Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

It islisted in the house bill list, submitted on 11 Dec by delegate Richard Bell, to be presented to the house on 20 Jan.

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504 ... 1+sum+HB48

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Glad to see this being presented. I've never bought the "we don't need a castle doctrine law, our present laws cover it" theory.

That one doesn't cover much.
(a) What if your wife's boyfriend is standing out in the front yard pumping rounds into your house? He hasn't entered the building.
(b) Does it alter or replace the existing law, or just add to it? Doesn't say.
(c) How many laymen will know when an entry is "not lawful"? What if your landlord stops by to check on the place and then tries to assault your teen-aged daughter? The ENTRY was lawful, his widow would argue.
(d) What does OVERT ACT mean? Was the guy going for a gun in his back pocket, or just scratching his arse?
(e) Under what circumstances is your belief that you or another person in the dwelling is in imminent danger of bodily injury "reasonable"?
(f) It only protects you from civil liability. What of criminal liability?

These days it is not uncommon for the legislature to enact provisions of law without a full appreciation of the implications of the changes. I think this proposed statute is such a provision.

I didn't realize when I posted that there was a preceeding page of posts, or I would simply have opined that User's on the button.

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!

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!

Exactly. No more hiding in the closet while my home is pillaged.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

"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;

How would that work with the new Army...er... no knock SWAT raids?

Kreutz wrote:

"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;

How would that work with the new Army...er... no knock SWAT raids?

Looks to me that this would make a no-knock Swat raid unlawful. I've always felt like they were unlawful, to begin with.

As a homeowner, resident of Virginia, and a retired police officer, this is well written and I support it 100%

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.

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,

cwfunrider wrote:

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!

Exactly. No more hiding in the closet while my home is pillaged.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

..............................................
I'm gonna play the devil's advocate here for a minute:

The problem this raises in the minds of many is that not "hiding in the closet while my home is pillaged" (and by implication drawing on and firing at a burglar who is stealing your Star Wars Yoda mask sounds like the use of deadly force to protect property; which has been a no-no pretty much everywhere from day one. Of course, if you can convince a judge & jury the guy was trying with some reasonable likelihood of success to beat you to death with that latex Yoda head, maybe THAT's different.

But that's the big rub with this whole deal. How do you balance the right to protect mere property with our society's concept of the sanctity of life? Even if the dude who broke into your home in the dark of night to steal your Yoda mask is a drug-addicted pedophilic habitual criminal and complete degenerate, what makes your Yoda mask worth his life? If you can't shoot the dude over a Yoda mask, how about your wife's diamond ring? What about your gun collection.......... naah ............... that's a CLEAR case of justifiable homicide if there ever was one, right? I guess it really boils down to this: 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.

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.

there's an effort underway right now to have this introduced next session. education will continue over the summer months to, hopefully, ease the path.

here is the most up-to-date version: http://virginialegaldefense.com/Stuff/D ... ctrine.pdf
don't be intimidated by 59 pages. the first 6 and a half are the draft bill. the remainder is all of the legal case commentary that supports the codification of our common law. lots of education to be had should you choose to read through it.

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.

Am I supposed to hand him a questionnaire when he comes into my home?

Hello good sir(s), thank you for taking the time to fill out this survey to ascertain whether I will be putting a 12 ga solid slug into your chest. Please check whichever is applicable:

I am here to take by force:

1) Lives

2) Your stuff

If you have selected one, I am probably shooting at you now. If you have selected two, I will be hiding in a closet, please lock the door on your way out, thank you.

The nice thing about castle law is it removes alot of scenarios and doubts. If someone is in your home illegally or uninvited their life is forfeit; by their act of doing so.

One cannot discern criminal intent, nor should they need to in order to defend their lives and/or their property.

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,

Kreutz wrote:

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.

Am I supposed to hand him a questionnaire when he comes into my home?

Hello good sir(s), thank you for taking the time to fill out this survey to ascertain whether I will be putting a 12 ga solid slug into your chest. Please check whichever is applicable:

I am here to take by force:

1) Lives

2) Your stuff

If you have selected one, I am probably shooting at you now. If you have selected two, I will be hiding in a closet, please lock the door on your way out, thank you.

The nice thing about castle law is it removes alot of scenarios and doubts. If someone is in your home illegally or uninvited their life is forfeit; by their act of doing so.

One cannot discern criminal intent, nor should they need to in order to defend their lives and/or their property.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

AHHH BULLSH!T, Kreutz.

It doesn't work that way and I hope to heavens you know it. If the circumstances and behavior of the intruder would raise fear of bodily harm in a reasonable person, the right to defend with deadly force is triggered. Nobody expects any psychic powers to be employed. What matters most here, in the aftermath of your having shot an intruder, is what YOUR intent and state of mind was. 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.

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.

You're missing the point, which was simply by entering my home uninvited/illegally, how can I really discern if he/they are there simply to grab some stuff and run, or rape and kill my wife and daughters?

By being able to legally use deadly force consequence free to repel (not shoot to kill, just use the deadly force of a firearm mind you) at the point of breaking in isn't that my right as a home owner?

In all all seriousness I'd have to wait to see what they were doing/trying to do to determine if theyre after stuff or blood. Or ask them. Neither really bodes well for our safety.

I'm far from a bloodthirsty maniac, but why should I have to second guess the safety of my family to appease someone elses idea of the sanctity of life or what constitutes "reasonable force"?

Hy humble opinion is that if someone enters my home forcibly, without my consent, that - in and of itself - is a violent act toward me and my family. Regardless of the reason or "excuse" they want to use for why they forced their way into my home...that act alone is more than enough reason for me to defend my life.

This is why the General Assembly and so many others had heartburn with some of the Castle Doctrine legislation that came through this session. Some specifically mentioned that an intruder had to perform "an overt act" before shooting in self defense was warranted. Isn't breaking through my door or window to gain entry to my home overt enough?!

They're politicians ,,,a group where common sense and intelligence is rare indeed!

I agree. Its sad that we live in a state where our defending our families has such a thin line on it. I say if you break into my home weather or not im there you are an immideate threat and need to be dealt with by any means necessary.