|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
ID: 'Stand your ground' bill shot down
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
It also would have specified there is no duty to retreat before using deadly force to defend one’s self or another, while in any location. This is similar to the “stand your ground” laws that some states have passed, and it contrasts with other states that impose a duty to retreat before using deadly force.
Some gun-rights supporters thought the bill didn’t go far enough, and some lawmakers on the Senate State Affairs Committee thought it might go too far, or that it didn’t take enough of existing case law into account. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(3/18/2017)
|
Too much meddling. Too much government.
Given identical circumstances but for location, one has no duty to retreat. That makes no sense at all.
What are they always caterwauling about? "Common Sense Gun Laws"?
Differentiating between the inside of one's home or walking out of the local bodega as the determination of whether or not one has a duty to retreat isn't common sense. It's asinine. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| "Some people think that the Second Amendment is an outdated relic of an earlier time. Doubtless some also think that constitutional protections of other rights are outdated relics of earlier times. We The People own those rights regardless, unless and until We The People repeal them. For those who believe it to be outdated, the Second Amendment provides a good test of whether their allegiance is really to the Constitution of the United States, or only to their preferences in public policies and audiences. The Constitution is law, not vague aspirations, and we are obligated to protect, defend, and apply it. If the Second Amendment were truly an outdated relic, the Constitution provides a method for repeal. The Constitution does not furnish the federal courts with an eraser." --9th Circuit Court Judge Andrew Kleinfeld, dissenting opinion in which the court refused to rehear the case while citing deeply flawed anti-Second Amendment nonsense (Nordyke v. King; opinion filed April 5, 2004) |
|
|
