Celebration!

It has been one year since Michigan's Castle Doctrine took effect!

Something to cheer about after the ghastly tax hikes our legislature screwed us with in the wee hours of the morning. Personally, I was getting ready to celebrate a government shut down.

Michigan. Last person out, be sure to turn off the lights.

Courtesy of the Free Press, here is a list of businesses the government will rape:

• Administrative services

• Armored cars

• Astrology

• Baby shoe bronzing

• Bail bonding

• Balloon-o-grams

• Bondspersons

• Business service centers

• Carpet and upholstery cleaning

• Check room services

• Coin-operated blood pressure testing machine services

• Coin-operated locker services

• Coin-operated personal service machines

• Coin-operated photographic machine services

• Comfort station operation services

• Commercial landscaping

• Concierge services

• Consumer-buying services

• Courier services

• Credit card notification services

• Dating services

• Discount buying services

• Document preparation

• Escort services

• Fortune-telling services

• Genealogical investigation services

• Ground passenger services

• House-sitting services

• Interior design

• Investment advice

• Janitorial

• Massages

• Numerology services

• Packaging and labeling

• Palm-reading services

• Party planning services

• Pay telephones

• Personal fitness trainers

• Personal shopping services

• Phrenology services

• Porters

• Private investigators

• Psychic services

• Restroom operation services

• Scenic transportation

• Self-storage

• Service contracts

• Shoe shines

• Singing telegrams

• Skiing

• Social escort services

• Social introduction services

• Storage

• Tanning salons

• Transit

• Travel agent services

• Warehousing

• Wedding chapel services

• Wedding planners

England... Land of the Anti-Self-Defense Clowns

This lovely news out of England - but several Republicans and Democrats want to import it here as soon as possible.

First the story, then some analysis.

A shopkeeper has been fined £250 and given a criminal record because he fought back when he was attacked by shoplifters.

Jacob Smyth chased three youths out of his hardware shop in Penzance, Cornwall, when he was set upon. When he was kicked in the groin by one of the hooded youths who had stolen cans of spray paint Mr Smyth hit back.

Police issued fixed penalty tickets to the shoplifters but charged Mr Smyth and a colleague with assault.

Yesterday he pleaded guilty to assault at Truro Magistrates’ Court. He claimed after the hearing that he had been advised to plead guilty because otherwise he could have faced a six month prison sentence.

The court was told that Mr Smyth, a father of three, caught the youths stealing the spray cans in October last year. Two of them turned on him and he was kicked in his groin just weeks after a vasectomy operation. He retaliated and punched 18-year-old Craig Spiller to the ground.

Paul Gallagher, defending, said: “The court can only imagine what they intended to do with that spray paint. He could see the cans poking out of their pockets. He leant forward to get them and at that stage he was set upon.

“He did punch one of them to get him off. In the heat of the moment he kicked him once or twice. Initially he was acting in self defence. Frustration at the situation took over. The lads were interviewed and given fixed penalty notices by police but unfortunately for Mr Smyth ended up in court today.

“He was the one who was trying to do the right thing and get his stolen property back.”

Julian Herbert, prosecuting, said the “aggravating factor” of the case was shop staff “taking the law into their own hands”. Fining Mr Smyth £250 and ordering him to pay £43 costs, Angy Haslam, chairman of the magistrates, said: “The act was aggravated by the fact you kicked the victim on the ground. We feel it has been mitigated because you acted in self defence.”

Speaking outside court, Mr Smyth said: “I did nothing wrong. I was getting a good beating from this lad. I had no choice but to defend myself.

“We get shoplifters all the time one after the other. We call the police but nothing is ever done. We called them on this occasion and ran after the lads to try and get my property back but then they turned on us. “Am I not allowed to protect my stock and premises from thieves?”

Mr Smyth’s colleague Jason Pascoe, 34, has also been charged with two counts of common assault and will appear in court at a later date.

I don't really know what to say, other than what is it about governments that want a bunch of passive, crime-accepting citizens? Shame on those in the British anti-self-defense movement.

