Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 1/29/2006 1:47:55 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/29/2006 1:48:51 PM EDT by Eight]
Got an e-mail from a list. I looked it up on the following website:

alisdb.legislature.state.al.us/acas/alisonstart.asp

Here's the text of the e-mail. You can also read more in depth at the link above. Visit the ALISON system and look under Bills.

CASTLE DOCTRINE LEGISLATION TO BE VOTED ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 31st!

Your State Representative needs to hear from you!

This Tuesday, January 31, the Alabama House of Representatives will be voting on House Bill 1, also known as “Castle Doctrine” legislation. Sponsored by Representative Albert Hall (D-22), HB 1 simply states if a criminal breaks into your home, your occupied vehicle, or your place of business, you may presume he is there to do bodily harm and you may use any force against him, thereby removing your “duty to retreat.” Furthermore, this law would provide protection from criminal prosecution and civil litigation for those who defend themselves from criminal attack.



Your Representative needs to hear from you before the vote is taken. Please contact your Representative on Monday or Tuesday during normal business hours and tell him or her you strongly support HB 1, “Castle Doctrine” legislation. You can find contact information by using the “Write Your Representative” feature found at http://www.nraila.org/, or by calling the Alabama House of Representatives switchboard at (334) 242-7600.



Please be sure to support your right to self-defense by making this important call!

Link Posted: 1/29/2006 2:27:57 PM EDT
Also ask them to add the SBR and SBS legislation where can own them if we get federal tax stamp. May be our best chance
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 5:18:30 PM EDT
Do you know the results of todays vote?
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 5:39:02 AM EDT
Majority in favor. The usual minorities took the floor all day to stall. Bring back in two weeks
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 8:02:45 AM EDT
Thanks for the info.
Link Posted: 2/2/2006 10:28:25 PM EDT
I read the bill and I think that it is a definate improvement.
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 7:37:11 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/23/2006 1:00:04 PM EDT by HardShell]
<<< Introductory text of HB1 deleted - engrossed version on page 2... >>>
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 7:41:00 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/6/2006 9:49:06 AM EDT by HardShell]
HB1 History so far...

01/10/2006 - Read for the first time and referred to the House of Representatives committee on Judiciary

01/19/2006 - Read for the second time and placed on the calendar with 1 substitute

01/31/2006 - Third Reading Carried Over

01/31/2006 - Judiciary first Substitute Offered

01/31/2006 - Coleman (L) motion to Carry Over Temporarily tabled

01/31/2006 - Hurst motion to Table adopted Roll Call 149

01/31/2006 - Laird, Carter and Bridges intended to vote "Yea"

01/31/2006 - Kennedy, Howard, Boyd, Major, Robinson (O), Buskey, Rogers, Coleman (L), Coleman (M) and Moore requested their names be removed as cosponsors to bill

Further Consideration
Link Posted: 2/6/2006 8:19:24 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/23/2006 1:00:37 PM EDT by HardShell]
<<< Introductory text of SB283 deleted - engrossed version on page 2... >>>
Link Posted: 2/6/2006 9:51:20 AM EDT
SB283 history so far...

01/19/2006 Read for the first time and referred to the Senate committee on Health

01/26/2006 Read for the second time and placed on the calendar with 1 substitute

01/26/2006 Pending third reading on day 7 Favorable from Health with 1 substitute

01/26/2006 Health first Substitute Offered
Link Posted: 2/8/2006 8:44:44 AM EDT
Latest?
Link Posted: 2/8/2006 10:42:38 AM EDT
tag
Link Posted: 2/8/2006 11:08:22 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/8/2006 11:09:58 AM EDT by HardShell]
www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060205/NEWS02/602050328&SearchID=73235050595480




All of you Huntsville guys please make sure Rep. Hall knows how much you appreciate her efforts...





Player of the Week: Rep. Laura Hall, D-Hunstville

Rep. Laura Hall, D-Huntsville, was a key player in moves by a group of black lawmakers to stall a proposed expansion of the deadly force law. The groups tied up the House for hours Tuesday, even after 77 representatives voted in support of bringing the bill to the floor.

