Ky., Ind. ready to expand right to kill intruders, This is insanity!...

[Acebass]

And I'm very disturbed that I'm in the minority that see's it that way. This is crazy people and we will pay for this bad legislation. This is a retreat, this is a 'well fend for yourself' legislation because only the NRA can protect you because we can't. Give up or give in. I'm ashamed to say that, not until now, have I felt the need to buy a gun, and I have done business in some of the toughest neighborhoods in Louisville.

This is insane! The inmates are in charge of the asylum! The NRA and insurance companies own Kentucky and are writing bad legislation!



http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.d...S0104/603190406

[donco6]

1. Link not working. eom

[alfredo]

22. Try this:

http://tinyurl.com/p6oje

I think I went to school with the guy in the picture.

[yurbud]

2. at least three advantages for GOP: make money on guns, spend less

on cops, and if they ever come to get you, they'll say you were a dangerous character because you had a gun.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

5. spend less on health care and social security, too.

not to mention schools, if the intruder is a kid.

[yurbud]

19. and if things get too desperate, you might kill yourself before...

seeking public assistance...

[msatty99]

3. I read this in my morning CJ too and wanted to barf

Indiana and Kentucky have a lot of good and smart people in them.
But, just imagine how this looks to people who live in civilization.

I am soooo tired of being surrounded by red neck bullshit. That is what
this is, no more and no less.

Maybe its time I moved on out. Leave Kentucky to fend for itself.

There will be no real jobs, rotten foul air, no new industry, piss poor
education...but by gawd I can shoot yer ass if I think you are disrespectin my car! YEEE HAAAA

[Acebass]

42. A letter to the editor

a few weeks ago. some guy owned a gun shop and firing range and thought this was good and that people needed to stay sharp with guns ...practice, practice, practice...in my time of life I didn't want to have to stay sharp on my gun skills...I'd rather see better police protection...

[Coastie for Truth]

4. Here is the correct link

http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060319/NEWS0104/603190406

[Acebass]

16. thanks...this is whats really wrong woth it...

Senate Bill 12, to prohibit the prosecution of people who bring guns onto school grounds unless a warning sign is posted. Sponsor: Sen. Katie Stine, R-Fort Thomas.ON THE WEB

[Sawber1001]

21. But isn't there a

really, really, easy solution to this? Post the signs.

If someone comes walking up to an area carrying a BB gun and comes up behind a school, not knowing it is a school, they could be prosecuted. This just makes sure the person has proper notice.

[slackmaster]

52. Wow, the bill sounds strangely familiar

From the California Penal Code...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
198.5. Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that force is used against another person, not a member of the family or household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Coastie for Truth]

6. This bill fiddles around with the somewhat confused law of "self defense"

The law of self defense is confused at best. There are really two lines of state supreme court cases (remember - we have 50 states, each with its own Supreme Court and body of law or "corpus juris")

1. Two Drunks In A Bar Fight With Beer Bottles - The duties are "not to escalate" and "to retreat."

2. Burglar in an occupied dwelling house at night - Most states you have no duty to retreat, and as long as the perp is within your "occupied dwelling house at night" and you are in "reasonable fear of bodily harm" you can use "lethal force" to defend yourself and/or to compel the perp to leave.

Once the perp leaves you can no longer use lethal force.

In most states - no right to use "lethal force" against a prowler or peeping Tom - until entry is attempted.

In some (many?) states an occupied motor vehicle is treated as an "occupied dwelling house at night" (i.e. - car jacking)

Policy question- where do we draw the line between a "perp" who is inside your "occupied dwelling house at night" and a Halloween Trick or Treater, and which side of the line are the prowlers and peeping Toms who are outside your "occupied dwelling house at night"?

[Keseys Ghost]

7. Legal in Louisiana for some time now...

Dangerous craziness...

[Coastie for Truth]

18. I lived in La for two year

wife taught school in Lower Ninth Ward. I was in the Coast Guard.

[benEzra]

30. The act of breaking in...

Policy question- where do we draw the line between a "perp" who is inside your "occupied dwelling house at night" and a Halloween Trick or Treater, and which side of the line are the prowlers and peeping Toms who are outside your "occupied dwelling house at night"?

Most states draw that line at the act of breaking and entering. If someone dressed in a mask is standing on your doorstep, they are no threat to you. If they are kicking down your door or crawling in your window, they are obviously not a trick-or-treater.

Peeping toms and prowlers may generally NOT be shot in self-defense, anywhere, because they are not presenting anyone with a danger of death or serious bodily harm.



