Guest Post: Defensive Gun Use - Self-Defense and the Rule of Law

By Bruce Lawlor

One talks about how often people use firearms in self-defense at great peril. It is a name your poison debate. The studies are all over the place, ranging from a low of between 55,000 to 80,000 incidents per year1 to a high of 4.7 million incidents per year.2  Both sides of the gun control argument cite the need for self-defense, or the lack thereof, in support of their respective positions, and both sides twist the numbers to mean what they want them to mean. Mark Twain was right. There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics.3

Still, the studies provide some insight into the exercise of self-defense if one is willing to accept the research’s unsettled state. Except for true believers in the anti- and pro- gun crowds, few people think the number of defensive gun incidents each year is as low as 55,000 or as high as 4.7 million. In this discussion, it's best to avoid focusing on a specific number and just accept Mark Twain's admonition, unless you like spending countless hours wading through false assumptions, questionable extrapolations, and card-stacking conclusions in search of agenda based opinions.

A good place to look for trends versus numerical certainty is a paper published in 2013 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention entitled “Priorities For Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence.” An Obama Administration initiative, the paper surveyed the current literature and highlighted areas where its authors felt more research would be valuable. It was pretty much what one would expect from a federal agency advocating for more money, but some of its findings contradicted the administration’s preferred narrative about gun violence. The departure from Obama orthodoxy brought praise from proponents of the 2d Amendment, and criticism from gun control advocates. In fairness, had the report's findings been just the opposite, that is, supportive of the administration's view, the only difference in the praise and criticism would have been its originators. Such is the gun control debate.

The CDC's paper found that “almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year.”4  It also found that people who use firearms to protect themselves had lower injury rates then “victims who used other self-protective strategies.”5 These two findings are relevant to the law of self-defense because, even if the lowest estimate of defensive gun use is accepted as the right one, a lot of Americans are using firearms to protect themselves from danger every year. Moreover, the paper seems to say that for those inclined to fight back, firearms are the most effective means to avoid or reduce injury.

Couple these findings with the fact that four of every ten U.S. households has a gun, and sixty-three percent of Americans believe that having a gun in the house makes it a safer place6, and it underscores the need for people to better understand how the law treats self-defense shootings. The rule of law exists to control behavior, but it also exists to protect ordinary people from the arbitrary abuse of power by those who are simply powerful, including those who would use unlawful force to threaten their lives and well-being. Regardless of the exact number, people in the United States use firearms to defend themselves thousands and thousands of times each year, and we need to do a better job of helping them to understand what the law says they can and cannot do.

(Bruce Lawlor is the author of a new book When Deadly Force is Involved.  In the book Lawlor explains the legal concepts that have become duty to retreat, castle doctrine and stand your ground.)
_______________________________
1 David Hemenway, Survey Research and Self Defense Gun Use: An Explanation of Extreme Overestimates, 87J. CRIM. L. & CRIMINOLOGY 1430 (1997).
2 Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig, "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms", NIJ Research in Brief, May 1997.
3 Mark Twain, "Lies," http://www.twainquotes.com/Lies.html
4 Institute of Medicine and National Research Council of the National Academies, Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm Related Violence, (Washington, D.C.: The National Acadamies Press, 2013) p. 15, https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3#15
5 Ibid, p. 16.
6 Justin McCarthy, "More Than Six in 10 Americans Say Guns Make Homes Safer," GallupNovember 7, 2014, http://www.gallup.com/poll/179213/six-americans-say-guns-homes-safer.aspx

Holder's Claims on "Stand Your Ground" Lack Evidence

Yesterday, during his speech to the NAACP Conference in Florida, Attorney General Eric Holder said:

"Separate and apart from the case that has drawn the nation's attention, it's time to question laws that senselessly expand the concept of self-defense and sow dangerous conflict in our neighborhoods" 

The big buzz words at the U.S. Department of Justice for the last five years have been "Evidenced Based" when it comes to criminal justice programs.  Taxpayers even support a DOJ web site that is a searchable database of "evidence based" programs.  But where is the evidence that these laws have increased violence?

There is evidence however to show that "Stand Your Ground" laws have had a positive impact in protecting ordinary citizens.  Researcher Howard Nemerov wrote

On average, Stand Your Ground states experienced declines in all three violent crime rates. This data suggest that Stand Your Ground may have produced modest reductions in all three violent crime categories.

