Yeah, let's jump to conclusions based on a biased left wing source that labels "Castle Doctrine law" with some sensationalist crap like "Shoot first law". Here's the full bill for HF1467:
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill. ... ssion=ls87
I'm interested to hear what anyone educated in law has to say. But I'll read through it later and then give my two cents on it. Meanwhile, here's what a pro-gun source has to say about it:
http://robdoar.com/mn-house-re-passes-h ... tons-desk/
Quote:
Adds Stand Your Ground
HF1467 brings “Stand Your Ground” protections to Minnesota, removing the requirement that an intended victim of violent crime must retreat from a place where he has a right to be before using deadly force in self defense.
Enhances Castle Doctrine
The bill also strengthens Minnesota’s “Castle Doctrine,” clarifying when and under what circumstances individuals can legally use deadly force to protect themselves in their homes and vehicles. In addition, it creates a presumption that, when faced with an apparent home invasion, carjacking or kidnapping attempt, a person may use deadly force in self defense.
Adds Universal Carry Permit Acceptance
Of particular interest to carry permit holders, the final article of the bill updates our carry permit reciprocity standards, allowing people holding carry permits from any other state to carry in Minnesota (under Minnesota law, of course). This should result in a large increase in the number of states where Minnesota permit holders can carry, since many states allow other states’ permit holders to carry on a reciprocal basis.
Prevents Gun Seizures During a State of Emergency
Taking a lesson from the problems in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, the bill also bans government agencies from seizing guns or ammo, revoking permits to purchase or carry, closing gun shops, or otherwise suspending our constitutional rights during a civil emergency — or at any other time. It also prohibits law enforcement officers from seizing a person’s gun, unless the person is arrested, or the gun is evidence of a crime.
Enhances Purchase Permit Rights
The bill also borrows a page from the Permit to Carry law, providing a more robust appeal process for denied purchase permits, and requiring that police chiefs and sheriffs whose purchase permit denials are overturned must pay the applicants’ legal costs.
I'm still reserving judgment til I read the full bill, but who would've thought that this bill had way more to do with just the use of force given the OP?
Vexcalibur wrote:
Yes, cause a law asking for something as subjective as "felt reasonably threatened" is not ever going to be abused in court to defend all sorts of murders and no jury would ever, ever fall to apply that view.
"He looked like a criminal!"
You don't know what the courts constitute as "reasonable" so maybe jumping to conclusions and being a douche about it isn't a good idea.
01 Mar 2012, 5:03 pm
