Response from Senator on MN "Castle Doctrine"

[cobb]

But this bill won't, in fact, "come to the floor" this session.

Hmm, I understood something different from Tony Cornish for 2008. Because of the way things get done in the political arena, agreements between politicians, promises and the such, it is suppose to make it to the floor the way I understood it. Now that doesn't mean that someone or a few may renege, we will just have to wait and see.

[David]

Regarding the response in the first post: Does he actually think that increasing funding for police will obviate the need for Castle Doctrine legislation? I suppose he's one of those who thinks that the police frequently catch criminals in the act. I guess I don't need to defend myself or my family, since the police will stop people from breaking into my house at night...

[Tabsr]

Of course they believe it.

[Tabsr]

Hi, Thomas. I don't think the Castle Doctrine bill will get out of committee but we'll see. I will not be supporting it if it is written the way it is now. Thanks for the e-mail.

Rep. Paul Gardner
Minnesota House of Representatives District 53A
(651) 296-2907
rep.paul.gardner@house.mn
http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/member ... strict=53A
blog: http://www.paulgardner53a.blogspot.com
Home phone constituent line: (651) 797-4317


Dear Representative,

I consider this an important bill that I support, let me know your position
on voting yes or no. I can then make my decision to financially support your
next election.

GO Obama liberals

[Tabsr]

Received this evening.

Hi, Thomas. I am not an expert on gun law, but I understand that responsible gun owners would like to be immune from prosecution if they are legitimately defending themselves, especially at home. I guess I don't have a comfort level yet with how this would work--obviously if a guy breaks in your house and you shoot him when kids are around he should not be able to sue you. But how one interprets what is defensive vs. offensive gets kind of fuzzy especially when one is away from home. I am sure you are comfortable around firearms so this issue may seem like a no-brainer, but for most people in our district the feedback I am getting is apprehension about people being more aggressive with guns. One of my supporters is a firearms instructor and he's taken me out to a shooting range so I can better understand the issue, but I'd like to have some of my legislative colleagues who are attorneys or specialists on the issue to explain all the legalities to me in more detail.

Perhaps you could share with me your thoughts behind your position to support the bill. I would appreciate hearing your perspective. (Although I gotta turn off the computer right now for the night.)

Rep. Paul Gardner
Minnesota House of Representatives District 53A
(651) 296-2907
rep.paul.gardner@house.mn
http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/member ... strict=53A
blog: http://www.paulgardner53a.blogspot.com
Home phone constituent line: (651) 797-4317

[rucker]

Received this evening.

Hi, Thomas. I am not an expert on gun law, but I understand that responsible gun owners would like to be immune from prosecution if they are legitimately defending themselves, especially at home. I guess I don't have a comfort level yet with how this would work--obviously if a guy breaks in your house and you shoot him when kids are around he should not be able to sue you. But how one interprets what is defensive vs. offensive gets kind of fuzzy especially when one is away from home. I am sure you are comfortable around firearms so this issue may seem like a no-brainer, but for most people in our district the feedback I am getting is apprehension about people being more aggressive with guns. One of my supporters is a firearms instructor and he's taken me out to a shooting range so I can better understand the issue, but I'd like to have some of my legislative colleagues who are attorneys or specialists on the issue to explain all the legalities to me in more detail.

Perhaps you could share with me your thoughts behind your position to support the bill. I would appreciate hearing your perspective. (Although I gotta turn off the computer right now for the night.)

Rep. Paul Gardner
Minnesota House of Representatives District 53A
(651) 296-2907
rep.paul.gardner@house.mn
http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/member ... strict=53A
blog: http://www.paulgardner53a.blogspot.com
Home phone constituent line: (651) 797-4317

Wow, he actually sounds like a real person. I'm impressed that he is not sure but so open to learning more about it.

[JFettig]

Is the Castle Doctrine even about guns? From what I remember, its about defending ones self, family, and home.


Jon

[rucker]

Is the Castle Doctrine even about guns? From what I remember, its about defending ones self, family, and home.


Jon

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I think this is the current wording: https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/bin ... ssion=ls85

Description:

Self-defense; use of force in defense of home and person laws clarified,
self-defense and defense of home laws extended and codified, and common law duty
to retreat eliminated.

[Tabsr]

My reply was no support, then no vote or support from me the next election.

Thomas,

While I have not heard the debate on SF 498, I do not see a reason to support this bill. This "castle doctrine" seems to be a solution in
search of a problem. I feel that the current law regarding this issue is adequate, and if it is expanded, it will not prevent crime, it will only lead to more violence.

Current law states that someone cannot justifiably kill someone else unless they believe they are under the threat of great bodily harm or death or preventing someone from committing a felony within their home.

The original theory behind the castle doctrine is that one has the
right to protect them self in their own home; I agree with this theory, but I feel that the proposed legislation goes too far. The bill would greatly broaden the circumstances when deadly force can be used by allowing the use of deadly force against an attacker anywhere citizens have a legal right to be, if they felt that they were being threatened by an attacker. In addition, the bill would create an assumption that anyone entering or attempting to enter a home, business or vehicle by force or stealth is there to do deadly harm, so use of deadly force against them is justified and, therefore, cannot be prosecuted.

Proponents of the bill claim that this legislation is needed to give
law-abiding citizens more rights than their attackers and violent
criminals, but the fact of the matter is that deadly force and the use
of firearms should be a last resort. This legislation would allow
deadly force to be someone’s first option even if they simply felt
intimidated by someone.

Again, thank you for contacting me. Feel free to contact my office on this or any other issues you may be interested in.

Terri

Terri Bonoff
State Senator District 43
75 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.
325 State Capitol Building
St Paul, MN 55155-1606
Phone: 651-296-4314
Fax: 651-767-0924

[crshooter]

I just got a letter in the mail from my representative Kathy Tingelstad, in response to my urging of her support for HF498.
I have to say I am quite pleased. She is very informed, and knows the bill very well. She supports it and will vote in favor of it. She even explained it in two pages of text. Leaving out her explanation of the bill, she wrote;

" Dear Jeffrey,
Thank you for contacting me about the Castle Doctrine. I appreciate hearing from you.
Yes I agree with you; I am supportive of this legislation." And then goes on to explaine the bill in detail.
A+ in my book.

Jeff

[JohninMinnesota]

...

[Tabsr]

My response to them:

The purpose of Castle Doctrine is to remove any ambiguous interpretations that prosecutors can make with regard to the actions taken by the victim in protecting himself from a criminal. It also gives notice to would-be burglars, rapists and other criminals that it is the resident or homeowner who has the support of the law.

"Castle Doctrine" law basically does three things:



One: It establishes, in law, the presumption that a criminal who forcibly enters or intrudes into your home or occupied vehicle is there to cause death or great bodily harm, therefore a person may use any manner of force, including deadly force, against that person.



Two: It removes the "duty to retreat" if you are attacked in any place you have a right to be. You no longer have to turn your back on a criminal and try to run when attacked. Instead, you may stand your ground and fight back, meeting force with force, including deadly force, if you reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to yourself or others.

Three: It provides that persons using force authorized by law shall not be prosecuted for using such force.

This bill also prohibits criminals and their families from suing victims for injuring or killing the criminals who have attacked them.

I have attached the Tennessee and Florida "Castle Law" for you to read and compare with the SF 498.

[JohninMinnesota]

...

[40KING]

Just sent a few more off.

This is actually the first time I have done this. I have finialy realized that politics are something you can't just bitch about with your friends, you need to have your voice heard.

Thanks for the motivation guys.

King

[JohninMinnesota]

...