The NRA has responded to Holder's comments:

"The attorney general fails to understand that self-defense is not a concept, it's a fundamental human right," he said in a statement. "To send a message that legitimate self-defense is to blame is unconscionable, and demonstrates once again that this administration will exploit tragedies to push their political agenda."

Holder doesn't believe you and I have a legitimate reason to own a firearm at the same time he has a security detail to protect him.

Will Zimmerman Trial Change Self Defense in Virginia

WTVR 6 asked that question today.

The short answer is, we will continue to push for Castle Doctrine legislation at the Virginia General Assembly.

VSSA's position has always been one of support for Castle because we believe someone should not have to lose everything they have defending their actions in court before Virginia takes steps to protect our right to defend ourselves in our home or on our property.  So, when Virginia does finally pass Castle Doctrine legislation, it won't be due to what happened in Florida, it will be due to the fact a majority of the General Assembly finally has figured out that Virginians are at risk of being sued by criminals who try to do us harm in our own home until the law specifically says they cannot seek legal action against a law abiding citizen attempting to protect themselves or their families.

Here is the TV6 report.

Castle Doctrine Back at General Assembly

Last year, legislation to codify the Castle Doctrine got farther than it has ever gotten, passing both the House of Delegates and the State Senate in some form, before dying in the House after the Senate amended the bill introduced by Delegate Dickie Bell.  Unfortunately, there was a split among the pro-rights community as to the need of the bill.  Virginia is not a "Duty to Retreat" state by Common Law, but, as Delegate Bell told NBC 29 TV of Charlottesville, common law is open to intrepretation, which is why he put in the bill.

This year Delegate Anne Crockett-Stark has reintroduced the bill in the form that it passed the Senate last year.  House Bill 1415 It simply states:

Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force as provided in this section, shall be immune from civil liability for injuries or death of the other person who has unlawfully entered the dwelling that results from the use of such force.

In the interview below, Delegate Bell mentioned that some other groups tried to co-op his legislation last year.  VSSA was not one of those groups.  As with Delegate Bell's legislation last year, VSSA supports Delegate Stark's legislation.

The Spin in Senator Howell's Op/Ed Qualifies it as a Thrill Ride

Senator Janet Howell (D-Fairfax) recently wrote this Op/Ed in the Washington Post that says there is "hope" for "reasonable gun laws" in Virginia.  We are used to such pronouncements from the gun ban lobby.  But Senator Howell's spin on the results of the just completed 2012 Session of the General Assembly truely qualifies the article as a thrill ride. Her reasoning:

First, while plenty of pundits thought that the gun lobby would have carte blanche in Virginia this session, there was a remarkable level of pushback from both sides of the aisle. While the media focused on the one-handgun-a-month repeal and a new law that prevents localities from fingerprinting those applying for concealed handgun permits, other gun-lobby priorities, such as allowing guns on college campuses, repealing Virginia’s background-check system and expanding the “castle doctrine” (legal immunity for those who defend themselves against intruders at home) were stopped, along with approximately two dozen lower-priority bills. Additionally, two bills that would make it harder for domestic abusers to carry firearms passed the Senate. The gun lobby has lost some clout in Richmond because a powerful grass-roots movement, led by survivors of the horrific shootings at Virginia Tech in 2007, has organized into an effective opposition, helping Virginians keep their families and communities free from gun violence.

Let's address that last claim first.  For the last four years, individuals associated with victims of the 2007 Virginia Tech shooting have lobbied the General Assembly to close the non-existent "gun show loophole."  To date they have had no success.  They also lobbied Governor McDonnell to veto the repeal of Virginia's handgun rationing law.  Again, they failed.  Does this sound like a "powerful grass-roots movement" to you?

Regarding pro-rights groups having "carte blanche" to pass pro-rights legislation during the General Assembly, both the NRA and VSSA had rather modest priorities for the session.  VSSA's priorities were repeal of one gun-a-month and passage of Castle Doctrine.  We also supported repeal of fingerprinting for first time concealed handgun permit (CHP) applicants, clarification of the "Emergency Powers" law, restricting the ability for localities to engage in compensated confiscation schemes ("gun buybacks"), and bills streamlining CHP application procedures. All in all, a rather modest list of priorities.  It is true that the NRA asked for a bill to be introduced that would do away with the state police background check and have the state use the federal NICS check.  That bill however never really garnered support from gun owners as there is a school of thought that why force gun owners to rely on federal checks when the state can do it.  Yes, Virginia charges a $2 fee and the feds do not, and there have been some delays in state checks in tight budget times, but we all remember the backlogs during the Clinton years when NICS all but shut down on major sales days like Black Friday. 