"We already have a statute in place that allows us the opportunity ... to be justified in the use of deadly force," she said.

Right now, you can't shoot someone who is trying to get on your porch or in your car if you can safely run away. Under the proposed law, you wouldn't have to run.

If someone threatens you in your house or workplace without provocation, you no longer have to look for a safe escape. You can shoot them.

As written, Alabama law doesn't explicitly protect self-defense shooters from civil lawsuits. The new law would offer such protection.

Changes to the bill are in the works and lawmakers say it could come up again in a few weeks.



Link Posted: 2/8/2006 11:11:20 AM EDT

"Plenty of us got all kinds of weapons."--Rep. John Knight, D-Montgomery, during a floor debate of a bill to expand Alabama's deadly force law.


Link Posted: 2/8/2006 1:15:34 PM EDT
I understand the position of the Afros. Since most criminals are Afros, the majority shot would be Afros. Just trying to protect the tribe.
Link Posted: 2/8/2006 4:12:26 PM EDT

Originally Posted By alaman:
I understand the position of the Afros. Since most criminals are Afros, the majority shot would be Afros. Just trying to protect the tribe.



Very Good Point.......I think your right on target......Pun intended....

GhostCat
Link Posted: 2/8/2006 6:36:15 PM EDT
Rep Laura Hall, Democrat... Anyone see a number of problems here??? What a joke.
Link Posted: 2/9/2006 5:23:13 AM EDT
email sent to the idiot
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 4:51:27 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/10/2006 4:53:49 AM EDT by Eight]


The groups tied up the House for hours Tuesday, even after 77 representatives voted in support of bringing the bill to the floor.


Dang, how many people are needed to override the stalling process? I counted 105 representatives. 77 is almost 75%. Seems like they should have been able to bring it to the floor for a vote.
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 6:19:04 AM EDT
The brothers and inner city idiots are threatening to hold up other legislation. Damn 14th Amendment
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 10:08:03 AM EDT
NRA-ILA just sent out this e-mail alert:




Alabama State Senate to Vote on Castle Doctrine!
Your Senator needs to hear from you!

The Alabama State Senate will soon be considering a bill of great importance to gun owners. Senate Bill 283, the "Castle Doctrine" bill sponsored by Senator Larry Means (D-10), removes the "duty to retreat" when a citizen is faced with attack in a place he or she has a right to be. SB 283 would ensure an individual whose home was being broken into had no duty to retreat before using necessary force.

Please call your State Senator and respectfully ask him or her to support SB 283 when it comes before the Senate next week for a vote! You can reach your Senator at (334) 242-7800.

Also, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Rodger Smitherman (D-18) needs to hear from you on this important issue. Chairman Smitherman has shown support for new language to be incorporated into the bill. However, this language would drastically change the bill's intent. Please contact Chairman Smitherman and ask him to support SB 283 in its original form. He can be reached by calling (334) 242-7870 or by e-mail at: rodger99@bellsouth.net


Please make these important phone calls today!
Your right to self-defense depends on it!

To find further contact information please use
the "Write Your Representative" feature found at www.NRAILA.org.

Link Posted: 2/10/2006 12:31:08 PM EDT
More "Objective Journalism" from the Montgomery Birdcage-Liner Advertiser...

www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060210/NEWS/602100343/1001

Link Posted: 2/10/2006 12:40:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By HardShell:
More "Objective Journalism" from the Montgomery Birdcage-Liner Advertiser...

www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060210/NEWS/602100343/1001




Scumbag brother gets killed after burglarizing a man's home and he is mad? This darn country is going to the dogs. I say good kill. Saves taxpayers money too.
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 1:32:15 PM EDT
Someone convince me to write this idiot a letter. I've already written three this week and I just feel like they fall on deaf ears.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 9:37:54 AM EDT
A compromise bill has passed. Details later when I get a few minutes...
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 10:24:06 AM EDT

Originally Posted By HardShell:
A compromise bill has passed. Details later when I get a few minutes...