Second, the comments online (as of writing this post) are quite favorable (or should I write "favourable" since we are talking about Britain) to the shopkeeper and against the foolish government actions. The British take a lot of heat from the American pro-gun and pro-self-defense community. Stuff like this shows how much the citizenry realizes they have a right to self-defense, a right their government is denying them. Their leadership has betrayed them, sold them a "feel good" bill of goods that sounds good, but doesn't work. Sound familiar here in the USA?

Third, this kind of thinking is all over the USA as well. The Castle Doctrine laws, in part, are a response to this kind of anti-self-defense blatherskite. How ironic and tragic that the idea - a man's home is his castle - comes out of the English system.

The 2A and Governor Granholm's Resume

Governor Jennifer Granholm is catching a lot of heat these days. No one can blame people for being upset - businesses and citizens are fleeing our state; increasing debt and daily crisis are moving in.

Rather than gripe about her entire job performance, I want to look at her from a 2nd Amendment perspective. Is she doing an adequate job? I say "adequate" because no politician short of Ron Paul would ever do a good job (in regards to the 2A).

She's displayed to major positive 2A actions during her gubernatorial career:

1. She was an Attorney General (i.e. probably fairly anti-gun). Yet, after election to Governor, she signed the Castle Doctrine legislation with no hassle - and took a big hit from her own supporters during an election season.

2. She signed the Emergency Powers Act which bans any disarming of the citizenry during an emergency. That is, no post-Katrina-styled weapons seizures are legal.

Admittedly, the state or local municipalities may choose to violate this law, but at least it made it to law, protecting our right to arms (also part of the Michigan Constitution).

In addition, she's lowered the hunting age for many seasons.

I can also add that every rime I send a communication to her office, I've received a response. I've never experienced this with any other politician at any level of government.

For a Canadian Democrat, she has done a decent job as our governor - limiting the resume only to the 2nd amendment.

The scary part? When it comes to actions, not BS rhetoric, she is more gun-friendly than John McCain or Rudy G.

Update on Michigan's Castle Doctrine

The State of Michigan version of the Castle Doctrine went into effect on October 1, 2006.

Along with Global Warming and Over-Population, this was predicted to be a most devastating blow to the safety, health, and welfare of the people.

Almost six months later, I can report that Michigan, as prophesied, did not become the Wild West. Well, we do have several ghost towns now, but that is an economic problem. Your job may not be safe here in Michigan, but thanks to the Castle Doctrine package, your right to self-defense is stronger than ever.

Michigan - Don't Forget About the Castle Doctrine

Citizens of Michigan: Don't forget to contact Governor Granholm's office and voice your support for the Castle Doctrine package.

Castle Doctrine - Governor Signature Update

Michigan from about 200 miles above. Yes, that's Canada south of Detroit.
Sorry, my castle isn't visible in this picture.

By law, the Castle Doctrine package must be signed by Governor Granholm no later than July 20 - two weeks after both the House and Senate passed the package. All Michigan citizens interested in protecting their right to self-defense must contact the Governor's office and let her know you support the bills.

She is expected to sign the bills, after all, it is an election year. Even if she doesn't, over 80% of legislators approved the package, so it is virtually veto-proof.

But silence and inactivity from Castle Doctrine supporters is absolutely inexcusable. Groups are working around the clock to keep the Governor from signing this bill. Take the few minutes to contact our Governor now, or spend months and thousands of dollars working out your self-defense legal troubles later.

And don't forget why Michigan's Castle Doctrine bill is called the Dr. Ossian Sweet Self-Defense Act. It's a long-established historical fact: People need to defend themselves against hateful brutes.

'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.

The Castle Doctrine and Dr. Ossian Sweet

Michigan residents will notice that the official name of the Castle Doctrine Package is the Dr. Ossian Sweet Self-Defense Act. Why is that? Who was Dr. Sweet?

The inspiration for the bill came from the historical account of Dr. Ossian Sweet’s 1925 trial defending his home against the Ku Klux Klan in Michigan. The case began in 1925 when Ossian Sweet, a Detroit doctor and grandson of slaves, moved his family to a neighborhood where they would be the only black family. This enraged the Ku Klux Klan, who and surrounded his home yelling insults and racial slurs. Some of the crowd rushed and shots were fired from the house. One man was killed and another was injured. Dr. Sweet was charged with murder and eventually acquitted.

