Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

im very sorry to bring this thread back from the dead, but i have a US government paper where i have to propose a new law and submit it to congress (the teacher). my topic is VA self defense laws, and after a little research, i came to the conclusion that VA self defense laws were pretty good, but that we lacked the castle doctrine. at first this didnt seem like a huge deal, since it some sources said it promotes shoot first ask questions later, but after further research ive seen that this is incorrect. so ive been debating switching topics, since it seemed this one was a dead end, but after i stumbled upon this thread, it seemed that there is in fact a problem with VA self-defense laws.

so, ive im understanding most of the posts in this thread, if VA had a castle doctrine, then the problem of a civil case following the criminal case would be exterminated, or at least suppressed?

thanks again,
Josh

Josh, how much does grammer , spelling, and punctuation count for on this paper?

Huizenga wrote:im very sorry to bring this thread back from the dead, but i have a US government paper where i have to propose a new law and submit it to congress (the teacher). my topic is VA self defense laws, and after a little research, i came to the conclusion that VA self defense laws were pretty good, but that we lacked the castle doctrine. at first this didnt seem like a huge deal, since it some sources said it promotes shoot first ask questions later, but after further research ive seen that this is incorrect. so ive been debating switching topics, since it seemed this one was a dead end, but after i stumbled upon this thread, it seemed that there is in fact a problem with VA self-defense laws.

so, ive im understanding most of the posts in this thread, if VA had a castle doctrine, then the problem of a civil case following the criminal case would be exterminated, or at least suppressed?

thanks again,
Josh

pay no attention to GS78...his keyboard isnt perfect either...

It depends on how the castle doctrine law is articulated and passed. Immunity from civil prosecution could conceivably be left out of the VA version. If so, then IMO whatever castle doctrine is left will in effect be castigated.

What is more interesting about the current VA self-defense laws is the fact that they exist (or dont) murkily here in VA, which is one of the top 5 states for non-restrictive gun laws. Furthermore, VA is an open carry state and a shall-issue state for concealed handgun permits. At the other end of the spectrum around 35 states already have castle doctrine in place and many of those with immunity from civil prosecution.

If I were writing your paper my thesis would be crafted around -- why does a state like VA (open carry, shall-issue, non-restrictive gun laws) have such murky self-defense laws and no castle doctrine as opposed to other states with more restrictive laws that do have clear castle doctrine and immunity from civil prosecution?

FL is an interesting state. They have a full up castle doctrine, immunity, and is a shall issue state. However, FL does not allow open carry at all or concealed carry without a permit except in your own vehicle. Open carry in a vehicle with/without permit is also forbidden. Counties are also allowed to pre-empt state law for things like waiting periods.

There are some very interesting contrasts with gun laws here in the us.

Something else interesting. In VA I can go to a gun store and by a gun with ammo if I pass the BC and walk out an armed citizen 10 minutes later carrying openly without a permit. Yet, I have to go to a state controlled concession if I want to buy a bottle of Jack Daniels whiskey. In MD I can buy a handgun but cannot carry it openly or otherwise unless I have a permit which is almost impossible to acquire. But, I can go through the drive through of almost any liquor store and buy a bottle of Jack Daniels with a cup and ice - AT THE DRIVE THROUGH....go figure...

A "justified" shooting is one that is performed on behalf of The State by an agent of The State. I think what we're talking about here is an "excusable" shooting.

Sure, anyone can sue anyone for anything at any time. And there are legal means of obtaining compensation for being put through the time and trouble of a frivolous lawsuit, including sanctions, counterclaims, and separate suits for malicious prosecution and abuse of process.

But as a practical matter, a shooting that is really excusable is not going to be the subject of a civil suit. It could theoretically happen, but it's really unlikely. I generally have such things dismissed pretty quickly without ever going to trial, because it's really obvious that the other side has no factual basis for their claim.

zephyp wrote:

allingeneral wrote:

zephyp wrote:Immunity from civil prosecution is something we're beating the table for in a castle doctrine for VA. Other states have it. Its what we want. Why should we pay some scumbag or his family for damages when he/she tried to kill us or loved ones? A good solid castle doctrine will solve that.

Castle Doctrine only protects you in your home, car or curtilage thereof. I don't think it will help you if you're walking down the street, get mugged and have to defend yourself in public. Am I wrong?

A full up castle doctrine (like in FL) defines castle as anywhere you have a legal right to be.

And this was what was in the Gen. Assy. this year that got killed by that unmentionable person posing as a Senator.

user wrote:But as a practical matter, a shooting that is really excusable is not going to be the subject of a civil suit. It could theoretically happen, but it's really unlikely. I generally have such things dismissed pretty quickly without ever going to trial, because it's really obvious that the other side has no factual basis for their claim.

I would disagree with you since there is no law protecting law abiding Virginians from civil suits regardless of the circumstances in an "excusable shooting." If you can get those thrown out then good for you. I would much rather be protected by a sensible law in this case (i.e. immunity) than have to trust someone's record for getting such things dismissed.

Also, the factual basis for a civil claim in these cases is the decedents relatives were deprived of his or her livelihood. That would indeed be factual.

user wrote:A "justified" shooting is one that is performed on behalf of The State by an agent of The State. I think what we're talking about here is an "excusable" shooting.

Sure, anyone can sue anyone for anything at any time. And there are legal means of obtaining compensation for being put through the time and trouble of a frivolous lawsuit, including sanctions, counterclaims, and separate suits for malicious prosecution and abuse of process.

But as a practical matter, a shooting that is really excusable is not going to be the subject of a civil suit. It could theoretically happen, but it's really unlikely. I generally have such things dismissed pretty quickly without ever going to trial, because it's really obvious that the other side has no factual basis for their claim.

Thank You.