From what B'ham rag said today the compromise bill that passed the House said you don't have to retreat but simply be afraid. If true and someone breaks in my home, I am afraid-BOOOOOOOM. Then I will not be afraid.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 12:49:11 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/22/2006 1:01:34 PM EDT by HardShell]
From yesterday: www.al.com/newsflash/regional/index.ssf?/base/news-19/114056634661330.xml&storylist=alabamanews



House votes to expand when deadly force is allowed

2/21/2006, 5:53 p.m. CT
By BOB JOHNSON
The Associated Press

MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — The Alabama House voted Tuesday to expand the instances when a person can use deadly force to protect his or her home or automobile.

The House voted 97-2 in favor of the bill, just three weeks after the legislation had appeared stymied in a filibuster led by black lawmakers who complained that it would give people "a license to kill."

But the sponsor, Rep. Albert Hall, D-Gurley, and the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Marcel Black, D-Tuscumbia, negotiated with members of the Black Caucus and presented a compromise version of the bill Tuesday.

Current state law allows a person to use deadly force if someone breaks into his home and the resident feels threatened, but also says deadly force should not be used if the resident feels he or she can "avoid using force with complete safety." The bill, which is supported by the National Rifle Association, removes that language.

The compromise removed language from the original bill that would have included a "tent" as property a person could use deadly force to protect. It also clarified that a vehicle must be motorized, which nullified an argument made in the earlier debate that deadly force could be used to protect a wheelbarrow.

The compromise also clarifies that a person must feel threatened at the time they use deadly force, rather than feel like they had been threatened.

"If you are out of danger, you can't track the person down and shoot him," Black said.

The bill now goes to the Senate, where it is expected to be assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee. The head of that committee, Sen. Rodger Smitherman, D-Birmingham, had expressed reservations with the original version, but said with the changes he now expects the legislation to be approved by his committee.

Hall said he feels the bill will help Alabama residents protect their homes and their families.

"This will put you on a level playing field with the criminal, whereas now the criminal has got the advantage," Hall said.

One Black Caucus member who had earlier filibustered the bill, Rep. John Rogers, D-Birmingham, said he voted for it Tuesday, but feels it was mostly a political bill to help some legislators get re-elected.

"The law already on the books says that if someone breaks into my house in the middle of the night, I can shoot them," Rogers said.

The two "no" votes were cast by Rep. Laura Hall, D-Huntsville, and Rep. Merika Coleman, D-Birmingham. Coleman said she was afraid of the long-term consequences of the legislation.

"I don't want someone to get hurt because people feel they have a right to hurt you if you step on their property," Coleman said.




I haven't received the final text of the bill as amended/passed, but it sounds like it came through intact. Should clear the Senate easily in this form. I'll try to remember to post the actual text here when I get my hands on it...
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 1:30:01 PM EDT

You think my incessant emails might have helped a little!?

(No, but I like to imagine myself as influential...)
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 6:01:19 AM EDT
Senate passed a slightly different bill yesterday. Now reconcile and pass
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 8:55:54 AM EDT
I read the bill and I think that it is a good one.
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 12:57:47 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/23/2006 1:13:36 PM EDT by HardShell]
Text of the engrossed version of HB1 passed on to Jud. Comm.:

1 HB1
2 81855-2
3 By Representatives Hall (A), Hurst, Garner, Schmitz, Greer,
4 Morrow, Ball, Graham, Williams (N), Brewbaker, Thomas (E),
5 Hinshaw, Sanderford, Allen, Wood, Greeson, Grantland,
6 Morrison, Payne, Page, Dukes, Lindsey, Carter, Major, Robinson
7 (O), Howard, Boyd, Davis, Faust, Oden, Grimes, McClammy,
8 Glover, Laird, Thigpen, Baker, Newton (C), Gipson, Martin,
9 Vance, Bentley, Layson, Beasley, Newton (D), Ward, Hubbard,
10 Moore, McClendon, McClurkin, Humphryes, Beason, Black (M),
11 Hill, McMillan, Coleman (L), Coleman (M), Carns, Collier,
12 Dunn, Buskey and Ison
13 RFD: Judiciary
14 First Read: 10-JAN-06
15 PFD: 11/21/2005