Dr. Sweet's picture © The Detroit News
"I have to die like a man or live like a coward." - Dr. Ossian Sweet

Famed attorney Clarence Darrow headed Dr. Sweet's defense team. The Klan had at least 100,000 members in Detroit in 1925. Witnesses - white, non-KKK witnesses, testified that the size of the mob attacking Dr. Sweet's house was at least 400 people. You can read more about Dr. Sweet's ordeal and trial here.

Why should men and women protecting themselves or their family from thugs, be they klansmen or some other kind of hatemonger/murderer/rapist/etc, have to face murder charges for self-defense? It was a travesty in Dr. Sweet's time, and it is a travesty today.

That is why we need to contact Governor Granholm to make sure this legislation passes. I am sure it is just what Dr. Sweet would have ordered.

Dr. Sweet's home as it looks today © The Detroit News

Castle Doctrine - Target: Michigan

Late last week, the Michigan House and Senate
overwhelmingly
passed the Castle Doctrine package. What do I mean by overwhelming? Check the votes:

HB 5142 House: 91 yeas, 16 nays Senate: 27 Yeas, 10 nays, 1 excused
HB 5143 House: 90 yeas, 17 nays Senate: 28 Yeas, 10 nays
HB 5153 House: 90 yeas, 17 nays Senate: 28 Yeas, 10 nays
HB 5548 House: 90 yeas, 17 nays Senate: 28 Yeas, 10 nays
SB 1046 House: 90 yeas, 17 nays Senate: 30 Yeas, 5 nays, 2 excused, 1 not voting
SB 1185 House: 90 yeas, 17 nays Senate: 28 Yeas, 10 nays

81.3% of legislators approved these bills.

Now it is up to Governor Granholm to sign this into legislation.

Michigan residents: Contact Governor Jennifer Granholm's office and encourage her to sign this legislation. This is an election year, and the state is in the crapper economically. She could use some solid PR in her re-election bid, rather than blame every problem on President Bush (as her current ads do).

Click here for Governor Granholm's contact info.

The Castle Doctrine will help the citizens of Michigan by clarifying the rights and duties of law-abiding citizens engaged in self-defense and/or in the defense of others. It also provides much needed immunity from civil liability for self-defense actions.

Michigan's Castle Doctrine

The Castle Doctrine has been falsely accused of allowing people to kill those they don't like, of creating a "Wild, Wild West" atmosphere, and in general of doing nothing to make Michigan citizens safer.

Read for yourself the bills that make up this Castle Doctrine. I challenge anyone to find anything allowing indiscriminant killing or the ability to defend oneself while engaged in criminal activity.

What you will find is specific legal structure as to when it is permissible and not permissible to use lethal force in self-defense without fear of criminal or civil punishment.

HB 5142 (with Senate Amendments):

A bill to amend 1927 PA 175, entitled "The code of criminal procedure,"(MCL 760.1 to 777.69) by adding section 21c to chapter VIII.

The people of the State of Michigan enact:

Chapter VIII Sec. 21C.
(1) in cases in which Section 2 of the Dr. Ossian Sweet self-defense act does not apply, the common law of this state applies except that the duty to retreat before using deadly force is not required if an individual is in his or her own dwelling or within the curtilage of that dwelling.

(2) As used in this section, "dwelling" means a structure or shelter that is used permanently or temporarily as a place of abode, including an appurtenatn structure attached to that structure or shelter.

Enacting section 1. This amendatory act takes effect October 1, 2006.
Enacting section 2. This amendatory act does not take effect unless all of the following bills of the 93rd Legislature are enacted into law:
(a) Senate Bill No. 1046.
(b) Senate Bill No. 1185.
(c) House Bill No. 5143.
(d) House Bill No. 5153.
(e) House Bill No. 5548.

HB 5143 (with Senate Amendments):

A bill to clarify the rights and duties of self-defense and the defense of others.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT:
Sec. 1. This act shall be known and may be cited as the "Dr. Ossian Sweet self-defense act".

Sec. 2. (1) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses deadly force may use deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if either of the following applies:
(a) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another individual.
(b) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent sexual assault of himself or herself or of another individual.

