"Castle Doctrine" Legislation Defeated in Senate Committee

[Chasbo00]

From an NRA email:

"Virginia: “Castle Doctrine” Legislation Defeated in Senate Committee!
On Monday, February 14, the Senate Courts of Justice Committee “passed by indefinitely” House Bill 1573, defeating the bill by an 8 to 4 margin. State Senators Henry Marsh (D-16), Richard Saslaw (D-35), Louis Lucas (D-18), John Edwards (D-21), Roscoe Reynolds (D-20), Toddy Puller (D-36), Creigh Deeds (D-25), and Chap Petersen (D-34) all voted in opposition to this “Castle Doctrine” legislation.
With all 140 seats of the General Assembly up for election this year, it is more important than ever for your elected officials to hear your voice and vote to defend your Second Amendment rights. Please remember to take these anti-gun votes into consideration when voting in the upcoming Virginia election.
House Bill 1573, sponsored by Delegate Bill Cleaveland (R-17), sought to codify a version of the “Castle Doctrine” which would have allowed lawful occupants of a dwelling to use any degree of physical force, including deadly force, against an intruder who has committed an overt act against him, without the fear of civil liability.:

[allingeneral]

The same folks who railroaded pro-gun legislation last year in Virginia have managed to do the same this year with Castle Doctrine.

From NRA Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) - http://nraila.org

Virginia: "Castle Doctrine" Legislation Defeated in Senate Committee!

On Monday, February 14, the Senate Courts of Justice Committee “passed by indefinitely” House Bill 1573, defeating the bill by an 8 to 4 margin. State Senators Henry Marsh (D-16), Richard Saslaw (D-35), Louis Lucas (D-18), John Edwards (D-21), Roscoe Reynolds (D-20), Toddy Puller (D-36), Creigh Deeds (D-25), and Chap Petersen (D-34) all voted in opposition to this “Castle Doctrine” legislation.

With all 140 seats of the General Assembly up for election this year, it is more important than ever for your elected officials to hear your voice and vote to defend your Second Amendment rights. Please remember to take these anti-gun votes into consideration when voting in the upcoming Virginia election.

House Bill 1573, sponsored by Delegate Bill Cleaveland (R-17), sought to codify a version of the “Castle Doctrine” which would have allowed lawful occupants of a dwelling to use any degree of physical force, including deadly force, against an intruder who has committed an overt act against him, without the fear of civil liability.

[zephyp]

A real shame that VCDL failed and neglected to step up and strongly support this initiative. I am not happy at all with them or the senate twits.

[grumpyMSG]

A real shame that VCDL failed and neglected to step up and strongly support this initiative. I am not happy at all with them or the senate twits.

You make it sound like it is possible to get by that sub-committee. It was created specifically to kill legislation that would pass on the senate floor.

State Senators Henry Marsh (D-16), Richard Saslaw (D-35), Louis Lucas (D-18), John Edwards (D-21), Roscoe Reynolds (D-20), Toddy Puller (D-36), Creigh Deeds (D-25), and Chap Petersen (D-34) all voted in opposition to this “Castle Doctrine” legislation.

In order to correct the problem some of the above listed individuals need to be fired by their constituents or enough Democratic Senators would need to be replaced to give control of the Senate back to Republicans. Until either of these options occur, the problems with firearms related bills will continue. There was nothing the VCDL could do to help this bill.

[Yarddawg]

With all of their seats up for election this year, it's time for all eight of these individuals to go!

[zephyp]

A real shame that VCDL failed and neglected to step up and strongly support this initiative. I am not happy at all with them or the senate twits.

You make it sound like it is possible to get by that sub-committee. It was created specifically to kill legislation that would pass on the senate floor.

No, thats not the point. The point is that VCDL has taken the position that castle doctrine is implied in common and case law and pooh pooh requests to strongly support it. They strongly support other bills that wind up on the death star table. Why not this one? And, while the "mission" of the DS is to kill pro-gun legislation, VCDLs is supposed to push in the opposite direction on pro-gun legislation. And, yes I do know they support this bill but they dont strongly support and use reason stated above as an excuse.

Here's my problem with common and case law...suppose I'm forced to defend myself and wife against an intruder's attack in my home. I dont want to also be forced to go through the legal process so some twit can decide if it meets common/cased law even if I'm confident I'll prevail in the end. Would be much better if someone sat down and codified that stuff in code. Even such a simple fix like codifying civil immunity would be great. That came up this year and they did not strongly support that.