Page 1
1 ENGROSSED
2
3
4 A BILL
5 TO BE ENTITLED
6 AN ACT
7
8 To amend Sections 13A-3-20 and 13A-3-23, Code of
9 Alabama 1975, relating to the justifiable use of defensive
10 force and defensive deadly physical force against an
11 aggressor; to further provide for the justified use of force
12 and deadly physical force against a person intruding in a
13 dwelling, residence, or vehicle; or federally licensed nuclear
14 power facility, or is in the process of sabotaging or
15 attempting to sabotage a federally licensed nuclear power
16 facility; to remove the duty to retreat for a person using
17 force or deadly force under certain circumstances; to make
18 legal presumptions concerning persons justified to use force
19 and deadly physical force against intruders; to provide
20 immunity from criminal and civil legal action for persons
21 justified to use lawful force and deadly physical force in
22 self-protection or the protection of others.
23 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF ALABAMA:
24 Section 1. Sections 13A-3-20 and 13A-3-23, Code of
25 Alabama 1975, are amended to read as follows:
26 "§13A-3-20.


Page 2
1 "The following definitions are applicable to this
2 article:
3 " (3) (1) BUILDING. Any structure which may be entered
4 and utilized by persons for business, public use, lodging or
5 the storage of goods, and such term includes any vehicle,
6 aircraft, or watercraft used for the lodging of persons or
7 carrying on business therein. Each unit of a building
8 consisting of two or more units separately occupied or secured
9 is a separate building.
10 " (2) (2) DEADLY PHYSICAL FORCE. Force which, under
11 the circumstances in which it is used, is readily capable of
12 causing death or serious physical injury.
13 " (4) (3) DWELLING. A building which is usually
14 occupied by a person lodging therein at night, or a building
15 of any kind, including any attached balcony, whether the
16 building is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which
17 has a roof over it, and is designed to be occupied by people
18 lodging therein at night.

19 " (1) (4) FORCE. Physical action or threat against
20 another, including confinement.
21 (5) PREMISES. Such The term includes any "building,"
22 building, as defined in this section, and any real property.
23 "(6) RESIDENCE. A dwelling in which a person resides
24 either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited
25 guest.
26 "(7) VEHICLE. A motorized conveyance which is
27 designed to transport people or property.



Page 3
1 "§13A-3-23.
2 "(a) A person is justified in using physical force
3 upon another person in order to defend himself or herself or a
4 third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the
5 use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other
6 person, and he may use a degree of force which he or she
7 reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose. A person
8 may use deadly physical force, and is legally presumed to be
9 justified in using deadly physical force in self-defense or
10 the defense of another person pursuant to subdivision (4),
if
11 the actor person reasonably believes that such other another
12 person is:
13 "(1) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical
14 force; or.
15 "(2) Using or about to use physical force against an
16 occupant of a dwelling while committing or attempting to
17 commit a burglary of such dwelling; or.
18 "(3) Committing or about to commit a kidnapping in
19 any degree, assault in the first or second degree, burglary in
20 any degree, robbery in any degree, forcible rape or forcible
21 sodomy.
22 "(4) In the process of unlawfully and forcefully
23 entering, or has unlawfully and forcefully entered, a
24 dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or federally
25 licensed nuclear power facility, or is in the process of
26 sabotaging or attempting to sabotage a federally licensed
27 nuclear power facility, or is attempting to remove, or has


Page 4
1 forcefully removed, a person against his or her will from any
2 dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle when the person has a
3 legal right to be there, and provided that the person using
4 the deadly physical force knows or has reason to believe that
5 an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act is
6 occurring. The legal presumption that a person using deadly
7 physical force is justified to do so pursuant to this
8 subdivision does not apply if:
9 "a. The person against whom the defensive force is
10 used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the
11 dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner or lessee,
12 and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic
13 violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact
14 against that person;
15 "b. The person sought to be removed is a child or
16 grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the
17 lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive
18 force is used;
19 "c. The person who uses defensive force is engaged
20 in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence,
21 or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
22 "d. The person against whom the defensive force is
23 used is a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of
24 his or her official duties.

