'Castle doctrine' lesson? Stay out of the Wrong Castle

From Michigan Gun Owners Forum

Detractors of Mississippi's new "Castle doctrine" law are fretting as Senate Bill 2426 goes into effect this week.

They say that the law legitimizes the notion of "shoot first and ask questions later."

They say that the law will make it easier for criminals to claim self-defense when they kill someone.

They say that the law will encourage more people to buy guns and empower them to use them without fear of civil liability if they injure or kill someone.

All three of those criticisms are correct.

But there's a simple solution to those problem areas in the "Castle doctrine."

People who stay out of the wrong "castle" should be fine. It's difficult to be shot as an intruder if one only enters homes or cars or businesses to which one has both a key to gain entrance and a legal right to be on the premises.

The new law removes the "duty to retreat" when one is threatened in his or her home, car or in the street. It also removes civil liability from killing an intruder or attacker.

But the protections don't apply when a person claims self-defense when shooting a law enforcement officer or another person who has a lawful right to be on the premises of the shooting.

Further, the "duty to retreat" has never existed in state law prior to the adoption of the "Castle doctrine."

But that's mostly legalese.

The safety valve for the "Castle doctrine" is for burglars, crackheads, carjackers, strong-arm robbers, muggers, rapists, thieves and other assorted boils on the butt of humanity to stay out of homes, cars, stores, offices and other domiciles that don't belong to them and to stop mugging, robbing, raping and stealing.

Those who utilize that course of action aren't terribly likely to be shot. Those who don't likely will be.

Read the rest of the article here, originally from Mississippi's The Clarion-Ledger.