VA Legislature Prepared to Undermine “Castle Doctrine”
Tuesday, 06 March 2012 14:39
Modified legislation weakens current law ––
Tomorrow, a conference committee in the Virginia legislature will be voting on “castle doctrine” language that would make things much, much worse for Old Dominion residents.
The conference language, as currently drafted, needs to be resoundingly defeated.
The problem is this:
Virginia, like 48 other states, has inherited (ultimately from England) a body of court-made law, called “common law.” This “common law” is the “law of the land” in Virginia unless it is overturned by statute.
Virginia common law provides that you can protect yourself in your home or elsewhere against the reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily injury.
Thus, if a person lawfully enters your house, but pulls a gun and starts shooting at people, under common law, you can use deadly force.
If a person is standing in your bedroom holding a gun in the middle of the night, under common law, you can use deadly force, even though that person has taken no “overt act.”
Unfortunately, the conference committee language being voted on by the Virginia legislature tomorrow would require both “unlawful entry” and an “overt act.”
Fine, we said. Just add language which would provide that the statutory language does nothing to overturn the protections of “common law,” but rather is in addition to your right to defend yourself at common law.
However, this is NOT the route the conference committee has chosen to go.
So the bottom line:
The conference language would REPEAL your common law right to defend yourself and your family against someone who legally entered your house, but turned violent.
The conference language would REPEAL your common law right to defend yourself and your family against someone who was illegally in your house in the middle of the night with a gun, but had committed no OVERT ACT.
ACTION: Contact your Virginia state Senator and Delegate immediately. Urge them to oppose the conference report on the castle doctrine unless there is a provision which grandfathers our “common law” protections. Even better, urge them to support a REAL Castle Doctrine Bill –– such as what was written for Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli by defense expert Daniel Hawes over the summer.
You can send a message to your state Senator and Delegate by clicking here. Search by your address, click the “Send a message to your Delegate and Senator” button, and cut and paste the message below.
Prewritten Letter:
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Dear
The “castle doctrine” language that is being considered by the conference committee would make things much, much worse than under current law. And thus, I agree with GUN OWNERS OF AMERICA that the conference committee language must be defeated, unless language is included which would grandfather our “common law” protections.
The problem is this:
* Virginia, like 48 other states, has inherited (ultimately from England) a body of court-made law, called “common law.” This “common law” is the “law of the land” in Virginia unless it is overturned by statute.
* Virginia common law provides that I can protect myself and my family in my home or elsewhere against the reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily injury. Thus, if a person lawfully enters my house, but pulls a gun and starts shooting at people, under common law, I can use deadly force.
* If a person is standing in my bedroom holding a gun in the middle of the night, under common law, I can use deadly force, even though that person has taken no “overt act.”
Unfortunately, the conference committee language would require both “unlawful entry” and an “overt act” before I could use deadly force in my home against an armed intruder.
All you needed to do was to add language which would provide that the statutory language does nothing to overturn the protections of “common law,” but rather is in addition to my right to defend myself at common law.
Sadly, this is NOT the route the conference committee has chosen to go.
So the bottom line:
(1) The conference language would REPEAL my common law right to defend myself and my family against someone who legally entered my house, but turned violent.
(2) The conference language would REPEAL my common law right to defend myself and my family against someone who was illegally in my house in the middle of the night with a gun, but had committed no OVERT ACT.
Therefore, please vote against the conference report language on House Bill 48, unless language is included which would grandfather our “common law” protections.
Even better, you should support a REAL Castle Doctrine Bill –– such as what was written for Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli by defense expert Daniel Hawes over the summer.
Sincerely,
Where's the REAL bill at and does it include civil immunity?
Per VCDL, the bill is dead for this year.
Originally Posted By wmounts:
Per VCDL, the bill is dead for this year.
I'm sort of of the opinion that thats a good thing.
Anyone can defend themselves anywhere in the commonwealth that they're allowed to be and as long as they didnt start it as it stands. That seems pretty good to me.
I think I agree.
It seems to this non-legal mind that the case law/common law is pretty well set, and in favor of the defender. But, if I'm wrong, I'm open to being educated.
Originally Posted By 21BoomCBTENGR:
Originally Posted By wmounts:
Per VCDL, the bill is dead for this year.
I'm sort of of the opinion that thats a good thing.
Anyone can defend themselves anywhere in the commonwealth that they're allowed to be and as long as they didnt start it as it stands. That seems pretty good to me.
VCDL plans to introduce a castle doctrine bill next year... after having several lawyers look it over to make sure it is rock solid. They also plan to post it online prior to indroduction so that any other gun owners and lawyers want to provide comments. This is why they pushed back on all castle doctrine bills this year. Their latest alert email detailed their position.
Virgina has a pretty good common law base.
While civil suits are allowed, they are not common at all.
It is very hard to prohibit filing of civil suits without running afoul of Federal vulnerability.
The whole 'every man is entitled to their day in court' thing.
Laws that prohibit filing can be challenged, but laws requiring 'loser pays' have the effect of squelching the suits from the start.
The law needs to clearly recognize the existing body of common law to avoid creating undesirable 'openings'.
I'm of the opinion as far as Va is concerned to not want a castle doctrine. As others have stated the current law(?) is relatively fair as is. Wouldn't having a castle doctrine mean specific definitions that prosecutors could manipulate to benefit their/the political mood at the time. Just wondering if this should be a case of leaving well enough alone.
Originally Posted By 21BoomCBTENGR:
Originally Posted By wmounts:
Per VCDL, the bill is dead for this year.
I'm sort of of the opinion that thats a good thing.
Anyone can defend themselves anywhere in the commonwealth that they're allowed to be and as long as they didnt start it as it stands. That seems pretty good to me.
It's absolutely a good thing...this would have weakened your ability to legally protect yourself from harm.
Originally Posted By CyberSEAL:
Originally Posted By 21BoomCBTENGR:
Originally Posted By wmounts:
Per VCDL, the bill is dead for this year.
I'm sort of of the opinion that thats a good thing.
Anyone can defend themselves anywhere in the commonwealth that they're allowed to be and as long as they didnt start it as it stands. That seems pretty good to me.
It's absolutely a good thing...this would have weakened your ability to legally protect yourself from harm.
+1 glad it dies.
Now we just have to get Constitutional carry passed next year.
