|
|
It is currently Mon May 13, 2024 1:37 am
|
View unanswered posts | View active topics
This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.
All times are UTC - 6 hours
Author |
Message |
Tabsr
|
Post subject: Castle Doctrine Bill Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 9:47 pm |
|
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 11:50 am Posts: 125
|
The response from the Shoreview Rep. Paul Gardner
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: 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.
_________________ "Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains." Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
Tabsr
|
Post subject: Plymouth Rep Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 9:54 pm |
|
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 11:50 am Posts: 125
|
My Plymouth State rep responded she will support the bill and vote yes. Where is yours?
_________________ "Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains." Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
Tabsr
|
Post subject: Gardner Latest Response Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 10:13 pm |
|
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 11:50 am Posts: 125
|
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: www.paulgardner53a.blogspot.com
Home phone constituent line: (651) 797-4317
_________________ "Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains." Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
mitchx3
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 10:36 pm |
|
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 9:16 pm Posts: 263 Location: mn
|
Does this bill provide protection from civil suits as well as prosecution?
Quote: 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,
|
|
|
|
|
Andrew Rothman
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 9:43 am |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 10:24 am Posts: 6767 Location: Twin Cities
|
|
|
|
|
Tabsr
|
Post subject: My State Senator Reply Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 11:57 am |
|
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 11:50 am Posts: 125
|
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
_________________ "Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains." Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
crshooter
|
Post subject: Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 6:08 pm |
|
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 8:15 pm Posts: 54
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
joelr
|
Post subject: Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:36 pm |
|
The Man |
|
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am Posts: 7970 Location: Minneapolis MN
|
crshooter wrote: 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 Yup; that's the right answer. This stuff doesn't get done by unfrocked body armor salesmen trying to steer from the side of the road; it gets done by citizens getting involved and staying involved.
_________________ Just a guy.
|
|
|
|
|
johninminnesota
|
Post subject: a form letter for your use Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 6:29 pm |
|
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 8:49 am Posts: 146
|
I would be very interested in getting this legislation passed here in Minnesota. It is up to us to be vocal and active in getting everyone we can to do the same.
Here is an example of a letter that may help to sell your position on this issue. I am not a professional writer, so any input/rewrite is welcome. Let's give everyone a simple means of getting in touch with the people who are deciding our fate and help them vote yes to this legislation:
--------------- -------------------- ----------------- ---------------------
Dear (representative),
ENTER A PERSONAL STORY OF VIOLENCE IN YOUR LIFE HERE IF YOU HAVE ONE
The April 2007 strangulation murder of a middle aged former school teacher (see photo below) in my neighborhood out here in farm country by a couple of meth amphetamine addicts who migrated here on a murderous crime spree from southern states has reminded me that even in “your safe zones” there are those who have no conscience about taking the life of a helpless victim. She was attacked and beaten in her rural home about a mile from mine to give up her ATM card and it’s PIN code, then was choked to death by a 27 year old former boxer with the assistance of his girlfriend - her body left in a closet at her home.
USE A PHOTO OF THE VICTIM IF YOU HAVE ONE:
Ruth Ouverson – 58 year old homicide victim
” (a) A State's failure to protect an individual against private violence generally does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause, because the Clause imposes no duty on the State to provide members of the general public with adequate protective services.” http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/g ... &invol=189
With the recent mass killings at shopping centers, colleges, and the murderous rampage by a police officer in Wisconsin ( http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/10/07/wiscon ... index.html), we need to take a common sense approach to violence in our society. It happens. Banning guns doesn’t solve the problem, as has been proven by each society and establishment that has done so. Law abiding citizens should be allowed to protect themselves with lethal force if necessary, and should further be protected by legislation such as the Castle Doctrine should the unfortunate event occur. It is said that when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. We are each responsible for our own safety.
I want to inform you that my family and I support the Castle Doctrine Bill – http://wdoc.house.leg.state.mn.us/leg/LS85/HF0498.0.pdf and we urge you to support it as well. Rather than be prosecuted for using lethal force in response to a threat on one’s life, we as law abiding citizens believe we have a right to defend ourselves. We believe that you, as our representatives in government, have a responsibility to support this legislation so that we are not victimized again by prosecution or lawsuits should the evidence show we were forced to use lethal force to defend ourselves.
Please vote to support this legislation, and know that I am available to do whatever I can to assist
Thank you for your support!
|
|
|
|
|
Tabsr
|
Post subject: My Reply Letter Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 7:25 pm |
|
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 11:50 am Posts: 125
|
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.