(2) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses force other than deadly force may use force other than deadly force against another
individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if he or she honestly and reasonably believes that the use of that force is necessary to defend himself or herself or another individual from the imminent unlawful use of force by another individual.

Sec. 3. Except as provided in section 2, this act does not modify the common law of this state in existence on October 1, 2006regarding the duty to retreat before using deadly force or force
other than deadly force.

Sec. 4. This act does not diminish an individual's right to use deadly force or force other than deadly force in self-defense or defense of another individual as provided by the common law of
this state in existence on October 1, 2006.

Enacting section 1. This act takes effect October 1, 2006.

Enacting section 2. This act does not take effect unless all of the following bills of the 93rd Legislature are enacted into law:
(a) Senate Bill No. 1046.
(b) Senate Bill No. 1185.
(c) House Bill No. 5142.
(d) House Bill No. 5153.
(e) House Bill No. 5548.

HB 5145 (with Senate Amendments):
A bill to exempt an individual who uses deadly force or force other than deadly force from criminal prosecution under certain circumstances; to establish certain procedures; and to prescribe the duties of certain public officials.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT:
Sec. 1.
(1) An individual who uses deadly force or force other than deadly force in compliance with section 2 of the Dr. Ossian Sweet self-defense act and who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses that deadly force or force other than deadly force commits no crime in using thatdeadly force or force other than deadly force.

(2) If a prosecutor believes that an individual used deadly force or force other than deadly force that is unjustified under section 2 of the Dr. Ossian Sweet self-defense act, the prosecutor may charge the individual with a crime arising from that use of deadly force or force other than deadly force and shall present evidence to the judge or magistrate at the time of warrant issuance, at the time of any preliminary examination, and at the time of any trial establishing that the individual's actions were not justified under section 2 of the Dr. Ossian Sweet self-defense act.

Enacting section 1. This act takes effect October 1, 2006.

Enacting section 2. This act does not take effect unless all of the following bills of the 93rd Legislature are enacted into law:

(a) Senate Bill No. 1046.
(b) Senate Bill No. 1185.
(c) House Bill No. 5142.
(d) House Bill No. 5143.
(e) House Bill No. 5548.

HB 5548 (with Senate Amendments):

A bill to amend 1961 PA 236, entitled "Revised judicature act of 1961," (MCL 600.101 to 600.9947) by adding section 2922b

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT: Sec. 2922b.

An individual who uses deadly force or force other than deadly force in self-defense or in defense of another individual in compliance with section 2 of the Dr Ossian Sweet self-defense act is immune from civil liability for damages caused to either of the following by the use of deadly force or force to either of the following by the use of that deadly force or force other than deadly force: (a) the individual against whom the use of deadly force or force other than deadly for is authorized. (b) any individual claiming damages arising out of injury to or the death of the individucal described in subdivision (a), based upon his or her relationship to that individual.

Enacting section 1. This amendatory act takes effect October 1, 2006.

Enacting section 2. This amendatory act does not take effect unless all of the following bills of the 93rd Legislature are enacted into law:

(a) Senate Bill No. 1046.
(b) Senate Bill No. 1185.
(c) House Bill No. 5142.
(d) House Bill No. 5143.
(e) House Bill No. 5153.

SB 1046 (with House amendments):

A bill to create a rebuttable presumption regarding the use of self-defense or the defense of others.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT:

Sec. 1. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2), it is a rebuttable presumption in a civil or criminal case that an individual who uses deadly force or force other than deadly force under section 2 of the self-defense act has an honest and reasonable belief that imminent death of, sexual assault of, or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another individual will occur if both of the following apply:

(a) The individual against whom deadly force or force other than deadly force is used is in the process of breaking and entering a dwelling or business premises or committing home invasion or has broken and entered a dwelling or business premises or committed home invasion and is still present in the dwelling or business premises, or is unlawfully attempting to remove another individual from a dwelling, business premises, or occupied vehicle against his or her will.

(b) The individual using deadly force or force other than deadly force honestly and reasonably believes that the individual is engaging in conduct described in subdivision (a).

(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if any of the following circumstances exist:

(a) The individual against whom deadly force or force other than deadly force is used, including an owner, lessee, or titleholder, has the legal right to be in the dwelling, business premises, or vehicle and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order, a probation order, or a parole order of no contact against that person.