25 "(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection
26 (a), a person is not justified in using deadly physical force
27 upon another person if it reasonably appears or he knows that


Page 5
1 he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete
2 safety:
3 "(1) By retreating, except that the actor is not
4 required to retreat:
5 "a. If he is in his dwelling or at his place of work
6 and was not the original aggressor; or

7 "b. If he is a peace officer or a private person
8 lawfully assisting a peace officer at his direction.
9 "(2), (3) Repealed by Acts 1979, No. 79-599, p.
10 1060, §1.

11 "(b) A person who is justified under subsection (a)
12 in using physical force, including deadly physical force, and
13 who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and is in any place
14 where he or she has the right to be has no duty to retreat and
15 has the right to stand his or her ground.
16 "(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection
17 (a), a person is not justified in using physical force if:
18 "(1) With intent to cause physical injury or death
19 to another person, he or she provoked the use of unlawful
20 physical force by such other person; or.
21 "(2) He or she was the initial aggressor, except
22 that his or her use of physical force upon another person
23 under the circumstances is justifiable if he or she withdraws
24 from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other
25 person his or her intent to do so, but the latter person
26 nevertheless continues or threatens the use of unlawful
27 physical force; or.


Page 6
1 "(3) The physical force involved was the product of
2 a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law.
3 "(d) A person who uses force, including deadly
4 physical force, as justified and permitted in this section is
5 immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use
6 of such force, unless the force was determined to be unlawful.
7 "(e) A law enforcement agency may use standard
8 procedures for investigating the use of force described in
9 subsection (a), but the agency may not arrest the person for
10 using force unless it determines that there is probable cause
11 that the force used was unlawful."

12 Section 2. This act shall become effective on June
13 1, 2006, following its passage and approval by the Governor,
14 or its otherwise becoming law.


Page 7
1
2
3 House of Representatives
4 Read for the first time and
5 referred to the House of Represen
6 tatives committee on Judiciary .... ...... 10-JAN-06
7
8 Read for the second time and placed
9 on the calendar with 1 substitute
10 and ............................... ...... 19-JAN-06
11
12 Read for the third time and passed
13 as amended ........................ ...... 21-FEB-06
14 Yeas 97, Nays 2, Abstains 1
15
16 Greg Pappas
17 Clerk
18
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 12:58:27 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/23/2006 1:21:20 PM EDT by HardShell]
Text of the engrossed version of SB283 passed on to Jud. Comm.:


1 SB283
2 81855-5
3 By Senator Means
4 RFD: Health
5 First Read: 19-JAN-06


Page 1
1 SB283
2
3
4 ENGROSSED
5
6
7 A BILL
8 TO BE ENTITLED
9 AN ACT
10
11 To amend Sections 13A-3-20 and 13A-3-23, Code of
12 Alabama 1975, relating to the justifiable use of defensive
13 force and defensive deadly physical force against an
14 aggressor; to further provide for the justified use of force
15 and deadly physical force against a person intruding in a
16 dwelling, residence, or vehicle; or federally licensed nuclear
17 power facility, or is in the process of sabotaging or
18 attempting to sabotage a federally licensed nuclear power
19 facility; to remove the duty to retreat for a person using
20 force or deadly force under certain circumstances; to make
21 legal presumptions concerning persons justified to use force
22 and deadly physical force against intruders; to provide
23 immunity from criminal and civil legal action for persons
24 justified to use lawful force and deadly physical force in
25 self-protection or the protection of others.
26 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF ALABAMA:


Page 2
1 Section 1. Sections 13A-3-20 and 13A-3-23, Code of
2 Alabama 1975, are amended to read as follows:
3 "§13A-3-20.
4 "The following definitions are applicable to this
5 article:
6 " (3) (1) BUILDING. Any structure which may be entered
7 and utilized by persons for business, public use, lodging or
8 the storage of goods, and such term includes any vehicle,
9 aircraft, or watercraft used for the lodging of persons or
10 carrying on business therein. Each unit of a building
11 consisting of two or more units separately occupied or secured
12 is a separate building.
13 " (2) (2) DEADLY PHYSICAL FORCE. Force which, under
14 the circumstances in which it is used, is readily capable of
15 causing death or serious physical injury.
16 " (4) (3) DWELLING. A building which is usually
17 occupied by a person lodging therein at night, or a building
18 of any kind, including any attached balcony, whether the
19 building is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which
20 has a roof over it, and is designed to be occupied by people
21 lodging therein at night.

