The Discerning Texan
All that is necessary for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing.
-- Edmund Burke
-- Edmund Burke
Saturday, June 09, 2007
The Castle Doctrine: a Law whose Time has Come
Glenn Reynolds points this morning to Jeff Soyer's post on the proposed Tennessee "Castle Doctrine": a law which would liability-proof any person who shoots an intruder breaking in to their home. Governor Rick Perry has signed into law a similar statute in Texas, effective September 1, and as a handgun owner, it is good to know that I cannot be sued or otherwise held liable for defending myself against the imminent danger of someone breaking into my home in the middle of the night, or against some thug attempting to carjack or mug me and/or my wife when we are away from home. The basics of the Texas Law:
I am thankful to be living in a State where the benefits of concealed carry-laws are not only recognized--they are encouraged. Let the criminal beware.
Here is a quote from Soyer, responding to a defense lawyer's criticism of a homeowner's right to defend his property and loved ones from imminent danger:- The bill would establish, in law, the presumption that a criminal who unlawfully enters or intrudes into your home, occupied vehicle, or place of business or employment is there to cause death or great bodily harm, and you may therefore use any manner of force, including deadly force, against that person.
- The bill would explicitly state in law that you have no “duty to retreat” if you are attacked in a place where you have a right to be present, if you are not the original aggressor, and if you are not engaged in criminal activity.
- The bill would protect persons using force authorized by law from lawsuits filed by injured criminal attackers or their families.
Yeah, well, I’ll keep that in mind next October 31st, but if they’re six-foot-two, wearing a mask, coming in the back door with a crow-bar, and holding a firearm, I’ll assume they aren’t looking for the candied-apples.What the critics of an armed citizenry don't understand is just how well it works everywhere it has been tried; an extensive study of these benefits was conducted by John R. Lott, and published in his book More Guns, Less Crime--now in its Second Edition--and which is heavy on statistical study and remarkable findings:
Allowing citizens without criminal records or histories of significant mental illness to carry concealed handguns deters violent crimes ... If the rest of the country had adopted right-to-carry concealed handgun provisions in 1992, about 1,500 murders and 4,000 rapes would have been avoided ... Many commonly accepted notions are challenged by these findings. Urban areas tend to have the most restrictive gun-control rules and have fought the hardest against nondiscretionary concealed-handgun laws, yet they are the very places that benefit most from nondiscretionary concealed-handgun laws. Not only do urban areas tend to gain in their fight against crime, but reductions in crime rates are greatest in the urban areas that have the highest crime rates, largest and most dense populations, and greatest concentration of minorities. ...Below is an excerpt of the "enrolled text" of the Texas Law, which the Governor has signed. If you look at the language, it is pretty clearly and broadly protecting the law abiding citizen from repercussions of defending themselves, to wit, it provides the following test for reasonableness of using "deadly force":
The benefits of concealed handguns are not limited to those who use them in self-defense. Because the guns may be concealed, criminals are unable to tell whether potential victims are carrying guns until they attack, thus making it less attractive for criminals to commit crimes that involve direct contact with victims. Citizens who have no intention of ever carrying concealed handguns in a sense get a "free ride" from the crime-fighting efforts of their fellow citizens. ...
The actor ’s belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:In Texas, it used to be the case that you could protect yourself under similar, but more restrictive circumstances, however this did not absolve you from a civil suit. This new law protects the citizen from criminal OR civil liability for protecting his/her self.
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor ’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor ’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
[...]
(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.
I am thankful to be living in a State where the benefits of concealed carry-laws are not only recognized--they are encouraged. Let the criminal beware.
Labels: Carry Laws, Castle Doctrine, Right to Bear Arms
