lot of vague ambiguity out there about it, so where can I go to get a complete rundown on the law as relating to pistol firearms, the storage, use, transportation of, as well as the use of in self-defense?

Would that it were so easy as to read some definitive source and be done. One problem is that there is the law on the books and then there is case law. Case law establishes precedents that then influence subsequent trials and essentially 'interpret' what the book law means. Whether it is an accurate statement of book law or not, that is how the legal system seems to operate. Changing precedent is an uphill battle, usually requiring appeals to a higher court than the one that established the precedent in the first place.

Castle doctrine, and 'stand your ground' in particular are beneficial in my opinion because they affect the aftermath of a legal self defense shooting. The requirements for defending oneself are pretty clear, but after any criminal culpability is resolved you have the civil court to deal with. Where the grieving family of the scumbag that tried to kill you come can after you for all you're worth. Even if you win in civil court you paid a boatload of money to your legal team. And you probably can't counter sue because they don't have any means. Better to pay $25,000 and win than lose everything. But it shouldn't have to be that way in Minnesota. And that is what I see as a major benefit of 'stand your ground' law; you are not civily culpable after a legal self defense shooting.

As to what you can do, there was mention of organizations that are involved in influencing legislation - some mentioned in this thread if I recall. You will see them mentioned in the 'Carry Issues' discussion forum on this board. Here are a few; Gun Owners of America (GOA), NRA, Gun Owners Civil Rights Allince (GOCRA), 2nd Amendment Foundation, National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF).

IANAL

[XDM45]

Would that it were so easy as to read some definitive source and be done. (The rest is snipped for space)

@DanM

Thanks for the good info Dan. I'll definitely look into those organizations and what I can do because I'm certain that I'm not alone in thinking that the last thing I would ever want to do is harm and/or mortally wound someone, but if left with no choice of it being them or me that dies, I would defend myself. The sad part is (and I'm not alone in this thinking either I believe) that if that happens and you survive, now you must worry about the legal and then civil repercussions of your actions if they are legally justified. I think that you should be able to protect and defend yourself, family and property (such as land and home), common sense should dictate things, however it does not, the law does. We live in a very litigious society and you're correct in stating that there is indeed a difference between the letter of the law (and the spirit of the law) as well as case law / precedence.

I think that we can all agree that what is legal isn't always just, and what is just isn't always legal. I think the real problem comes in defining that. Where and how do we find the compromise between where you can't do anything to anything goes? Personally, I think you should be able to defend your home, family and land without question, but then if we had that, would [people end up getting shot because they stepped foot on someone's land accidentally or were just going to shut their garage door for them that the left open? (One neighbor does that for people. He's an ex-cop.)

I, like you and many people, would love to have everything answered, wrapped up nice and tight in a little box with a bow on it, but we clearly aren't ever going to get that, now are we? So again, I wonder how can we get that happy medium? How can I protect myself, my family and my property without fear of legal and civil recourse?

I don't believe that it's the legal and responsible gun owner that's causing murder and mayhem with firearms, instead it's the criminal element or the mentally unstable who would be dangerous with or without a weapon. Even the typical "gun nut" or militia group isn't running around offing people. I can only speak for myself, but I think and feel that I am 100% responsible for my weapon at all times. Whether it's in use or not, assembled or not, and without exception and with zero-tolerance for anything in, on, about or around that weapon, I am fully and legally 100% responsible for. It's a HUGE responsibility to own a weapon and I hope others treat it with the same gravity that I do.

In the end, I don't think there's any black and white, cut and dry answers to my questions; so there's no way I can really define (and cover my a**) completely. I even contacted a criminal defense lawyer with the intent of booking some time with him to sit down and discuss the legalities of the safe and legal use of firearms in transportation, use, and self-defense, but his para-legal that took the call suggested that I search the web (something I'd already done) for information and then if I had any specific questions, they could set something up with me. She said the law was just too vast and to try and sit down and encompass it all would be a very long and futile attempt at a arduousness task which would be impossible to complete.

[Heretical1]

... I'm certain that I'm not alone in thinking that the last thing I would ever want to do is harm and/or mortally wound someone...

Indeed, your friends, family and acquaintances will never see you in the same light after you have intentionally shot someone, regardless of self-defense. Threats are best avoided by prior risk anticipation and assessment.

"... {I}f we delve deeper, it becomes clear that we carry a gun so that we don’t have to use it. The more we train, the less likely we are to have to use it. So, we must train so that we don’t have to use it. What other tool do we carry with us that we don’t want to have to use? The gun is unique in that respect." [Emphasis added.]
--Bruce Eimer, PhD, Clinical Psychologist and Certified Concealed-Carry Instructor

Bruce Eimer has written a very interesting and informative collection of articles about self-defense with a firearm, most notably oriented to concealed carry. I don't agree with him on everything (realizing that some things he has to say to CYA), but there are MANY similar pearls of wisdom in his writing.