22 " (1) (4) FORCE. Physical action or threat against
23 another, including confinement.
24 (5) PREMISES. Such The term includes any "building,"
25 building, as defined in this section, and any real property.


Page 3
1 "(6) RESIDENCE. A dwelling in which a person resides
2 either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited
3 guest.
4 "(7) VEHICLE. A motorized conveyance which is
5 designed to transport people or property.
6 "§13A-3-23.

7 "(a) A person is justified in using physical force
8 upon another person in order to defend himself or herself or a
9 third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the
10 use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other
11 person, and he may use a degree of force which he or she
12 reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose. A person
13 may use deadly physical force, and is legally presumed to be
14 justified in using deadly physical force in self-defense or
15 the defense of another person pursuant to subdivision (4),
if
16 the actor person reasonably believes that such other another
17 person is:
18 "(1) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical
19 force; or.
20 "(2) Using or about to use physical force against an
21 occupant of a dwelling while committing or attempting to
22 commit a burglary of such dwelling; or.
23 "(3) Committing or about to commit a kidnapping in
24 any degree, assault in the first or second degree, burglary in
25 any degree, robbery in any degree, forcible rape or forcible
26 sodomy.


Page 4
1 "(4) In the process of unlawfully and forcefully
2 entering, or has unlawfully and forcefully entered, a
3 dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or federally
4 licensed nuclear power facility, or is in the process of
5 sabotaging or attempting to sabotage a federally licensed
6 nuclear power facility, or is attempting to remove, or has
7 forcefully removed, a person against his or her will from any
8 dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle when the person has a
9 legal right to be there, and provided that the person using
10 the deadly physical force knows or has reason to believe that
11 an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act is
12 occurring. The legal presumption that a person using deadly
13 physical force is justified to do so pursuant to this
14 subdivision does not apply if:
15 "a. The person against whom the defensive force is
16 used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the
17 dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner or lessee,
18 and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic
19 violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact
20 against that person;
21 "b. The person sought to be removed is a child or
22 grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the
23 lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive
24 force is used;
25 "c. The person who uses defensive force is engaged
26 in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence,
27 or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or


Page 5
1 "d. The person against whom the defensive force is
2 used is a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of
3 his or her official duties.

4 "(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection
5 (a), a person is not justified in using deadly physical force
6 upon another person if it reasonably appears or he knows that
7 he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete
8 safety:
9 "(1) By retreating, except that the actor is not
10 required to retreat:
11 "a. If he is in his dwelling or at his place of work
12 and was not the original aggressor; or

13 "b. If he is a peace officer or a private person
14 lawfully assisting a peace officer at his direction.
15 "(2), (3) Repealed by Acts 1979, No. 79-599, p.
16 1060, §1.

17 "(b) A person who is justified under subsection (a)
18 in using physical force, including deadly physical force, and
19 who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and is in any place
20 where he or she has the right to be has no duty to retreat and
21 has the right to stand his or her ground.

22 "(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection
23 (a), a person is not justified in using physical force if:
24 "(1) With intent to cause physical injury or death
25 to another person, he or she provoked the use of unlawful
26 physical force by such other person; or.