(b) The individual removed or being removed from the dwelling, business premises, or occupied vehicle is a child or grandchild of, or is otherwise in the lawful custody of or under the lawful
guardianship of, the individual against whom deadly force or force other than deadly force is used.

(c) The individual who uses deadly force or force other than deadly force is engaged in the commission of a crime or is using the dwelling, business premises, or occupied vehicle to further the commission of a crime.

(d) The individual against whom deadly force or force other than deadly force is used is a peace officer who has entered or is attempting to enter a dwelling, business premises, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties in accordance with applicable law.

(e) The individual against whom deadly force or force other than deadly force is used is the spouse or former spouse of the individual using deadly force or force other than deadly force, an
individual with whom the individual using deadly force or otherthan deadly force has or had a dating relationship, an individual with whom the individual using deadly force or other than deadly force has had a child in common, or a resident or former resident of his or her household, and the individual using deadly force or other than deadly force has a prior history of domestic violence as the aggressor.

(3) As used in this section:

(a) "Domestic violence" means that term as defined in section 1 of 1978 PA 389, MCL 400.1501.

(b) "Business premises" means a building or other structure used for the transaction of business, including an appurtenant structure attached to that building or other structure.

(c) "Dwelling" means a structure or shelter that is used permanently or temporarily as a place of abode, including an appurtenant structure attached to that structure or shelter.

(d) "Law enforcement officer of a Michigan Indian tribal police force" means a regularly employed member of a police force of a Michigan Indian tribe who is appointed pursuant to former 25 CFR 12.100 to 12.103.

(e) "Michigan Indian tribe" means a federally recognized Indian tribe that has trust lands located within this state.

(f) "Peace officer" means any of the following:
(i) A regularly employed member of a law enforcement agency authorized and established pursuant to law, including common law, who is responsible for the prevention and detection of crime and the enforcement of the general criminal laws of this state. Peace officer does not include a person serving solely because he or she occupies any other office or position.

(ii) A law enforcement officer of a Michigan Indian tribal police force.

(iii) The sergeant at arms or any assistant sergeant at arms of either house of the legislature who is commissioned as a police officer by that respective house of the legislature as provided by
the legislative sergeant at arms police powers act, 2001 PA 185, MCL 4.381 to 4.382.

(iv) A law enforcement officer of a multicounty metropolitan district.

(v) A county prosecuting attorney's investigator sworn and fully empowered by the sheriff of that county.

(vi) Until December 31, 2007, a law enforcement officer of a school district in this state that has a membership of at least 20,000 pupils and that includes in its territory a city with a population of at least 180,000 as of the most recent federal decennial census.

(vii) A fire arson investigator from a fire department within a city with a population of not less than 750,000 who is sworn and fully empowered by the city chief of police.

(viii) A security employee employed by the state pursuant to section 6c of 1935 PA 59, MCL 28.6c.

(ix) A motor carrier officer appointed pursuant to section 6d of 1935 PA 59, MCL 28.6d.

(x) A police officer or public safety officer of a community college, college, or university who is authorized by the governing board of that community college, college, or university to enforce

state law and the rules and ordinances of that community college, college, or university.

(g) "Vehicle" means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, that is designed to transport people or property.

Enacting section 1. This act takes effect October 1, 2006.

Enacting section 2. This act does not take effect unless all of the following bills of the 93rd Legislature are enacted into law:

(a) Senate Bill No. 1185.
(b) House Bill No. 5142.
(c) House Bill No. 5143.
(d) House Bill No. 5153.
(e) House Bill No. 5548.

SB 1185 (with House amendments):

A bill to amend 1961 PA 236, entitled "Revised judicature act of 1961," (MCL 600.101 to 600.9947) by adding section 2922c.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT:

Sec. 2922c.

The court shall award the payment of actual attorney fees and costs to an individual who is sued for civil damages for allegedly using deadly force or force other than deadly force against another individual if the court determines that the individual used deadly foce or force other than deadly force in compliance with Section 2 of the Dr. Ossian Sweet self-defense act and that the individual is immune from civil liability under Section 2922B.