VSSA and NRA was successful in having an amendment included in both the House and Senate Budget to provide more funding to the State Police for background checks.  We will have to wait on the final budget currently being considered in the special session to see if we met with success in the final budget.

Senator Howell would have readers believe that the only victories for gun owners during the 2012 General Assembly were repeal of handgun rationing and repeal of the local option to fingerprint first time CHP applicants.  Lets review what passed this year and anti-rights bills defeated:

HB 20: Emergency Services & Disaster Law; shall not be interpreted to prohibit carrying, etc., of firearms.

HB 22: Firearms; disposition thereof acquired by localities. (restrictions on compensated confiscation)

HB 26: Concealed handgun permit; failure to produce upon demand of a law-enforcement officer, penalty

HB 364: Criminal history record information; record check to be performed on prospective transferee. (annual gun show bill)

HB 375: Firearms; workplace rules by localities.

HB 458: Firearms; locality may adopt an ordinance that prohibits in libraries.

HB 754/SB 67: Concealed handgun permit applications; removes option for locality to require applicant fingerprint.

HB 940/SB 323: Handguns; eliminates prohibition on purchasing more than one in a 30-day period.

SB 563: Concealed handgun permits; application procedures.

That's not a bad list of accomplishments for the year.  It is true that campus carry went nowhere but that is not a change from previous years.  It has never had a hearing.  Most folks would consider that a positive for the anti-rights folks only if it had received positive action in the past and is now not being considered. Castle Doctrine did pass both houses for the first time but then got hung up in concerns that the bills may negatively impact current protections in Virginia common law.  In the end, both houses decided they did not have time to deal with fixing the bills to insure they did no harm so one was defeated, and one carried over so that it can at least be considered in the interim.

Howell also considers another positive for gun banners to be polling numbers from Christopher Newport University that found 66 percent of voters statewide wanted to retain the one-handgun-a-month law.  She also touts a poll conducted of in what she calls two south western Virginia Senate Districts.  According to that poll:

●Voters in both districts want to make gun laws stronger, not less restrictive.
●More than seven in 10 voters oppose guns on campus.
●More than six in 10 voters oppose the repeal of one-gun-a-month.
●Ninety-four percent of gun owners support universal background checks.

First, no one has proposed doing away with background checks, only eliminating the state check in favor of the federal check.  Be that as it may, one would think such findings would have already impacted elections.  Howell says these finding show just how much the politics of guns is misunderstood in Virginia. 

Howell is not the first anti-rights person to spin something positive out of annual legislative defeats, and she won't be the last.

Anti-gun Group Joins Chorus of Those Applauding Death of Castle Legislation

Virginians for Responsible Gun Laws sent this email today applauding yesterday's effective defeat of the last remaining Castle Doctrine bills.  Refering to the bills as "shoot first" legislation, the group called the bills dangerous and unnecessary.

Ironically, the group used language similar to language used by a gun rights group in opposing the bills, explaining that Virginia law on the issue of self defense has been carefully crafted by the courts. A Virginia gun rights group was actively opposing the Castle bills during the General Assembly.

But Andrew Goddard, president of the gun ban group and father of a survivor of the 2007 Virginia Tech shooting, went further saying if the bills had passed they would have caused an increase in unnecessary death and violence.

VSSA and the NRA supported the legislation and worked with patrons to address concerns raised by some that the bills would override protections already in common law.

In the end, the legislature, mired in a fight over the budget, decided they could not spend additional time addressing those concerns after taking steps to change the section of the code the bills addressed from the criminal to the civil code, and in the case of HB48, including specific language clarifying the bill:

"...shall not be construed to limit, withdraw, or overturn any defense or immunity already existing in statutory or common law prior to the effective date of this law."

VSSA will continue to work with our friends in the legislature to insure maximum protections for Virginians that are forced to use a firearm in self defense.

Castle Doctrine Bills Effectively Dead for 2012

The two remaining Castle Doctrine Bills, HB 48 and SB 4 are effectively dead for the year.  HB 48 had been in a conference committee of the House and Senate until yesterday.  Today, the House of Delegates passed by the Conference Report indefinitely and the Senate recommitted the bill to Senate Courts of Justice, pursuant to Senate Rule 20 (g).  Rule 20 (g) states:

The Senate, upon consideration of any bill or resolution on the Calendar, may recommit, in accordance with these Rules, the bill or resolution to the Committee reporting the same, and direct the Committee to continue the bill or resolution until the following odd-numbered year regular session, and hold such hearings or render such further consideration of the bill or resolution as the committee may deem proper.