We are not certain that every pro-gun bill will get killed by an un-Constitutional committee, BUT we can be fairly certain that if pro-gun bills arent created and pushed they will not become realitiy.

[VBshooter]

In what appears to be their last hurrah,,The Democrat majority in the Senate is pretty much ignoring the rules in more than just gun matters, I've heard a couple of Senators comment on how the rules are once again being strained on several issues and that there isn;t diddly -squat they can do about it, Pro gun constituents in those 8 (leaders???) districts will need to get the vote out and dump these wastes of space and oxygen in the political dumpster of ended careers come November,

[WRW]

I'm not quite sure I can disagree with VCDL on this. When moving from common law to written law, there is the potential for unforseen pitfalls. N.J. did that and I consider their legal system to be a mess. They even have a law spelling out how ignorance of the law can be a legal defense.

I guess my thoughts are,"if it ain't broke, don't fix it" and I'm not seeing a lot that makes me think it is broke.

[Jericho01]

In a civil suit, the plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of evidence, that the defendant committed the acts in question. They must also show that the defendant’s actions or negligence caused the damages suffered by the plaintiff. The burden of proof required in a civil suit requires that the plaintiff prove their version of the facts is “more than likely” to be true. This burden of proof varies greatly from the one required in a criminal case.

The passing of the Castle Doctrine would have provided civil immunity to would-be victims acting in self defense while in their homes. While winning a criminal case is good by any means, losing a civil suite could bring financial disasters to innocent victims of home intruders. A very good lawyer and lots of $$$ is what one needs in most civil cases, unfortunately.

[CowboyT]

Here's what's "broke" about it. We all know how much the Bradys and their allies hate Virginia for our much more common-sense gun laws than those of, say, CA, MD, NJ, or NY. A law-abiding gun owner might defend himself using his firearm, thus shooting and possibly killing the assailant. Sure, the vast majority of attorneys in VA will not take the case, because they know it's virtually a guaranteed loss.

But....

Suppose a Brady-ite attorney decides to make an example of this law-abiding gun owner who just defended himself from possible loss of life. Said attorney takes the case pro-bono specifically to "bleed the victim dry" of money, to try to make an example of him through financial ruin. This could easily happen, and I wouldn't put it past the Bradys to make this happen a couple of times to "set an example."

That's why Castle Doctrine needs to be codified into law. Other states have successfully done it, so the language is already written.

[grumpyMSG]

So the great fear is getting charged or sued over somebody getting shot while entering your home, here is a couple of links to one of those stories here in the "Wild West" side of Virginia, I think it is who the people elect to the Commonwealth Attorney's position that makes the big difference and you don't want to commit a Capital Murder on this side of the Commonwealth.
http://www.newsleader.com/article/20110 ... hoots-teenhttp://www.newsleader.com/article/20110 ... g-troubled
http://www.whsv.com/home/headlines/Moth ... 50599.html

[Jericho01]

Here's what's "broke" about it. We all know how much the Bradys and their allies hate Virginia for our much more common-sense gun laws than those of, say, CA, MD, NJ, or NY. A law-abiding gun owner might defend himself using his firearm, thus shooting and possibly killing the assailant. Sure, the vast majority of attorneys in VA will not take the case, because they know it's virtually a guaranteed loss.

But....

Suppose a Brady-ite attorney decides to make an example of this law-abiding gun owner who just defended himself from possible loss of life. Said attorney takes the case pro-bono specifically to "bleed the victim dry" of money, to try to make an example of him through financial ruin. This could easily happen, and I wouldn't put it past the Bradys to make this happen a couple of times to "set an example."

That's why Castle Doctrine needs to be codified into law. Other states have successfully done it, so the language is already written.

Or he could be a law-abiding, gun-owner like "Joe Paycheck" facing a civil suit filed by the fancy lawyer of an anti-gun billionaire like (mayor)Bloomie of NYC. Who do you think would be the likely winner?

[Kreutz]

Here's what's "broke" about it. We all know how much the Bradys and their allies hate Virginia for our much more common-sense gun laws than those of, say, CA, MD, NJ, or NY. A law-abiding gun owner might defend himself using his firearm, thus shooting and possibly killing the assailant. Sure, the vast majority of attorneys in VA will not take the case, because they know it's virtually a guaranteed loss.

But....

Suppose a Brady-ite attorney decides to make an example of this law-abiding gun owner who just defended himself from possible loss of life. Said attorney takes the case pro-bono specifically to "bleed the victim dry" of money, to try to make an example of him through financial ruin. This could easily happen, and I wouldn't put it past the Bradys to make this happen a couple of times to "set an example."