Enacting section 1. This amendatory act takes effect October 1, 2006.

Enacting section 2. This amendatory act does not take effect unless all of the following bills of the 93rd Legislature are enacted into law:

(a) Senate Bill No. 1046.
(b) House Bill No. 5142.
(c) House Bill No. 5143.
(d) House Bill No. 5153.
(e) House Bill No. 5548.

Castle Doctrine Takes A Step Forward In Michigan

The headline screamed out in bold print: Michigan Senate approves self-defense bills. Yes, the right to self-defense, long a right the State of Michigan refused to allow it's citizens to enjoy, is one step closer to law.

The bills would allow people to use deadly force, with no duty to retreat, if they reasonably think they face imminent death, great bodily harm or sexual assault. They could use deadly force on their property or anywhere they have a legal right to be.

The legislation also would protect people from civil lawsuits if they have used force in self-defense.

The six-bill package is backed by the National Rifle Association but opposed by anti-gun groups. The Senate voted 28-10 and 30-8 to pass two bills, and plans to send the other bills in the package to the House Wednesday.

Michigan residents - contact your representatives. Our state senators did their duty - now it is time for our reps to do theirs... then we must make sure our Democratic governor does her duty as well. Of course, the liberals want to keep us under their thumbs, as former mayor of Ann Arbor (also known as Moscow on the Huron) and current state senator Brater made clear:

We're creating a wild west mentality in this state and I oppose it.

Of course, Sen. Alan Cropsey, aand sponsor of one bill, is able to cite lots of cases that plain "shoot down" the liberal argument. He adds: "this type of nonsense needs to end," and reminds us that that much of the legislation codifies existing judge-made law.

After all, I thought our elected legistlators, not judges, were supposed to make law.

Michigan residents - make your voice known.

To see the bills (they are a quick read, and not in legalese), click here.

Tags: Castle Doctrine , Self Defense

Michigan Castle Doctrine

Click here to read the Michigan Castle Doctrine Bill (SB 1046) which is going before the Senate Judiciary Committee tomorrow.

Go ahead, click it. The bill is only 5 pages long and it isn't full of legalese. If you are a Michigan resident, you owe it to your self and your fellow citizens to understand this proposed legislation.

Tags: Castle Doctrine

Michigan Castle Doctrine Hearings

From NRA-ILA

Michigan State Senate Committee hears "Castle Doctrine" legislation!

On Tuesday, May 16, Senate Bill 1046, "Castle Doctrine" legislation sponsored by Senator Alan Cropsey (R-33) is scheduled to be heard by the Senate Judiciary Committee. This legislation will help the citizens of Michigan in two important ways:

• protects your right to self-defense, and ensures you do not have a "duty to retreat" from a violent attacker; and
• gives immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force.

Please call the Senate Judiciary Committee at (517) 373-3760 and respectfully ask them to support SB 1046.

Tags: Castle Doctrine

Michigan Castle Doctrine Bill Going Before State House

Click here to read the text of the bill known as the "Castle Doctrine" - don't worry, it is easy-to-read and brief.

From NRA-ILA

Michigan "Castle Doctrine" Package Moving Forward!

Your Help Is Needed!

This week the House Judiciary Committee passed HB 5142, sponsored by Representative Tom Casperson (R-108), HB 5143, sponsored by Representative Rick Jones (R-71), HB 5153, sponsored by Representative Leslie Mortimer (R-65), and HB 5548, sponsored by Representative Tim Moore (R-97), which make up the important "Castle Doctrine" package.

This legislative package will help the citizens of Michigan by clarifying the rights and duties of self-defense and the defense of others within ones home and/or occupied vehicle and provide immunity from civil liability for self-defense actions.

The "Castle Doctrine" package is scheduled to be heard by the full House on Tuesday, April 25.

Please contact your State Representative and ask him or her to support HB 5142, HB5143, HB 5153, and HB 5548 as passed by the House Judiciary Committee.

If you don't already know him/her, FIND YOUR REPRESENTATIVE HERE.

Tags: Gun Control , Gun Rights , 2nd amendment , Castle Doctrine , Self Defense

Michigan Residents - Here is the Castle Doctrine Bill

Introduced as Michigan Senate Bill 1046, the bill is House Bill 5143, Michigan's version of the Castle Doctrine.