In short, HB 48 is on life support.  Any action that may be taken will be completed in the fall when committees determine what they will do with legislation carried over from the previous session.  Historically, carried over bills do not have a great history of advancing.

SB 4, which emerged from House Courts of Justice on Friday in a form similar to HB 48, was on final reading today and was rereferred back to Courts of Justice, effectively defeating the bill for the year as all committee action had to be completed by March 5th.

Both HB 48 and SB 4 fell victim to several things, not least of which was an active campaign by some claiming that the bills would harm the status quo related to self defense (Virginia is what is commonly referred to as a "stand your ground" state).  Both bills however only addressed Virginia's Civil Code, and HB 48 included a provision that stated:

This section shall not be construed to limit, withdraw, or overturn any defense or immunity already existing in statutory or common law prior to the effective date of this law.

While Virginia common law is good when it comes to self defense, it has always been VSSA's position that we should not wait until some enterprising lawyer decides to sue on behalf of a criminal or his/her family, an individual who defended themselves from an attack.  Just because such a case has not occurred to date does not mean one will never occur.  VSSA will continue to work with legislators to pass a Castle Doctrine law that both preserves the protections already in law and provides additional protection for an individual who may be forced to use lethal force to defend themselves and their family.

Senate Insists on Castle Substitute to HB 48

Today,  the State Senate insisted on its substitute bill to House Bill 48, the only remaining bill codifying a version of the Castle Doctrine.  This action sets in motion the likelihood of a Conference Committee to work out the differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill.  There is no guarentee however that a solution will be reached before the end of the Session.  The House previously re-referred SB 4, Senate Stuart's Castle bill, to House Courts of Justice.  It has not been placed on an agenda to be reheard by the committee.

Three More Bills Headed to Governor McDonnell

The General Assembly is winding down toward its closing day on March 10th.  As the House and Senate continue to take up each other's legislation, gun owners had more victories today and three more pro-gun bills are headed to Governor Bob McDonnell for his approval:

SB 67, removes the option for a locality to require an applicant for a concealed handgun permit to submit fingerprints with the application. This legislation was passed in the House of Delegates by a 72 to 24 vote.

SB 323 is the Senate companion bill to HB 940, repealing Virginia's handgun rationing law.  The gun ban lobby has long claimed that gun rationing keeps handguns out of the hands of criminals, yet there is no evidence this law has been effective, and its only affect has been to penalize law-abiding citizens. SB 323 passed the House  64 to 32. HB 940 was previously sent to the Governor for his approval.  He has said he would sign a repeal of the one gun-a-month law..

SB 563 alters certain application procedures to obtain a concealed handgun permit, including allowing for the submission of an initial application via U.S. mail. This bill would also restrict the clerk and the circuit court from requesting or requiring any information from an applicant other than that which is allowed on the concealed handgun permit application. This legislation was passed in the House of Delegates by a 79 to 20 vote.

Finally, another pro-gun bill, SB 4, the Senate bill tha would codify a version of the Castle Doctrine, was re-referred to the House Courts of Justice Committee.  It may remain in committee as the committee currently has no additional committee hearings scheduled. The House companion bill, HB 48 was passed by for the day today in the House of Delegates and will be on the calendar again tomorrow.

More Bills Headed to Governor McDonnell

Today was a good day for gun owners in the Virginia General Assembly as both House Bill 22 and House Bill 26 passed the State Senate and are now headed to Governor McDonnell.

HB 22 would establish that no locality or entity may participate in a compensated confiscation ("gun buyback") program where individuals are given anything of value or money in exchange for surrendering a firearm to the locality unless the governing body first passes an ordinance authorizing the "buyback" scheme. The bill also requires any locality holding a compensated confiscation program to sell the firearms to a federally licensed dealer or be disposed of in any appropriate manner if they could not be sold. HB 22 passed the state Senate by a 23 to 17 vote.  A similar bill passed the General Assembly in 2009 but was vetoed by then Governor Tim Kaine, who is now running for the U.S. Senate.

HB 26 would allow a court to waive a $25 dollar fine upon presentation of the permit to the court, if a person fails to display his concealed handgun permit when requested by a law enforcement officer. This legislation passed in the state Senate by a 40 to 0 vote.

