Castle doctrine pre-filing 2012

[jbw59]

I just looked at the pre-filing of bills and I see 2 house bills put up by Rep. Richard Bell from Staunton. HB47 is a Civil Immunity bill in defense or your dwelling. His companion bill is HB48 Castle doctrine with civil immunity included for defense of your person. He's covered person and dwelling in both bills. That's good. On the Senate side, SB4 is castle doctrine legislation from Sen Richard Stuart from Montross. It also includes civil immunity but only in defense of your person.

The only down side is that ALL of these bills are limited to being in your home. It doesn't allow for civil immunity for anywhere you can lawfully be. We need to push that part.

Stay on our representatives and try to get this done. If nothing else comes up in the pre-filing, we need to get it added.

[mk4]

Have a look at:
http://vagunforum.net/general-discussio ... 11381.html

VCDL has the lead on this.

[jbw59]

Thanks MK4. But the vcdl info I just read, and I may be wrong here because I'm not an attorney, doesn't include any place you can lawfully be, ie a mall, parking lot etc.. It covers our property but only there.
We all have the right of self defense anywhere confronted with an imminant threat, it's the civil immunity AWAY from the home that we need to get covered.
If I missed that, let me know. Like I said, I'm not an attorney.
Thanks

[TenchCoxe]

I may be wrong here because I'm not an attorney, doesn't include any place you can lawfully be, ie a mall, parking lot etc.. It covers our property but only there.
We all have the right of self defense anywhere confronted with an imminant threat, it's the civil immunity AWAY from the home that we need to get covered.

You're referring to "stand your ground" legislation, which is a different issue than "castle doctrine."

Castle doctrine indeed covers only your home. Stand your ground (a/k/a "no duty to retreat") addresses any other place you are lawfully present. When Florida passed it a few years ago, the Brady Bunch predictably screamed and yelled about how blood would be running the streets as everyone started shooting each other in disputes over parking spaces or cutting in the checkout line. Nevermind the fact that the law does not legalize any of those things - but then again, the Brady Campaign never has been above blatant, bald-faced lies. In fact, that is its standard marketing strategy.

[jbw59]

I may be wrong here because I'm not an attorney, doesn't include any place you can lawfully be, ie a mall, parking lot etc.. It covers our property but only there.
We all have the right of self defense anywhere confronted with an imminant threat, it's the civil immunity AWAY from the home that we need to get covered.

You're referring to "stand your ground" legislation, which is a different issue than "castle doctrine."

Castle doctrine indeed covers only your home. Stand your ground (a/k/a "no duty to retreat") addresses any other place you are lawfully present. When Florida passed it a few years ago, the Brady Bunch predictably screamed and yelled about how blood would be running the streets as everyone started shooting each other in disputes over parking spaces or cutting in the checkout line. Nevermind the fact that the law does not legalize any of those things - but then again, the Brady Campaign never has been above blatant, bald-faced lies. In fact, that is its standard marketing strategy.

Thanks tenchcoxe. You're right and I didn't separate the two. You're also soooo right about the Brady Bunch.

[totes6]

@jbw59

The link mk4 listed does actually include "stand your ground" phrasing, it just doesn't come out and state those exact words.

Note these two sections:

=====
Self Defense and Defense of Others:
A person in any place who is not otherwise at fault in bringing about the conflict may use such force up to and including deadly force that he reasonably deems necessary to protect himself whenever he has a reasonably held, good faith belief, based on objective fact, that he or another innocent person is faced with an imminent and immediate threat of serious bodily injury.
=====
Stopping a Serious Felony:
A person in any place having a reasonably held belief, on the basis of objective fact, that a serious felony is in progress or being attempted, may use such force as is reasonably necessary, up to and including deadly force, to prevent the completion of the felony and to restrain the suspected felon pending the arrival of law enforcement officers.

Both use "a person in any place" and covers most any situation that I can think of that you would need to use your sidearm. User I think did a really decent job writing this piece.

[TenchCoxe]

OK, based on the above, we're talking about a couple different things here.

First: this is language drafted by user (who is an attorney who does defense work, specializing in firearms-related offenses). My understanding is that user drafted it in the hopes he could, with the assistance of VCDL, convince a legislator to take it up and introduce it in the General Assembly. To my knowledge, it is not yet a bill and does not yet have any sponsors in the General Assembly to introduce it.

Second: there are two bills that have been introduced for the upcoming legislative session.

HB 47 would add a new section to the Virginia Code as follows:

§ 8.01-223.3. Immunity for persons acting in defense of property.

Any person who lawfully occupies a dwelling and uses any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when the other person has unlawfully entered the dwelling, having committed an overt act toward the occupant or another person in the dwelling, and the occupant reasonably believes he or another person in the dwelling is in imminent danger of bodily injury, shall be immune from civil liability for injuries to or death of the other person who has unlawfully entered the dwelling that results from the use of such force.

Note that it provides immunity from civil suit for any person acting in lawful self-defense or in defense of another, in a "dwelling."

HB 48 would add a different section, as follows:

§ 18.2-91.1. Use of physical force, including deadly force, against an intruder; justified self- defense.

Any person who lawfully occupies a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when the other person has unlawfully entered the dwelling, having committed an overt act toward the occupant or another person in the dwelling, and the occupant reasonably believes he or another person in the dwelling is in imminent danger of bodily injury.

Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, as provided in this section shall be immune from civil liability for injuries to or death of the other person who has unlawfully entered the dwelling that results from the use of such force.

This would explicitly codify the rule that you are justified in using deadly force within a "dwelling" to defend yourself or others from an unlawful entry and attack. And it also provides for civil immunity. I also note that SB 4 is in the Senate, and is the companion bill to HB 48.

So the bills that actually are, at this time, being presented to the General Assembly for consideration in the upcoming session are limited to "castle doctrine" - i.e., self-defense in the home - only.

[jbw59]

I'm guessing we will see a couple of more bills of this type show up next week. They will get referred to committee and merged into one bill. I'm hoping that civil immunity away from home ie. anywhere you can lawfully be, will be put into the mix.