HF 1467- The most important update to MN gun law since MCPPA

[12smile]

"before you can avail yourself of self-defense, you must retreat and avoid the danger if you can reasonably do so," and that "if you can reasonably avoid it, you must retreat and avoid the danger, rather than charge into the fight and flail away," State v. Austin, 1983, 332 N.W.2d 21. Homicide 1485

[/quote]

And 'Reasonable" means....what...any logical justification ? like I'm an old man / I was about to faint / I was having severe chest pains / I pissed my pants in fear and my glasses were knocked off so I couldn't see properly /

Does 'Reasonable" mean...WHAT I CONSIDER REASONABLE???? or what someone else considers REASONABLE ????

Can it be ANY REASON or does someone have to approve my reason?

[Grayskies]

"before you can avail yourself of self-defense, you must retreat and avoid the danger if you can reasonably do so," and that "if you can reasonably avoid it, you must retreat and avoid the danger, rather than charge into the fight and flail away," State v. Austin, 1983, 332 N.W.2d 21. Homicide 1485

And 'Reasonable" means....what...any logical justification ? like I'm an old man / I was about to faint / I was having severe chest pains / I pissed my pants in fear and my glasses were knocked off so I couldn't see properly /

Does 'Reasonable" mean...WHAT I CONSIDER REASONABLE???? or what someone else considers REASONABLE ????

Can it be ANY REASON or does someone have to approve my reason?

Unfortunatly it tends to mean what the judge and/or jury thinks that day, and how good/bad your attorney and the prosicuter are.

[JoeH]

It bugs me when people spread inaccurate information about the law because they read a statute.

[Snowgun]

It bugs me when people spread inaccurate information about the law because they read a statute.

Thanks man, you just made me waste an hour reading the difference between statue law and case law. Found this:

http://cdn.law.ucla.edu/SiteCollectionD ... 0paper.pdf

Kinda helped.

So for the record, though the lawmakers didn't put retreat into "statute law" something happened in the 60's to cause a precedent to be made in "case law" including retreat into MN "law" regarding deadly force. So the "law" as it stands now is comprised of the interpretation (case law) of the original law (written statute). And the current push is to physically write a statute retracting retreat from the "law".

Did I get that right?

[plblark]

This is TODAY folks

See you there.

[Perch_44]

any updates?

[JJ]

Just passed 10-7 referred to the Judiciary.

[Perch_44]

Just passed 10-7 referred to the Judiciary.

i'm an idiot on this.....but what does that mean exactly? if it passes the judiciary, does it become enacted then? and if so, when is the judiciary ruling?

[DeanC]

Just passed 10-7 referred to the Judiciary.

i'm an idiot on this.....but what does that mean exactly? if it passes the judiciary, does it become enacted then? and if so, when is the judiciary ruling?

No - the judiciary is another committee. It has to pass a few committees, then be voted upon (and passed) by the full house, and the full senate, and then the Gov has to sign it.

It's kind of like this (although this is the federal govt)

[Thunder71]

Awesome! One step closer...

[Perch_44]

is a date set for the judiciary committe vote?

[chinakay]

Rothman posted on FB that Senator Warren Limmer (DFL), who schedules these things for the judiciary committee, says he just can't seem to find the time for the committee to hear SF1357.

http://www.gocra-mn.org/news/2011/05/ca ... son-act-2/

[chinakay]

Somehow, he managed to squeeze it in. Friday.

http://www.senate.leg.state.mn.us/sched ... ily#Friday

[nyffman]

Rothman posted on FB that Senator Warren Limmer (DFL), who schedules these things for the judiciary committee, says he just can't seem to find the time for the committee to hear SF1357.

http://www.gocra-mn.org/news/2011/05/ca ... son-act-2/

Actually, he's a Republican, according to his Senate web page.

[plblark]

He's (R) and has been good on 2A and Self defense issues in the past. I suspect he has a new appreciation for how important this piece of legislation is.

Currently, SF 1357 has the following note:

Defense of Dwelling and Person Act of 2011; firearms regulation provisions modifications (45 minutes will be given for support testimony, 45 minutes for opposition with one hour of discussion/final vote.).