It doesn't have a lot of legalese, and as you read, you can see for yourself this is good and reasonable legislation. Notice that, unlike the "this will turn Michigan into Tombstone" threatens, this bill also clearly defines when lethal force may not be used in self-defense.

Please note some other self-defnse bills:
House Bill 5142,(a simple amendment to current state law),

House Bill 5153, House Bill 5548.

HOUSE BILL No. 5143


February 15, 2006, Introduced by Senator CROPSEY and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.

A bill to clarify the rights and duties of self-defense and the defense of others; to provide for criminal and civil immunity under certain circumstances; to regulate the investigation of incidents involving self-defense or the defense of others; and to provide for certain remedies.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT:

Sec. 1. (1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if both of the following apply:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or that person had removed or was attempting to remove another person against that person's will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle.

(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if any of the following apply:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person.

(b) The person sought to be removed is a child or grandchild of, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used.

(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity.

(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

(5) As used in this section:

(a) "Dwelling" means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, that has a roof over it, including a tent, and that is designed to be occupied by people.

(b) "Residence" means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.

(c) "Vehicle" means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, that is designed to transport people or property.

Sec. 2. (1) A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another person when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that the conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force.

(2) A person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty under this section to retreat if either of the following applies:

(a) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.

(b) Any of the circumstances enumerated under section 1.

Sec. 3. (1) A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that the use of force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with real property, other than a dwelling or personal property, that is lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another person who is a member of his or her immediate family or household, or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect.

(2) A person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person does not have a duty under this section to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

Sec. 4. (1) A person who uses force as permitted in section 1, 2, or 3 is justified in using that force and is immune from criminal prosecution and from any civil action for the use of that force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, "criminal prosecution" includes charging or prosecuting the defendant.

(2) The court shall award reasonable attorney fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

Tags: Gun Control , Gun Rights , 2nd amendment , Castle Doctrine , Self Defense

Castle Doctrine Coming to Michigan? Residents - Contact Your State Legislator

From the NRA-ILA on April 14:

Michigan "Castle Doctrine" Legislation has upcoming hearing!

The Michigan House Judiciary Committee will be hearing important self-defense legislation on Tuesday, April 18 at 10:30 a.m. It is important that law-abiding citizens contact Chairman William VanRegenmorter and fellow committee members and ask him or her to pass HB 5143 and companion bills that are part of the Castle Doctrine package.

The "Castle Doctrine" legislation that has already passed in Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Mississippi, and South Dakota will also help the citizens of Michigan by clarifying the rights and duties of self-defense and the defense of others within ones home and/or occupied vehicle.

Please contact the House Judiciary Committee as soon as possible!

Your voice needs to be heard by this committee!

Contact information for the House Judiciary Committee members can be found below:
William VanRegenmorter (R-74), Committee Chair: (517) 373-8900;
Email: wmvanreg@house.mi.gov

Tonya Schuitmaker (R-80), Majority Vice-Chair: (517) 373-0839;
Email: tonyaschuitmaker@house.mi.gov

Alexander Lipsey (D-60), Minority Vice-Chair: (517) 373-1785;
Email: alexanderlipsey@house.mi.gov

Stephen Adamini (D-109): (517) 373-0498;
Email: stephenadamini@house.mi.gov

Steve Bieda (D-25): (517) 373-1772;
Email: stevebieda@house.mi.gov

Paul Condino (D-35): (517) 373-1788;
Email: paulcondino@house.mi.gov

Kevin Elsenheimer (R-105): (517) 373-0829;
Email: kevinelsenheimer@house.mi.gov

Rick Jones (R-71): (517) 373-0853;
Email: rickjones@house.mi.gov

David Law (R-39): (517) 373-1799;
Email: davidlaw@house.mi.gov

Bill McConico (D-5): (517) 373-0144;
Email: repbillmcconico@house.mi.gov

Gary Newell (R-87): (517) 373-0842;
Email: repgarynewell@house.mi.gov

Mike Nofs (R-62): (517) 373-0555;
Email: mikenofs@house.mi.gov

Tory Rocca (R-30): (517) 373-7768;
Email: toryrocca@house.mi.gov

Virgil Smith (D-7): (517) 373-0589;
Email: virgilsmith@house.mi.gov

John Stakoe (R-44): (517) 373-2616;
Email: johnstakoe@house.mi.gov

For more information about "Castle Doctrine" and other legislation in Michigan and around the nation, please go to the "action alerts" feature at http://www.nraila.org/.

