Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 4/13/2006 4:57:46 PM EST
This just happend Tuesday. The bottom line now in Kentucky there is no duty to retreat. If you have a right to be where you are at you are justified in shooting anyone that threatens great bodily harm. They also added the castle doctrine to an extreme. If someone is even attempting to break into your home and they are not authorized to be there, you can shoot them even before they get inside. The best part is the law specifically states that if you the shooting was justified then you are immune from both criminal and civil prosecution for shooting the person. Here is the link if you want the full info www.lrc.ky.gov/record/06RS/SB38.htm


Mar 24-3rd reading, passed 88-8 with Committee Substitute ; received in Senate

Apr 10-posted for passage for concurrence in House Committee Substitute as a Consent Bill; Senate concurred in House Committee Substitute ; passed 36-1; enrolled, signed by President of the Senate

Apr 11-enrolled, signed by Speaker of the House; delivered to Governor


Now for the good parts of the new law.

A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering or had unlawfully and forcibly entered a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
....
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a felony involving the use of force.
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
...
(3) A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be.
.....
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in Section 2 of this Act and in KRS 503.050, 503.070, and 503.080 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force
Link Posted: 4/13/2006 5:00:22 PM EST
This calls for a:

Link Posted: 4/13/2006 5:00:31 PM EST
you lucky bastards.

here in MN its the "flee" law. if theres a way out you gotta take it. if i had it my way... you should be able to protect your property as well as your physical person... someone is stealing the tires on your truck? hang a shotgun out the window to scare them off, and YOU go to jail.

but... i am pretty proud of our concealed carry law. i got my permit last year.
Link Posted: 4/13/2006 5:01:23 PM EST
Congrats, FL got this recently too.
Link Posted: 4/13/2006 5:16:48 PM EST

Originally Posted By builttoughf250:
you lucky bastards.

here in MN its the "flee" law. if theres a way out you gotta take it. if i had it my way... you should be able to protect your property as well as your physical person... someone is stealing the tires on your truck? hang a shotgun out the window to scare them off, and YOU go to jail.

but... i am pretty proud of our concealed carry law. i got my permit last year.



Not up to date on MN statutory law, but I'm pretty sure the "Castle Doctrine" is followed there as well....would only apply to home invasions, though. I'm not aware of any state that requires residents to flee from their home. If not, let me know - would be interesting.

As for Kentuckians, welcome to the free world, that rocks. We have been blessed in CO with such wonderful legislation for decades now. No fleeing in any situation, home or elsewhere.
Link Posted: 4/13/2006 5:17:21 PM EST
welcome to the castle club!
Link Posted: 4/13/2006 5:18:10 PM EST
Ohio could use that. We have no duty to retreat in our homes, but in public...sigh.
Link Posted: 4/13/2006 5:18:15 PM EST
Nice!

Link Posted: 4/13/2006 5:18:30 PM EST
Awesome!
Link Posted: 4/13/2006 5:19:45 PM EST
[Last Edit: 4/13/2006 5:20:38 PM EST by deej86]
Awesome!
Link Posted: 4/13/2006 5:23:12 PM EST
We never had a duty to retreat to begin with in KY. The new thing is the pre-emption from lawsuits.
Link Posted: 4/13/2006 5:31:52 PM EST
It passed in GA also a few weeks ago ... waiting for the GOV to sign it into law. GA goes one better ... if it is found that deadly force was properly used ... the victims family or any other party cannot sue you in civil court!
Link Posted: 4/13/2006 5:35:04 PM EST
i hope i never have to exersize it

thanks for the info
Link Posted: 4/13/2006 5:39:45 PM EST

Originally Posted By BangStick1:
We never had a duty to retreat to begin with in KY. The new thing is the pre-emption from lawsuits.



The was no duty to retreat but it also wasn't spelled out that you could stand your ground wherever. The new law also explicetly states in several spots that if you have the right to be somewhere anyone threatening then you have no duty no duty at all leave. I think that was added primarily for the lawsuit section that added to the bill. The covered everything very well with this bill...I still wouldn't want to be the first one using it as a defense though.
Link Posted: 4/13/2006 5:41:49 PM EST
Link Posted: 4/13/2006 5:43:34 PM EST
Great call, KY!

HH
Link Posted: 4/13/2006 6:14:57 PM EST
Muahahahahhah [burns] EXCELLENT [burns]
Link Posted: 4/13/2006 6:57:32 PM EST
VA needs one.
Link Posted: 4/13/2006 11:09:32 PM EST
This rocks!



Link Posted: 4/13/2006 11:14:22 PM EST
Link Posted: 4/13/2006 11:36:40 PM EST
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 12:05:58 AM EST
Yay! I am so fortunate to live in a free state!
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 12:38:19 AM EST
Three cheers for FL, KY and AL!!!
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 12:40:27 AM EST
Great news, that and Nebraska's CCW and things are definitely looking up for 2nd Amendment supporters!
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 2:33:01 AM EST
Fuck Yeah!!!
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 5:37:07 PM EST
[Last Edit: 4/14/2006 5:37:51 PM EST by cmjohnson]
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 5:45:04 PM EST
[Last Edit: 4/14/2006 5:45:22 PM EST by boltcatch]
I predict a trend as more state politicians realize this sort of thing A) might cause a little Bradyesque flak, but isn't likely to create any real incidents that will bite them in the ass, B) doesn't cost anything, C) gives you honest, no-shit crime rate reductions, and D) allows them to score points with the voters for being tough on crime.

Obviously, I do not expect many city politicians to jump on this bandwagon, since so many of their voters are functionally retarded and shit their pants at the mention of firearms.
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 6:10:36 PM EST
Apr 11-enrolled, signed by Speaker of the House; delivered to Governor

So will the Governor sign it?? Until he puts his John Hancock on it, it don't count does it?
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 4:29:56 AM EST

Originally Posted By PaDanby:
Apr 11-enrolled, signed by Speaker of the House; delivered to Governor

So will the Governor sign it?? Until he puts his John Hancock on it, it don't count does it?



He will. He used to be a pro-gun legislator and then became Governor. In Kentucky it's almost impossible to win if you aren't pro-gun. Plus it wouldn't matter if he didn't as it passed 88-8 and 36-1 well over the veto override range.
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 4:32:00 AM EST
Oh since we are talking about being safer, the legislature also changed the law making seatbelt usage a primary offense instead of secondary. They were also supposed to increase the speed limit to 70mph from 65 but so far I haven't seen that legislation pass.
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 6:34:00 AM EST

Originally Posted By SWIRE:
Oh since we are talking about being safer, the legislature also changed the law making seatbelt usage a primary offense instead of secondary. They were also supposed to increase the speed limit to 70mph from 65 but so far I haven't seen that legislation pass.

YEAH!!!!!! As far as 70mph is concerned,hell everyone goes 70mph + anyway.
Link Posted: 4/16/2006 6:40:22 AM EST
This law is good news for us, especially for those who carry concealed.
Top Top