Alabama going in the right direction, they're my fallback state anyway if the yankee infestation of Florida takes over politics here one day

Deadly force gun bill now in Alabama Legislature's cross-hairs The Associated Press January 23. 2006 3:45PM A bill expanding the circumstances in which deadly force may be used in self-defense is in the Alabama Legislature's cross-hairs. The bill, sponsored by Rep. Albert Hall, D-Gurley, cleared a House committee last week and is now going to the full House. "I haven't heard of anyone opposing it," Hall told The Huntsville Times. One opponent is Arthur Hayhoe, executive director of the Florida Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. He told the Times the Alabama bill could cause trouble if passed: "I call it the 'right-to-commit-murder' bill." To supporters it could be the "make-my-day" measure, after the Clint Eastwood line in the movie "Dirty Harry." Modeled after Florida's "stand-your-ground" law, which was passed last year and signed into law by Gov. Jeb Bush, Hall's bill is being pushed in Alabama by the National Rifle Association, which wrote the Florida law. The language at issue in the bill says a person may use deadly force if that person believes "that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act is occurring or has occurred" in a residence or vehicle. The law now says: "A person is not justified in using deadly physical force upon another person if it reasonably appears he knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety: by retreating, except the actor is not required to retreat." The bill also protects those using deadly force in self-defense from being sued. "What we're trying to get away from is people attacking you and suing you," Hall said. Critics say people could shoot others if they feel threatened and that law officers could get caught in the crossfire. "It encourages irresponsible, aggressive and even illegal use of firearms," Hayhoe said. Hall said he proposed the bill at the request of a constituent, not the NRA. While a number of lawmakers spoke in favor of the measure last week in the House Judiciary Committee, there were some concerns, and debate is expected in the House. Rep. Dick Brewbaker, R-Montgomery, asked if a third party could use deadly force if they saw someone entering an occupied vehicle. "I'm concerned we're going to give people a right to shoot people if they're trying to break into your car," said Brewbaker, who owns several car dealerships in Montgomery. There are several versions of the bill in the House and Senate. "It doesn't make any difference whose bill passes as long as it passes," Hall said.

http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060123/APN/601230838

If it get's past the Black Caucaus I will be totally shocked.

There is always Texas for ya.

§ 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A
person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.31;
(2) if a reasonable person in the actor's situation
would not have retreated; and
(3) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect himself against the other's use or
attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual
assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) The requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not
apply to an actor who uses force against a person who is at the time
of the use of force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the
habitation of the actor.



§ 9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON. A person is justified
in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third
person if:
(1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably
believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31
or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against
the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes
to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and
(2) the actor reasonably believes that his
intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.


§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.


§ 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person
is justified in using force or deadly force against another to
protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if,
under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the
actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force
or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful
interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or
criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection
of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third
person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he
uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent,
or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.

Quoted: If it get's past the Black Caucaus I will be totally shocked.

What percentage do they hold in the legislature ? This bill is sponsored by a Democrat and like down here I can't imagine many in Alabama outside of the urban areas would want to appear criminal friendly and endorse being a victim.

Gee, they want to make it similar to the law in California, only including vehicles instead of just residences and businesses.

"I'm concerned we're going to give people a right to shoot people if they're trying to break into your car," said Brewbaker, who owns several car dealerships in Montgomery.

His concern is misplaced.  Presumption of justifiability is not the same as an entitlement to shoot regardless of the details of the situation.

"It encourages irresponsible, aggressive and even illegal use of firearms," Hayhoe said.

Aside from the fact that this is leftist rhetoric bullcrap, how can following the law be illegal? If the law allows something, it can't be an illegal act, you dickhead.

Proudly Alabamian...