That's why Castle Doctrine needs to be codified into law. Other states have successfully done it, so the language is already written.

This is why I support codifying Castle Doctrine. It will happen.

The jurors will still find in your favor....but the lawsuits will just keep on getting filed endlessly.

[Diomed]

Suppose a Brady-ite attorney decides to make an example of this law-abiding gun owner who just defended himself from possible loss of life. Said attorney takes the case pro-bono specifically to "bleed the victim dry" of money, to try to make an example of him through financial ruin. This could easily happen, and I wouldn't put it past the Bradys to make this happen a couple of times to "set an example."

That's why Castle Doctrine needs to be codified into law. Other states have successfully done it, so the language is already written.

No, what you want there is civil immunity, not castle doctrine.

Castle doctrine doesn't protect you if you defend yourself outside of your home, either. This particular bill was flawed and deserved what it got.

Write a bill that's worth putting the effort into upending centuries of pretty favorable legal precedent, and then I'll support it. Personally I think a civil immunity law is probably enough.

[zephyp]

I dont particularly have a problem with Castle doctrine not being codified in VA code. Prosecution would result in there is clear evidence or suspicion of a bad or illegal shooting. I'm pretty much ok with that. Regardless of whats in the law and if its a justified shooting your day is ruined. Thats to be expected.

What I do have a problem with is civil prosecution immunity not codified in code. So you shot the bad guy and it was easily justified. A month later you get a civil summons. The onus is on you and you bear the court cost plus your time plus stress even if it goes no where. You still are forced to pony up cash for a lawyer and take time out so you can sit in a court room and fret while someone else decides your fate. I am not happy with that and no amount of reassurance can make me feel better. Immunity MUST be codified in code. Thats pretty simple to do and hard to screw up.

[user]

I am absolutely thrilled by this decision not to repeal the Castle Doctrine as it already exists in Virginia and replace it with a statutorily limited substitute that would have the effect of limiting our rights. "But wait!!!", you say, "I can't find anything in the Code of Virginia that has anything to do with the 'castle doctrine'!!!" My answer is that there are two sections in the Code that no one ever pays any attention to, but which incorporate the Castle Doctrine as already defined by common law: look in Title 1, Chapter 2.1, sections 1-200 and 1-201. (By the way, the third year of the reign of James I was 1607, the year Jamestown was founded.) For more information, take a look at the PDF files I've posted on my website:
www.VirginiaLegalDefense.com

[zephyp]

@user - what about civil immunity? That was the whole substance of the one defeated was it not?

[gunderwood]

Suppose a Brady-ite attorney decides to make an example of this law-abiding gun owner who just defended himself from possible loss of life. Said attorney takes the case pro-bono specifically to "bleed the victim dry" of money, to try to make an example of him through financial ruin. This could easily happen, and I wouldn't put it past the Bradys to make this happen a couple of times to "set an example."

That's why Castle Doctrine needs to be codified into law. Other states have successfully done it, so the language is already written.

No, what you want there is civil immunity, not castle doctrine.

Castle doctrine doesn't protect you if you defend yourself outside of your home, either. This particular bill was flawed and deserved what it got.

Write a bill that's worth putting the effort into upending centuries of pretty favorable legal precedent, and then I'll support it. Personally I think a civil immunity law is probably enough.

+1

[gunderwood]

@user - what about civil immunity? That was the whole substance of the one defeated was it not?

No. Castle doctrine and civil immunity are not the same thing although they get rolled together quite often.

The problem with moving the existing common law Castle doctrine into the VA code is that it would allow the legislature of VA to supercede centuries of VA common law protecting us. IMHO, the best thing to do is provide civil immunity as a wholly separate bill.

[zephyp]

@user - what about civil immunity? That was the whole substance of the one defeated was it not?

No. Castle doctrine and civil immunity are not the same thing although they get rolled together quite often.

The problem with moving the existing common law Castle doctrine into the VA code is that it would allow the legislature of VA to supercede centuries of VA common law protecting us. IMHO, the best thing to do is provide civil immunity as a wholly separate bill.

Ok, so the same thing then...currently an HB that would grant civil immunity and protection provided no charges or acquittal. VCDL only supports that while strongly supporting letting me shoot a pellet gun in my backyard...whats up with that? Is civil immunity and protection "guaranteed" by common and/or case law and if so can we rest assured based on promises, suppositions, and anecdotal statistics that civil prosecutions are rarely won?