Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

Taggure wrote:

no person shall be required to retreat or break off his participation in any conflict prior to the use of appropriate force against an intruder when the resident is within his home or the curtilage thereof, regardless of how such conflict began or by whom.

So this section would mean to me that I no longer have to be trapped in a corner before I can protect my family and myself. I can Stan My Ground and not be forced to retreat!


I Like it! I like it!

"Intruder" is any person who is not a resident of the home in question, and who has entered the home or curtilage thereof: (a) with the intention of committing a felony; (b) forcibly without having first announced any lawful basis for entry or without having given sufficient time for a resident to allow lawful entry including confirmation of credentials, identity, and legal basis for the demand for entry;

Dingir wrote:what would it take to pass this. im sure every single person on this forum would sign a petition. as well as our range buddies and other ellow gun owner friends whom are not on this forum.

dorminWS wrote:Does crossing your threshold under the wrong circumstances justify the forfeiture of a man's right to keep on living? Traditionally, the answer was "YES" if he was threatening someone else's life, and "NO" if he was just threatening mere property. Think about the possible abuses if we change that part of the law. It ain't such a simple issue.

VBshooter wrote:If they can present it as written and not allow any watering down of the language I would support it. Would personally like to see the defense of property included , Noone should ever have to surrender their property to anyone seeking to steal or otherwise obtain that property illegaly by force or threat,

dorminWS wrote: But the attitude you've displayed in your post, which seems to be "he stepped accross my threshhold, so I get to shoot him like a dog (as a matter of fact, you can't even get away with doing that to a dog in most places)", will be perceived and portrayed by the anti-gun rights crowd (and quite possibly a lot of folks who have been undecided or ambivalent on this issue - including, I'd bet, more than a few legislators) as patently unreasonable and wanton. The current state of the law with respect to what the "Castle Doctrine" legislation attempts to address developed over centuries. There is, in my opinion, an excellent chance that if the legislature changes it, they'll make matters worse.