Page 6
1 "(2) He or she was the initial aggressor, except
2 that his or her use of physical force upon another person
3 under the circumstances is justifiable if he or she withdraws
4 from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other
5 person his or her intent to do so, but the latter person
6 nevertheless continues or threatens the use of unlawful
7 physical force; or.
8 "(3) The physical force involved was the product of
9 a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law.
10 "(d) A person who uses force, including deadly
11 physical force, as justified and permitted in this section is
12 immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use
13 of such force, unless the force was determined to be unlawful.
14 "(e) A law enforcement agency may use standard
15 procedures for investigating the use of force described in
16 subsection (a), but the agency may not arrest the person for
17 using force unless it determines that there is probable cause
18 that the force used was unlawful."

19 Section 2. This act shall become effective on June
20 1, 2006, following its passage and approval by the Governor,
21 or its otherwise becoming law.


Page 7
1
2
3 Senate
4 Read for the first time and referred to the Senate
5 committee on Health .............................. 19-JAN-06
6
7 Read for the second time and placed on the calen8
dar with 1 substitute and ........................ 26-JAN-06
9
10 Read for the third time and passed as amended ... 22-FEB-06
11 Yeas 30
12 Nays 2
13
14
15 McDowell Lee
16 Secretary
17
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 6:03:47 PM EDT
Anyone know when the two verions are supposed to be reconciled so the final bill can go to the governor?
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 7:30:29 PM EDT
Saw some political type on the b'ham news last night telling people to call governor Riley to ask him to veto the bill. They ran the piece TWICE in the same 30 minute news show. The dude was on there saying that if it passed, it would at the very least double the homicide rate. What a dumbass. Has he never heard of Kennesaw GA? More guns means fewer unarmed victims, and in this case easier defensive use of guns means more danger to criminals. - So criminals will tend to go somewhere else for easier pickin's.

Damned libs. Always lying on TV. Trying to stir up the soccer moms.
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 8:32:55 PM EDT
I suppose it's good if the law of the land agrees with you, but in this case I couldn't care less. Regardless of the law, if someone tries to kill me or cause me harm, I will defend myself in whichever way I feel is necessary. That includes shooting someone if need be. In that case, I can only hope it's a lib that is trying to harm me.
Link Posted: 3/18/2006 6:05:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By timb3:
Saw some political type on the b'ham news last night telling people to call governor Riley to ask him to veto the bill. They ran the piece TWICE in the same 30 minute news show. The dude was on there saying that if it passed, it would at the very least double the homicide rate. What a dumbass. Has he never heard of Kennesaw GA? More guns means fewer unarmed victims, and in this case easier defensive use of guns means more danger to criminals. - So criminals will tend to go somewhere else for easier pickin's.

Damned libs. Always lying on TV. Trying to stir up the soccer moms.



Inner city guys should never be allowed on tv or out of the inner city.
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 5:31:33 AM EDT
Damn right.
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 5:56:13 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/22/2006 5:56:50 AM EDT by HardShell]

www.al.com/politics/huntsvilletimes/index.ssf?/base/news/1142590709109290.xml&coll=1&thispage=1



HUNTSVILLE TIMES

House delays vote on deadly force bill

Filibuster forces Albert Hall to agree to postponement

Friday, March 17, 2006
By TAYLOR BRIGHT
Times Montgomery Bureau tbright@htimes.com

MONTGOMERY - Maybe the sixth time will be the charm.

A bill that would expand the locations and circumstances Alabamians may use deadly force in self-defense was held up again Thursday. It was the fifth time the bill has come up in the House.

"I tried to keep everybody happy," said Rep. Albert Hall, D-Gurley, who is the House sponsor of the bill.
The House, which passed Hall's bill, is considering an identical Senate bill. If the House passes the Senate bill, it will go to Gov. Bob Riley to be signed into law.

But on Tuesday, House Republicans, objecting to the Senate's handling of the "Brody bill," joined black Democrats in filibustering the bill. It was the fifth time the deadly force bill had been on the House floor for debate.

The Brody bill would have made it a separate crime to kill a fetus if the mother was murdered.
Thursday, the Republicans dropped their filibuster - as the Brody bill died in the Senate, because supporters could not get it out of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Republicans had planned to filibuster all the bills sent from the Senate to the House. "We're not going to punish all of the Senate," said House Minority Leader Mike Hubbard of Auburn.

