Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

HF 1467-- Major Pro-Gun Legislation in MN House

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • HF 1467-- Major Pro-Gun Legislation in MN House

    I saw that a major piece of pro-gun legislation will be moving through the House Public Safety Committee tomorrow (Thursday 4/28). Two of the big things the bill would do would remove a person's "duty to retreat" when outside of their home, so that the could use deadly force if they are attacked any place they have a lawful right to be. It would also create the presumption that someone illegally entering your home is there to cause significant bodily harm or death. I believe the current law puts the onus on the individual to show that they reasonably believe that the person is there to commit a felony, whereas this bill would make it so that that is assumed.

    http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=6683

    http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/bil...ssionvar=20110

    Thoughts?


  • #2
    Sounds awesome, wish MD would do the same.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Hokie13 View Post
      Sounds awesome, wish MD would do the same.
      I don't know what chance it has of passing. I think this has been introduced in the past, but maybe now with the GOP controlled house and senate, it will at least make it to Dayton. Hopefully he would sign it. If it were passed by both chambers, I would definitely give Dayton's office a call to let him know where I stand.

      Comment


      • #4
        Good luck!

        Comment


        • #5
          Well I like portions of the bill, I do not necessarily care for the removal of the duty to retreat when you are outside of your home.
          Happy to be here proud to serve

          "Well it appears this lock does not accept american express."

          Never trust fire fighters to point out a suspect.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by squad51 View Post
            Well I like portions of the bill, I do not necessarily care for the removal of the duty to retreat when you are outside of your home.
            I can see that potentially causing problems.

            Comment


            • #7
              yikes! This is some bad legislation. I work in a college town and we have numerous cases of drunken college kids that think they are home and crash in a house that isn't theirs. Killing a drunken college kid that committed a misdemeanor trespass isn't right! What is the deal with a vehilce? Do you have to be in the vehicle? If not, you shoot somebody on a misdemeanor vehicle tampering? Really? Why not make it a felony to burglarize a vehicle?

              What is a forcible felony? A guy gets into a fight, gets his nose broken and shoots somebody? What if the bad guy started the felony and gets his a ss handed to him and now he is a victim of a forcible felony and pulls his gun and shoots the victim? Really?

              So, if I'm a victim of a forcible felony while I'm working, do I get to shoot? I've been assaulted numerous times over the years.....there would be some dead folks.

              Judge, jury and executioner. Not good law.

              Comment


              • #8
                I pulled up the bill and read it. I still don't like it.

                Comment


                • #9
                  In the same respect that there wasn't armed mayhem in the streets when Minnesota became a 'shall issue' state, I seriously doubt that removing the duty to retreat, etc is going to cause lawlessness and unjustified shootings of trespassing college students.

                  If you ask me, this bill is a win for the good guys. Protecting regular people from civil and criminal liability for using force including deadly force to protect themselves and theirs from the savagery of the criminal element, that's a win.

                  I'd rather that the law spells it out, than to take my chances with some sleazy attorneys and a bleeding heart judge rendering an interpretation of what is reasonable.

                  We, as peace officers are given enormous responsibility with statute 609.066. I imagine that when that particular legislation was introduced long ago, the same arguments applied, i.e., 'the cops will shoot everybody and ask questions later'.

                  So, if I'm a victim of a forcible felony while I'm working, do I get to shoot? I've been assaulted numerous times over the years.....there would be some dead folks.
                  Seriously? This is a rhetorical question, right? We are allowed to use reasonable force to carry out our duties and to protect ourselves and/or others. But, you know that.

                  The proposed legislation in my opinion is extending protection to private persons to use reasonable force in mostly the same respect.

                  Currently, all it takes now to run afoul of the law is a publicity seeking county attorney and a bleeding heart judge to take away all that one holds close to their heart. I would hate to be that private person...

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Like I said, I just think this is all around bad legislation. I do see the potential to "shoot everybody and ask questions later" like you mentioned. We have numerous cases throughout the year of drunken students walking into homes that aren't theirs and passing out or getting into altercations with the homeowner. I just don't see how you can justify shooting somebody over a simple misdemeanor trespass.

                    Have you read the definition of a forcible felony? We as officers will be held to a higher standard and will only be able to use deadly force: "to protect the peace officer or another from apparent death or great bodily harm". And, no it wasn't a rhetorical question...that was why I asked it.

                    Under the pending legislation the definition of a "forcible felony": "Forcible felony" means any crime punishable by imprisonment exceeding one
                    year the elements of which include the use or threatened use of physical force or a deadly
                    weapon against the person of another.

                    Just the threatended us of physical force would be considered a forcible felony. How many times have you heard "I'm going to kill you". Or, "I'm going to shoot you" and there really isn't any intent other than a hot head looking at a terroristic threats charge. So, there is your threatened use of physical force.

                    I just don't like it. And, I do agree with your take on a CA looking to take a case to a grand jury. How many cops have gone through that on a clearly justifiable shooting? Too many.
                    Last edited by sigcopper; 04-29-2011, 05:52 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Sigcopper-

                      Your concerns are definitely valid, and I know that several news stories have indicated that many in the LE field share your same concerns. I know a former co-worker who was guilty of being drunk and trying to get into the wrong house. He ended up being arrested by MPD and it would have been awful if he had been killed by a homeowner in that situation. It's unfortunate that we can't simply write a section into the law requiring people to exercise common sense.

                      I don't know that this law is perfect, and I also don't know what it would be like to be an officer and having to deal with this law. I suspect that, as CSaL indicated, it won't be chaos in the streets with every man woman and child shooting anyone who walked onto their property.
                      Last edited by phillydog07; 04-29-2011, 05:59 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        If we all had common sense that would be a different thing. But, as we all know there are a lot of people that are just plain dumb with guns and would like to take advantage of this situation. I have run across these types time and time again and it just plain scares me. I could easily see a drunken person or person suffering from a mental illness such as Alzheimer's going into the wrong house and not coming out alive. Thinking about, we have had Alzheimer patients going into wrong homes totally confused. Under this piece of legislation all bets are off and ask questions later. I'm all for protecting ones self but common sense needs to prevail here.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          And an update on the bill, it passed the public safety sub-committee and will now move to the house judiciary committee.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I like that you can defend your home and that it elminates threat of prosecution and liability but out and about in public? I like that people have the duty to retreat, and actually they only have to consider retreat... but any how
                            Happy to be here proud to serve

                            "Well it appears this lock does not accept american express."

                            Never trust fire fighters to point out a suspect.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              The definition of "dwelling" is a stretch. We can't even get the same for burglary but for this bill you can? Unattached building? Crazy!

                              "Dwelling" means a building defined under section 609.556, subdivision 3, an
                              6.6overnight stopping accommodation of any kind, or a place of abode, that an individual
                              6.7temporarily or permanently is occupying or intending to occupy as a habitation or home.
                              6.8A dwelling may include, but is not limited to, a building or conveyance and that building's
                              6.9or conveyance's curtilage and any attached or adjacent deck, porch, appurtenance, or
                              6.10other structure, whether the building or conveyance is used temporarily or permanently
                              6.11for these purposes, is mobile or immobile, or is a motor vehicle, watercraft, motor home,
                              6.12tent, or the equivalent.

                              Comment

                              MR300x250 Tablet

                              Collapse

                              What's Going On

                              Collapse

                              There are currently 5001 users online. 293 members and 4708 guests.

                              Most users ever online was 26,947 at 07:36 PM on 12-29-2019.

                              Welcome Ad

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X