Tags: Gun Control , Gun Rights , 2nd amendment , Castle Doctrine , Self Defense

Michigan Senate Bill 1046

In case anyone is interested, here is the Michigan Senate Bill 1046, Michigan's version of the Castle Doctrine.

It doesn't have a lot of legalese, and as you read, you can see for yourself this is pretty good and reasonable legislation.

It may be viewed online at the
Michigan Legislature web site. The website will also produce updates about the legislation as it passes through the voting process.

SENATE BILL No. 1046


February 15, 2006, Introduced by Senator CROPSEY and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.



A bill to clarify the rights and duties of self-defense and the defense of others; to provide for criminal and civil immunity under certain circumstances; to regulate the investigation of incidents involving self-defense or the defense of others; and to provide for certain remedies.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT:

Sec. 1. (1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if both of the following apply:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or that person had removed or was attempting to remove another person against that person's will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle.

(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if any of the following apply:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person.

(b) The person sought to be removed is a child or grandchild of, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used.

(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity.

(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

(5) As used in this section:

(a) "Dwelling" means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, that has a roof over it, including a tent, and that is designed to be occupied by people.

(b) "Residence" means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.

(c) "Vehicle" means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, that is designed to transport people or property.

Sec. 2. (1) A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another person when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that the conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force.

(2) A person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty under this section to retreat if either of the following applies:

(a) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.

(b) Any of the circumstances enumerated under section 1.

Sec. 3. (1) A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that the use of force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with real property, other than a dwelling or personal property, that is lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another person who is a member of his or her immediate family or household, or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect.

(2) A person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person does not have a duty under this section to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

Sec. 4. (1) A person who uses force as permitted in section 1, 2, or 3 is justified in using that force and is immune from criminal prosecution and from any civil action for the use of that force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, "criminal prosecution" includes charging or prosecuting the defendant.

(2) The court shall award reasonable attorney fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

Tags: Gun Control , Gun Rights , 2nd amendment , Castle Doctrine , Self Defense

My Letter to the Editor

The Free Press only allows 150 words to respond, so I had to keep it short. Nonetheless, here is my response to the article:

I was disappointed in Chris Christoff’s poor representation of the self-defense bill now before the Michigan Senate Judiciary Committee. It almost appears he never read the proposed legislation. This bill nowhere allows “gun-toting citizens” to “shoot first and ask questions later.” Rather, this bill clarifies the rights and duties of those engaged in self-defense (with or without a firearm). It also lays out circumstances when deadly force may not be used.

This bill clearly and at great length states these self-defense protections do not apply to those engaged in illegal acts. It will not allow a gang member to get away with murder, no matter which anti-gun “expert” Mr. Christoff quotes.

“Now, Cropsey and the NRA want to tell trained gun owners: Remember those legal technicalities over blasting someone? Don’t bother. Just shoot.” Pure drivel, reported as fact. Unfortunately, the Free Press chose to place this article in the Local section instead of the Editorials.

Tags: Gun Control , Gun Rights , 2nd amendment , Castle Doctrine , Self Defense

Free Press Writer Answers David Quammen

David Quammen of GunShowOnTheNet received a response to his letter to Detroit Free Press writer Chris Christoff.

To view Mr. Christoff's article - posted in the Local section of the Detroit Free Press on Monday, not in the opinion page - click here.

Mr. Christoff's response is posted today David's blog gunshowonthenet.blogspot.com.

Tags: Gun Control , Gun Rights , 2nd amendment , Castle Doctrine , Self Defense

Response to the Free Press Article

E. David Quammen of GunShowOnTheNet wrote this response to the Detroit Free Press article mentioned here at 2 Valuable yesterday.

Brief, well-written, and to the point.

Tags: Gun , 2nd amendment , Castle Doctrine , Self Defense