| CCW makes progress in other U.S. states |
|
|
|
| Written by Jeff Garvas | |
| Tuesday, 05 April 2005 | |
|
There is much good news from across the nation when it comes to proactive attempts to improve laws for law-abiding citizens. Click on the "Read More..." link below for some of the past weeks' highlights. In Florida, from the Tallahassee Democrat:
The proposal, preliminarily approved Thursday by the full House of Representatives, was written by the National Rifle Association and is aimed at expanding and clarifying the centuries-old "Castle Doctrine." Currently, the doctrine presumes that a person can use deadly force when someone unlawfully invades his home because the resident is presumed to have his back "against a wall." If not at home, a person generally has a duty to retreat from a confrontation. The doctrine is not fully enshrined in law. But the proposed law says that a person who is lawfully in any place has "no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm." The Senate last week approved the bill, which the House will likely send to the governor soon.
In other words, if you shot and killed someone as he broke into your home and the intruder had not attacked you yet, the potential exists that you may be liable for the intruder's death if he died as a result of your attempts to protect you and your family. The "castle doctrine" creates an exception to the common law duty to retreat. The doctrine states that an individual has a right to defend his or her home in the face of danger, even to the extent of using deadly force. This bill improves the castle doctrine in Florida by expanding the concept of what is a "castle" and by expanding the group of persons entitled to its protection. In other words, if a person illegally enters your home you can use deadly force without the fear of criminal prosecution or civil action.
No one deserves to suffer that kind of attack. Everyone deserves the right to protect themselves. That right was ensured by America's founding fathers, who made the right to bear arms the Second Amendment in the United States Constitution, following only the right to free speech and religion. So why is it that in Hawaii, as a law-abiding citizen, I cannot carry a firearm with me to protect myself and my family? In Kansas, from the Wichita Eagle:
The bill, SB 195, pre-empts existing local firearms laws, makes laws regarding the transporting of guns in the state more uniform, and allows retired law enforcement officers to carry weapons. Nicole Corcoran, spokesperson for Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, said the governor hasn't had a chance to review the bill yet and wouldn't comment on a decision. The House passed the bill 107-15, and the Senate voted 27-11 to concur. Current laws vary around the state, with some cities and counties banning the transportation of weapons in vehicles. Wichita's laws include a waiting period to purchase a gun, a law against neglectful storage of firearms, laws prohibiting carrying a concealed gun, loaded or not, and laws prohibiting carrying a loaded weapon even if it is in plain sight. |