_________________ "Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains." Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
johninminnesota
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 7:38 pm |
|
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 8:49 am Posts: 146
|
And unless I am mistaken, this legislation will loosen the noose around our necks when we reach for our pistol in response to a perceived attack - something that is currently defined as "use of deadly force". As it stands, in order to justify use of lethal force, you will need to be bleeding from an attacker's weapon and sufficiently certain that your life is in jeopardy. Just having someone force their way into your home or vehicle wouldn't qualify.
Is this accurate?
|
|
|
|
|
jrp267
|
Post subject: Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 7:17 pm |
|
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 2:39 pm Posts: 124
|
crshooter wrote: 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
And if you can believe this her husband is in the carpenters union. Likes guns and unions My kind of people.
_________________ But if “bear
arms” means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the
Opinion of the Court
carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply
cannot add “for the purpose of killing game.” The right “to
carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game”
is worthy of the mad hatter.
|
|
|
|
|
chunkstyle
|
Post subject: Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 10:14 pm |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 8:28 pm Posts: 2362 Location: Uptown Minneapolis
|
I'm a Teamster, and here's my letter to my Rep:
(I cribbed a bit from this thread)
Quote: Subject: HF 0498 - requesting your support To: rep.frank.hornstein@house.mnDear Rep. Hornstein: I very much was glad to see you this week at the Capitol. I'm also glad you made it out to my National Night Out cookout last summer. I continue to work on issues of community self-defense encompassing our neighborhoods of South Minneapolis, yet much remains to be done. On Feb 1, about 9PM, a woman was walking on the 2700 block of Humboldt Ave., not an area considered "high crime". She was abducted by a stranger at gunpoint, and forced into a car. Her attacker forced her to withdraw money from several ATMs, then took her to her own apartment, where he raped her and ransacked the place. Her ordeal lasted for upwards of three hours, and I'm sure she will bear the wounds from it for the rest of her life. The MPD did an excellent job in eventually arresting the assailant, but this does her little good after the fact. ( http://www.startribune.com/local/15467256.html) With stories like these, and in the context of the rash of mass killings at shopping centers, colleges, and the murderous rampage by a police officer in Wisconsin ( http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/10/07/wiscon ... index.html), we need to take a common sense approach to violence in our society. Banning guns doesn’t solve the problem, as has once again been proven at Northern Illinois University, another supposed "gun-free" zone somehow made into a killing field. Law abiding citizens should be allowed to protect themselves with lethal force if necessary, and should further be protected by legislation. This would allow Minnesotans to take greater responsibility for their own safety. Before the House is a bill to do exactly that, HF 0498, authored by Rep. Cornish. A similar bill, SF 0446, authored by Sen. Pariseau, is before the Senate. Laws similar to these sensible bills have already been enacted in several other states, and with good results. Frank, I want you to know that I and my wife, both Uptown residents, both support this legislation, and strongly urge you to do so as well. Rather than be prosecuted for using lethal force in response to a threat on one’s life, we as law abiding citizens believe we have a right to defend ourselves. We also believe that you, as our representative, have a responsibility to support this legislation so that we would not victimized again by prosecution or lawsuits in the event that we are forced to defend ourselves. Frank, please vote to support this legislation, and don't hesitate to contact me for any further information. Thank you for your support, "Chunkstyle"
As a Metrocrat, no doubt Frank will send me a weasel response, if any. I'll post it here when it comes. But it pays to let him know that someone is watching.
A similar one was sent to Sen. Scott Dibble. I expect similar results.
_________________ "The right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible." - Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey, 1960
"Man has the right to deal with his oppressors by devouring their palpitating hearts." - Jean-Paul Marat
|
|
|
|
|
johninminnesota
|
Post subject: Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 10:07 am |
|
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 8:49 am Posts: 146
|
excellent Chunkstyle. I am sending all my friends, clients and contacts a notice (with justifications) that they should notify the legislators that we wish to have them PASS this!
|
|
|
|
|
sigman
|
Post subject: Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 11:56 am |
|
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 10:20 am Posts: 1317 Location: Racine, MN
|
I can't say I am real pleased with Senator Sparks reply.
Thank you for contacting my office regarding Senate File 446, the Castle Doctrine Bill. This is an important issue for me and I thank you for sharing your concerns with me.
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. 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.
Your opinion will be remembered if this legislations becomes active in the Minnesota Senate. Again, thanks for the email and please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions or concerns that you may have.
Sincerely,
Dan Sparks
State Senator, District 27
|
|
|
|
|
This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.
All times are UTC - 6 hours
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum
|
|
|