Also passing the State Senate today was HB 48, the House bill codifying the Castle Doctrine.   There has been a great deal of misinformation about the Castle bills that are making their way through the General Assembly.  Contrary to information being spread over the Internet, HB 48 does not negatively impact your right to self defense.  This bill was amended by the Senate Courts of Justice Committee to address those concerns. When introduced and passed by the House of Delegates, the bill was previously in Criminal Code 18.2.  The Senate amended the bill moving it to the Civil Procedures section, 8.01. In addition, the following language was added:

This section shall not be construed to limit, withdraw, or overturn any defense or immunity already existing in statutory or common law prior to the effective date of this law.

As amended, HB48 would provide civil liability immunity to someone who uses any degree of physical force against another person when the other person has unlawfully entered the dwelling and committed an overt act. Despite its passage due to the amended language, HB 48 must now be sent back to the House of Delegates for their concurrence.

It is possible that HB 22 and HB 26 will arrive on Governor McDonnell's desk in the next week thus requiring him to act prior to the end of the session, which is March 10.  Regardless, the bills will not take affect until July 1, if signed by the Governor.

"Do You Want to Eat Breakfast with the Devil?"

That was what an 82 year-old constituent of Delegate Anne B. Crockett-Stark, (R-Wythe) told an intruder when she caught him entering her home through a window he had broken.  Delegart Crockett-Stark shared the story yesterday as the House of Delegates was debating final passage of House Bill 48, a bill to codify the Castle Doctrine.  The entire story goes like this, as relayed in the Richmond Times Dispatch report on passage of the bill:

The 82-year-old female lived in the in the back of a funeral parlor. She heard the break-in at 2 a.m and after grabbing her pistol, the woman, who happens to be a sharpshooter, according to Crockett-Stark, caught the male burglar crawling in through a window he had broken.

"She grabs him up, she puts the pistol under his chin, (and) she said, 'Do you want to eat breakfast with the devil?'" Crockett-Stark said.

As the perp fled, the woman fired a shot into the air to scare him.  The man later filed a warrent against her and took her to coart for shooting at him, Crockett Stark continued.

"And he won!" Crockett-Stark said. "We do need this bill."

Shooting into the air is not the smartest thing to do, especially after he was fleeing, but he is the one who committed a crime, yet he gets to sue her.

Both the House and Senate have passed versions of the Castle Doctrine.

Castle Doctrine, Civil Immunity Pass House as Expected

Castle Doctrine (HB 48) passed the House 70-28.

Civile Immunity for persons acting in defense of property (HB 14) passed the House 75-22.

Both bills now go to the State Senate for consideration.  The Senate previously passed it's Castle bill (SB 4) earlier in the session.

Castle Doctrine Likely to Pass House of Delegates Today

Delegate Rob Richard "Dickie" Bell's Castle Doctrine Bill (HB 48) will likely easily pass on the House Floor today and advance to the Senate.  During yesterday's debate, opponents of the bill used some outlandish claims to argue against the bill.

Democrats railed against the measure, pointing to various scenarios in which it could be used to justify killing an ex-girlfriend, or even a Girl Scout.

Delegate Habeeb's HB 14, a bill that would provide civil immunity for using deadly force in self-defense in your home, is also on Third Reading today.  That bill too is expected to pass.

Castle Doctrine, Repeal of Fingerprinting CHP Applicants, Pass Senate

After a small amount of debate, SB4, Senator Stuart's bill codifying Castle Doctrine, passed the Senate 23-17.  Immediately after that vote, SB67, Senator Stanley's bill repealing the local option to fingerprint first-time concealed handgun permit holders, passed the Senate 26-14.  With the passage of Castle Doctrine, one of VSSA's two top priorities has passed the Senate and will likely pass the House.  Without counting our chickens before they hatch, this is the farthest the bill has ever gotten.

Legislative Update

Yesterday saw a number of pro-rights bills pass the House of Delegates, not least of which was the repeal of Virginia's handgun rationing law (HB 940).  In addition to HB 940, the other bills that passed were HB 20, a bill that clarifies Virginia's emergency powers statute to make it clear that not only may a citizen keep a firearm during a declared emergency, but they may also carry and transport the firearm(s) during such emergency.  Also passing was Delegate Coles HB 22, a bill that states before a locality may engage in compensated confiscation schemes ("gun buybacks") it must pass an ordinance allowing it to do so.

At the same time, the State Senate moved SB 4 (Castle Doctrine) and SB 67, a bill repealing fingerprinting of first time concealed handgun permit applicants, to Third Reading and a final vote which should take place today. SB 323, the Senate bill to repeal handgun rationing was passed by for the day in a stall tactic by anti-rights Senator Don McEachin (D-Richmond).