But black legislators kept their filibuster going, forcing Hall to agree to postpone a vote over the deadly force bill over to another day.

"This is the worst piece of legislation I've seen in my life," said Rep. John Rogers, D-Birmingham.

Legislators objected to several portions of the bill, including a provision that would shield from lawsuits someone who uses deadly force in self-defense.

And some black legislators who had supported the deadly force bill now express reservations.

"I have always opposed legislation that is totally lobbyist driven," said Rep. Demetrius Newton, D-Birmingham, who previously supported the bill, which is backed by the National Rifle Association.

Newton also questioned part of the bill that allows someone to use deadly force if they believe someone is about to be kidnapped.

"How do you know when a person is about to kidnap somebody?" Newton asked.

Hall, visibly frustrated, asked for a vote on the bill, but the black legislators stood firm with their filibuster.

The bill will come up again after the Legislature returns from its spring break next week.

Hall said he won't be so nice when it comes up again and will try to override a filibuster with a cloture vote, which would force a vote on the floor. The bill has enough votes to pass.

In the meantime, Hall said he would "try to work it out."

"It's going to pass," Hall said. "They asked me to carry it over to keep peace in the House."



Link Posted: 3/22/2006 6:06:53 AM EDT

www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060315/NEWS02/603150353&SearchID=73239232443021



MONTGOMERY ADVERTISER

March 22, 2006

Legislative squabbles stall progress

By John Davis
Montgomery Advertiser

A squabble between Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Rodger Smitherman, D-Birmingham, and House Republicans has blocked at least five bills from receiving final passage in the Alabama Legislature.

Last week, a threatened GOP filibuster stopped three bills that would change the way Alabama sentences prisoners. On Tuesday, a Senate bill to tweak Alabama's use of deadly force law got stopped in its tracks.

"I am against how things operate in the Senate, so I'm going to be here for 10 minutes," Rep. Spencer Collier, R-Mobile, said on the House floor.

Collier and his GOP colleagues are trying to pressure Smitherman to expedite Collier's bill that would make killing a fetus a crime of murder in some situations, such as when a pregnant woman gets murdered or mugged.

The bill is in Smitherman's committee, but he hasn't brought it up for a vote. Without committee passage, the bill will never make it to the full Senate for a vote.

Meanwhile, Rep. Albert Hall, D-Gurley, is pushing legislation that would make it clear that people don't have to try to retreat before using a gun on people who intrude on their homes, balconies or vehicles.

Hall negotiated for weeks to get his bill, which would revise Alabama's deadly force law, out of the House and on to the Senate. On Tuesday, the Senate version of Hall's deadly force bill came up in the lower chamber.

"This is the same bill that we agreed on, and we passed here about three weeks ago," Hall said in supporting final passage of the bill. "My name don't have to be on it. We just want the law changed."

But Hall's plea fell on deaf ears, and his bill failed to gain passage Tuesday.

And Smitherman remained adamant about leaving Collier's bill in committee limbo.

"It's obvious it still needs some work," Smitherman said, adding he's concerned that the House-passed measure could lead to criminal charges for women who have miscarriages.

"As long as they keep carrying my bills over, I'll work to have discussion on their bills," he said.

Smitherman proved that on Tuesday when he kept the Senate from taking up a House bill that would create a scholarship fund for dental students.

Whether the ongoing feud will affect passage of the $1.6 billion discretionary spending portion of the General Fund budget is unclear. The Senate passed the spending plan Tuesday 34-0.

"I think it's a good, solid budget," said Sen. Roger Bedford, D-Russellville, of the budget that includes an extra $1.9 million for rural fire departments next year.

The Senate-passed General Fund has support from the Legislature's Democratic leadership and Republican Gov. Bob Riley.



Link Posted: 3/22/2006 6:41:53 AM EDT
Damn minority inner city idiots. We need to reinstitute the poll tax, the hell with SCOTUS, and take our state back from idiots of the inner city.
Link Posted: 3/23/2006 7:39:28 AM EDT
Dims will do anything to keep the ability to kill babies.
Top Top