No announcement yet.

Hopefully Minnesota will expand Gun Rights


300x250 Mobile

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Hopefully Minnesota will expand Gun Rights


    Hope this passes with enough votes to be veto-proof from Gov. Dayton. It is expected to pass the House and Senate easily.

    I know there is a Republican majority in the House and Senate, but if they have enough to be veto-proof I'm not sure.


    Gun measure advances again in Legislature

    Updated: May 13, 2011 - 7:47 PM

    The bill, which expands gun owners' defense rights, now heads for the full House and Senate.

    A bill that would expand Minnesotans' right to use deadly force in self-defense cleared its final committee in the state Senate Friday. The bill now heads for the full House and Senate, where GOP majorities are poised to pass it.

    The Senate Finance Committee approved the Defense of Dwelling and Person Act along party lines, with DFL members voting against it.

    Along with DFL opposition, the bill has been criticized by members of the state's law enforcement establishment, who say it will put officers and citizens at an increased risk of being shot. Gov. Mark Dayton also opposes it, saying he shares the concerns of police chiefs, sheriffs, prosecutors and officers.

    Sen. Gretchen Hoffman, R-Vergas, said she sponsored the bill because "I firmly believe in my right to defend myself as a law-abiding citizen against criminals."

    The bill would expand what is known as the "Castle Doctrine," allowing residents to use deadly force to defend themselves beyond their homes, including a garage, vehicle, tent or boat.

    Sen. Keith Langseth, DFL-Glyndon, noted that he has long been a supporter of the National Rifle Association but said "this bill goes too far."

    "It sure seems like it will encourage people" to resort prematurely to deadly force, he said.

    Hoffman replied that if it becomes law, "we won't have gun-wielding Wild West citizens shooting [people]."

    Sen. Terri Bonoff, DFL-Minnetonka, repeated law enforcement fears, adding, "I'm concerned we're increasing violence in our communities."



  • #2
    Hell no! Everyone i work with including myself are opposed to this. I'm absolutely a supporter of the 2nd ammendment and the righht to carry and defemd yourself, but not this!

    The problem is there are to many nutjobs out there that will use this to the fullest. We have crotchy old vets in town that have Expressed an extreme dislike to government and specifically police. If im checking yards for or chasing a suspect late at night i dont want to be worrying about being shot because im in someones back yard. How many times have you went to a call of a drunk pounding on someones door trying to get in late at night and theyre at the wrong house? Ive had drunks literally walk right in to the wrong house! Do they deserve to die for that?
    It's better to be tried by twelve than carried by six...


    • #3
      This topic was discussed before.

      The law really is not about gun rights. It is about self-defense rights. And it does not give you the right to shoot someone just because he assaults you. I do not see anything about yards.

      Because the actual language of the bill is not posted, I can't tell what "vehicle" refers to. In many states, the "castle doctrine" applies to motor homes.
      Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley
      Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. -- Albert Einstein


      • #4
        I havent seen the actual language either, unfortunately going off what has been shared through the papers and the news. Theyre claiming it includes youre property ie. Outside your house. I just dont see whats wrong with the current use of deadly force statute? If you reasonably fear someone is going to cause great bodily harm or death to you or another you can use deadly force. I just think if you change the verbage on this like theyre saying the word reasonable to some people will include someone walking up to their back windows late at night.
        It's better to be tried by twelve than carried by six...


        • #5

          Here is some of the bill.

          Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 2010, section 609.065, is amended to read:
          3.32 Subdivision 1. Definitions. The intentional taking of the life of another is not
          3.33authorized by section 609.06, except when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense
          3.34which the actor reasonably believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or
          4.1death, or preventing the commission of a felony in the actor's place of abode.
          (a) For
          4.2purposes of this section, the terms in this subdivision have the meanings given them.
          4.3(b) "Court order" means an order for protection issued under section 518B.01, a
          4.4restraining order issued under section 609.748, a no contact order issued under section
          4.5518B.01 or 629.75, or a substantively similar order issued by any court in this state,
          4.6another state, the United States, or any subordinate jurisdiction of the United States.
          4.7(c) "Deadly force" means force used by an individual with the purpose of causing,
          4.8or which the individual should reasonably know creates a substantial risk of causing,
          4.9great bodily harm or death. The intentional discharge of a firearm by an individual at
          4.10another person, or at a vehicle in which another person is believed to be, constitutes
          4.11deadly force. A threat to cause great bodily harm or death, by the production of a weapon
          4.12or otherwise, constitutes reasonable force and not deadly force, when the individual's
          4.13objective is limited to creating an expectation that the individual will use deadly force
          4.14only if authorized by law.
          4.15(d) "Dwelling" means a building defined under section 609.556, subdivision 3, an
          4.16overnight stopping accommodation of any kind, or a place of abode, that an individual
          4.17temporarily or permanently is occupying or intending to occupy as a habitation or home.
          4.18A dwelling includes, but is not limited to, a building or conveyance and that building's
          4.19or conveyance's curtilage and any attached or adjacent deck, porch, appurtenance, or
          4.20other structure, whether the building or conveyance is used temporarily or permanently
          4.21for these purposes, is mobile or immobile, or is a motor vehicle, watercraft, motor home,
          4.22tent, or the equivalent.
          4.23(e) "Forcible felony" means any crime punishable by imprisonment exceeding one
          4.24year the elements of which include the use or threatened use of physical force or a deadly
          4.25weapon against the person of another, including but not limited to: murder in the first and
          4.26second degrees; manslaughter in the first degree; assault in the first, second, and third
          4.27degrees; criminal sexual conduct in the first and second degrees; arson in the first degree;
          4.28burglary in the first, second, and third degrees; robbery; and kidnapping.
          4.29 (f) "Good faith" includes honesty in fact in the conduct of the act concerned.
          4.30(g) "Great bodily harm" has the meaning given in section 609.02, subdivision 7a.
          4.31 (h) "Imminent" means the actor infers from all the facts and circumstances that the
          4.32course of conduct has commenced.
          4.33(i) "Substantial bodily harm" has the meaning given in section 609.02, subdivision 8.
          4.34(j) "Vehicle" means a conveyance of any type.
          4.35 Subd. 2. Circumstances when authorized. (a) The use of deadly force by an
          4.36individual is justified under this section when the act is undertaken:
          5.1(1) to resist or prevent the commission of a felony in the individual's dwelling;
          5.2(2) to resist or prevent what the individual reasonably believes is an offense or
          5.3attempted offense that imminently exposes the individual or another person to substantial
          5.4bodily harm, great bodily harm, or death; or
          5.5(3) to resist or prevent what the individual reasonably believes is the commission or
          5.6imminent commission of a forcible felony.
          5.7(b) The use of deadly force is not authorized under this section if the individual
          5.8knows that the person against whom force is being used is a licensed peace officer from
          5.9this state, another state, the United States, or any subordinate jurisdiction of the United
          5.10States, who is acting lawfully.
          5.11 Subd. 3. Degree of force; retreat. An individual taking defensive action pursuant
          5.12to subdivision 2 may use all force and means, including deadly force, that the individual
          5.13in good faith believes is required to succeed in defense. The individual may meet force
          5.14with superior force when the individual's objective is defensive; the individual is not
          5.15required to retreat; and the individual may continue defensive actions against an assailant
          5.16until the danger has ended.
          5.17 Subd. 4. Presumptions. (a) An individual using deadly force is presumed to possess
          5.18a reasonable belief that there exists an imminent threat of substantial bodily harm, great
          5.19bodily harm, or death to the individual or another person, if the individual knows or
          5.20has reason to know that:
          5.21(1) the person against whom the defensive action is being taken is unlawfully
          5.22entering or attempting to enter by force or by stealth, or has unlawfully entered by force or
          5.23by stealth and remains within, the dwelling or occupied vehicle of the individual; or
          5.24(2) the person against whom the defensive action is being taken is in the process of
          5.25removing, or attempting to remove, the individual or another person from the dwelling or
          5.26occupied vehicle of the individual.
          5.27(b) An individual is not entitled to the benefit of the presumption in paragraph (a) if
          5.28the individual knows that the person against whom the defensive action is being taken:
          5.29(1) is a lawful resident of the dwelling or a lawful possessor of the vehicle, or is
          5.30otherwise lawfully permitted to enter the dwelling or vehicle; or
          5.31(2) is a person who has lawful custody of the person being removed from the
          5.32dwelling or vehicle or whose removal from the dwelling or vehicle is being attempted.
          5.33A person who is prohibited by a court order from contacting another individual or
          5.34from entering a dwelling or possessing a vehicle of another individual is not a lawful
          5.35resident of that individual's dwelling and is not a lawful possessor of that individual's
          6.1 (c) An individual using defensive force is not entitled to the benefit of the
          6.2presumption in paragraph (a) if the individual is presently engaged in a crime or attempting
          6.3to escape from the scene of a crime, or is presently using the dwelling or occupied vehicle
          6.4in furtherance of a crime.
          6.5 Subd. 5. Criminal investigation; immunity from prosecution. (a) An individual
          6.6who uses force, including deadly force, according to this section or as otherwise provided
          6.7by law in defense of the individual, the individual's dwelling, or another individual is
          6.8justified in using such force and is immune from any criminal prosecution for that act.
          6.9(b) A law enforcement agency may arrest an individual using force under
          6.10circumstances described in this section only after considering any claims or circumstances
          6.11supporting self-defense or lawful defense of another individual.
          6.12 Subd. 6. Justifiable use of force; burden of proof. In a criminal trial, when there
          6.13is any evidence of justifiable use of force under this section or section 609.06, the state
          6.14has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's actions were
          6.15not justifiable.
          6.16 Subd. 7. Short title. This section may be cited as the "Defense of Dwelling and
          6.17Person Act of 2011."
          6.18EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective August 1, 2011, and applies to uses
          6.19of deadly force occurring on or after that date.
          Last edited by KJB; 05-14-2011, 04:50 PM.