Also in the Senate yesterday, the Senate Courts of Justice Committee defeated SB 379 on a vote of 6-8, Senator McEachin's bill to outlaw all private sales.  Another bill patoned by Senator McEachin, SB 648, a bill that would add additional penalties for gun owners being in possession of a firearm while intoxicated, failed to report on a 7-7 vote.

This morning, House Militia, Police and Public Safety Subcommittee # 2 met and took up HB 237, which would allow long gun background checks to go through the federal NICS system rather than the state background system.  It was recommended reporting by a vote of 4-1 by the subcommittee.

This evening in Subcommittee #1 at 5:00 PM, the following bills will be heard:

HB 25: a bill that prohibits circuit courts from disseminating information related to concealed handgun permits.

HB 592: a bill that exempts CHP holders from state background checks when purchasing a firearm.  This bill is similar to HB 859.

HB 754: the House companion to SB 67 which removes the option for localities to require the fingerprinting of first-time CHP applicants.

Castle Doctrine, Repeal of CHP Fingerprinting Requirement Advance in Senate

Senate Bill 4 (Castle Doctrine) and Senate Bill 67 a bill to repeal the local option to fingerprint first time concealed handgun permit applicants, advanced to final passage in the State Senate today. A final vote is expected on Thursday, February 2nd.

Pro-Gun Bills Sent Back to Senate Courts

As the State Senate began today's session, Senate Majority Leader and Senate Courts of Justice Committee Chairman Tommy Norment had SB4 (Castle Doctrine), SB323 (repeal of handgun rationing), and SB67 (removal of the option for localities to fingerprint CHP applicants) recommitted to the committee.  After discussions with Senator Norment, he said it was a procedual move due to proxy votes being cast for members who were not on the Capitol grounds at the time the votes were cast.  The state senate allows members to vote in committee by proxy because they may have meetings that overlap, but you must be on Capitol grounds for the votes to be allowed.  Apparently, two members who had proxy votes cast were not at the Capitol.  The bills will have new votes but there will be no rehearing (meaning the public will not get a second shot at speaking for or against the bills), likely on Monday.

Senate Courts Agenda Full of Firearm Related Bills Wednesday

On Wednesday, January 25th, the Senate Courts of Justice Committee is scheduled to hear a number of firearm related bills. The meeting will begin 1/2 hour after the adjournent of the Senate Session.

Among the pro-rights bills on the agenda is SB 323, Senator Carrico's bill to repeal handgun rationing ("one gun-a-month"), two bills to repeal the option for localities to require fingerprinting for concealed handgun permit applications (SB 67 and SB 670), and two bills to enact Castle Doctrine (SB 4, SB 64).

Also on the agenda is anti-rights Senator Don McEachin's bill to prohibit the private sale of firearms (SB 379). If McEachin's bill passes, it would make the private sale of firearms a Class 2 misdemeanor. Senator McEachin also has SB 648, a bill that would make it a misdemeanor for a person who is under the influence of alcohol or illegal drugs to carry a loaded firearm in public. Both bills are a solution in search of a problem and should be defeated.

Please contact members of the Senate Courts of Justice Committee and urge them to support the pro-Second Amendment bills and oppose the anti-rights bills.

Castle Bills Passed By

All of the Castle Doctrine bills were passed by in the House Courts of Justice Criminal Subcommittee meeting today. The bills will be rescheduled for another meeting.

Castle Doctrine in House Courts Criminal Subcommittee Today

Four Castle Doctrine Bills are on the docket for today's House Courts of Justice Criminal Subcommittee meeting today.  The Meeting will take place 1/2 hour after adjournment of the House Session.  The three bills are House Bill 14, House Bill 47, House Bill 48 and House Bill 925.

Both House Bill 14 and 47 would provide civil immunity for an occupant of a dwelling who uses any degree of physical force while engaged in the defense of his dwelling when (i) the other person has unlawfully entered the dwelling and committed an overt act toward the occupant or another person in the dwelling and (ii) the occupant reasonably believes that he or another person in the dwelling is in imminent serious danger of bodily injury.

House Bill 48 and 925 encodes a version of the "castle doctrine," allowing the use of physical force, including deadly force, by a person in his dwelling against an intruder in the dwelling who has committed an overt act against him or another person who is lawfully in the dwelling, without civil liability.