User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/17/2017 4:52:14 PM EDT
[#1]
I am all for it. Just more needed legal protection we currently don't have but in reality shouldn't even need to have.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2017 12:06:30 AM EDT
[#2]
Any link to the text of the new bill? I haven't been able to find it.
The current law: TITLE 6 ACTIONS IN PARTICULAR CASES CHAPTER 8 ACTIONS FOR NEGLIGENCE 6-808. Civil immunity for self-defense. (1) A person who uses force as justified in section 18-4009, Idaho Code, or as otherwise permitted in sections 19-201 through 19-205, Idaho Code, is immune from any civil liability for the use of such force except when the person knew or reasonably should have known that the person against whom the force was used was a law enforcement officer acting in the capacity of his or her official duties. (2) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred by the defendant in any civil action if the court finds that the defendant is immune from such action pursuant to this section. (3) As used in this section, "law enforcement officer" means any court personnel, sheriff, constable, peace officer, state police officer, correctional officer, probation or parole official, prosecuting attorney, city attorney, attorney general, or their employees or agents, or any other person charged with the duty of enforcement of the criminal, traffic or penal laws of this state or any other law enforcement personnel or peace officer as defined in chapter 51, title 19, Idaho Code. History: [6-808, added 2006, ch. 453, sec. 1, p. 1345.] |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2017 2:35:54 AM EDT
[#3]
The problem there is 18-4009, which as I read it, says someone has to quickly and violently kick your door in, and then start beating/raping you.
TITLE 18
18-4009. JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE BY ANY PERSON. Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in either of the following cases: 1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person; or, 2. When committed in defense of habitation, property or person, against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends and endeavors, in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner, to enter the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any person therein; or, 3. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a wife or husband, parent, child, master, mistress or servant of such person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, and imminent danger of such design being accomplished; but such person, or the person in whose behalf the defense was made, if he was the assailant or engaged in mortal combat, must really and in good faith have endeavored to decline any further struggle before the homicide was committed; or, 4. When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed, or in lawfully suppressing any riot, or in lawfully keeping and preserving the peace. History: [18-4009, added 1972, ch. 336, sec. 1, p. 930.] |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2017 9:38:52 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The problem there is 18-4009, which as I read it, says someone has to quickly and violently kick your door in, and then start beating/raping you. This is a key part of the sentence. When committed in defense of habitation, property or person, against one who manifestly intends or endeavors... My fear is many times when we get a new bill, the focus tends to be based on a small group's personal view or goal. This creates a situation where the new bills miss something and closes the door on part of our current freedoms. With enhanced ccw, they gained the right to carry on campus and the rest of us were restricted from carrying in the stadium, taco bell arena, morrison center, etc. Not much different than the gun banners taking guns, mags, capacity; from criminals. The rest of us bear the weight of their narrow minded focus. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2017 12:01:01 PM EDT
[#5]
This a great step but I have concerns. What if somewhere on my property but away from my home there is an altercation with a trespasser, vandal, or thief with myself or one of my agents that turns violent?
Also I wish they would institute eminent domain reform. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2017 7:21:04 PM EDT
[#6]
Not to be that guy, "Back where I came from...!"
But. I have lived in a couple of strong stand your ground states, with Texas being the strongest. Barring the Joe Horn shooting, it didn't really seem to be a problem. Texas has some pretty interesting laws (asset recovery) and I don't recall anyone screaming about blood running in the streets. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2017 3:44:39 PM EDT
[#7]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2017 4:07:29 PM EDT
[#8]
We dont need no Castle Doctrine here. I hope this does not pass the way its worded. If not i will need to have a throw away gun with the serial numbers scratched off.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