          • #6
            Thanks for posting that...while I completely understand the good in this bill and what they're trying to accomplish, a lot of it is very convoluted. For reasonable and responsible people, there would be no problems...I'm just concerned it would get used improperly by individuals who interpret it the wrong way. That happens with everything, though...
            It's better to be tried by twelve than carried by six...


            • #7
              It looks like the bill was changed quite a bit since introduction. I can't tell what it would do.
              Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley
              Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. -- Albert Einstein


              • #8
                That's insane...I can't even get in a vehicle chase with a suspect for a property crime and people in Texas can kill people over it.
                It's better to be tried by twelve than carried by six...


                • #9
                  It seems that every month my department has a new policy coming out to hinder the officers from doing what the public expects. Expanding super citizen powers might be the only way some people can get rid of the prowlers, dealers, burglars, and alike. We're receiving new search and seizure training tomorrow that will say my training and experience is no longer valid in recognizing contraband in a terry frisk. My duties regarding report writing will require all of my energy in order to articulate why I patted down a drug dealer since he wasn't physically aggressive. I also fear for the worst, but at this point, the administration has already endangered my safety... MN is much better than some states that require a person to retreat to the back of their home or in some cases completely leave the home in order to retreat...at least we are allowed to defend ourselves. People also panicked over the carry law, but I've only had to arrest two permit holders for being drunk and stupid. I know a ton of good peeps carrying that aren't cops; I personally feel more comfortable knowing these citizens are secretly carrying and probably have my back if that should ever come into play.


                  • #10
                    Getbusy- the sooner you figure out that cops in MN are only for show the better off you will be. Face it, the courts and those that make the laws dont want us to do a darn thing but drive around and make it look good.


                    • #11
                      Sigcopper--you're absolutely right.


                      MR300x250 Tablet


                      What's Going On


                      There are currently 6557 users online. 341 members and 6216 guests.

                      Most users ever online was 158,966 at 04:57 AM on 01-16-2021.

                      Welcome Ad