The general criteria that must be met for a homicide to be ruled justifiable are pretty much the same everywhere. I'll quote from Steve Johnson, Concealed Carry Handgun Training, North Carolina Justice Academy, 1995, pp. 3-4 (note that North Carolina is a Castle Doctrine state):

(1) Justified Self-Defense

A citizen is legally justified in using deadly force against another if and only if:

(a) The citizen actually believes deadly force is necessary to prevent an imminent threat of death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault, AND

(b) The facts and circumstances prompting that belief would cause a person of ordinary firmness to believe deadly force WAS necessary to prevent an imminent threat of death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault, AND

(c) The citizen using deadly force was not an instigator or aggressor who voluntarily provoked, entered, or continued the conflict leading to deadly force, AND

(d) Force used was not excessive -- greater than reasonably needed to overcome the threat posed by a hostile aggressor."

(Emphasis added.)

Note that ALL FOUR conditions must generally be met in order for a shooting to be ruled justifiable, even if the intruder is in your house (at least that's the case here in NC, and NC is a Castle Doctrine state). Note also that a claim of self-defense is not an automatic exemption to the laws against homicide. Rather, it is what is known as an affirmative defense; unlike the regular innocent-until-proven-guilty standard applied to a criminal act, the onus in a self-defense shooting is on the shooter to demonstrate that the shooting WAS indeed justifiable self-defense. In other words, if the shooting is questionable, it is much more likely to swing against the person claiming self-defense than it is to swing in their favor.

There are a few other conditions that may constitute justifiable self-defense; for example, NC extends the castle doctrine to state that if someone is in the act of actually breaking into my house, I can shoot the home invader as they kick the door down or crawl through the window and it would automatically be ruled justified (the presumption is that if the guy is kicking your door down, he's not there to sell magazine subscriptions). Once the act of forced entry is completed, the situation reverts to the criteria above, even inside your home.

My understanding of Kentucky law is that it added a FIFTH criterion, that of running away from the lethal threat before turning to defend yourself, even inside your own house. That is different from the laws of most states, and the new law would bring Kentucky in-home self defense law more into line with the rest of the country, as I understand it.

[texastoast]

152. I guess the line would be drawn

at the threshold, window sill, fireplace screen (poor Santa!), or if the perp is really skinny, at the roof where a vent pipe protrudes.

[Lexingtonian]

8. laws to accommodate and coddle sociopaths

Then again, look at the Republican constituency.

[BluegrassDem]

9. Home invasions have gone up dramatically

Every night on the news, there's something about someone breaking into homes and killing the homeowners. I don't know what's going on, but for some reason there's been a spike in burglaries and home invasions and it's pretty bad. I'll do whatever it takes to protect my home and family.

[Lexingtonian]

12. and so

you need new laws to deal with it? What's wrong with the selfdefense doctrines and precautions that already exist?

It's frightening in some ways, sure, but my impression from a lot of years of watching it in the cities I've been is that it's actually a phenomenon that goes with stark declines in violent crime in public places and catburglary.

As for "whatever it takes"...getting into eye-for-an-eye fights with people who have nothing left to lose is a losing proposition.

[Cerridwen]

14. Or reporting of home invasions has gone up dramatically?

Careful with the corporate spin machines that amp up whatever issue will add to their bottom line.

[rinsd]

82. Why would reporting suddenly increase?

Of all the crimes that may be under-reported in terms of numbers, I think home invasion would be one of the least likely one of them.

Now the case could be made that MEDIA reporting has gone up.

[Cerridwen]

132. Corporate media has amped up the reporting on home invasions

was what I meant.

[frogmarch]

10. Killing intruders

has been legal in some places for a long time. When I was living in Denver CO years ago, I called the police to report my back doorknob turning back and forth. I was told to arm myself with something - a gun if I had one (I didn't, so I grabbed a kitchen knife) - and to not be afraid to use it. I was also told that if I killed the intruder, to make sure his body fell all the way into the house, and if it didn't, to drag it in.

The police arrived not long after my call but found no one.

[kurth]

11. Intruder is not in your house to give you flowers

And you can't fight them with a butter knife. Make sure they're not somebody you know, wait until they're in the middle of the room, aim for the head, and fire.

[frogmarch]

15. I didn't

grab a butter knife. It was a kitchen knife - a sharp, heavy-duty kitchen knife with a blade long enough to do serious damage and short enough not to bend. But it probably wouldn't have done me much good if the intruder had a gun.

I wouldn't think twice about using a weapon against a stranger who broke into my house.

[thinkingwoman]

24. Damn straight they're not!

I cannot believe the nonsense on this thread, can you?

If somebody breaks into my home at night and manages to get past my three dogs, they will meet the business end of my 12 guage.

[lynne]

33. Same situation at my house -

- I have three large dogs and if someone is determined enough to get past them then they are not there to read my meter or tell me I won the lottery. I agree with you 100%.

I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6 any day - and I'll do whatever it takes to protect my children and myself.

[wicket]

47. Amen to that

:kick:

[American Tragedy]

32. It seems the litigious climate almost encourages shooting to kill

I've heard of numerous cases in which the intruder survives, and goes on to file a lawsuit against the homeowner for not generously allowing the burglar to plunder and assault them.

[raccoon]

90. That's disgusting, but I wonder what the outcomes of such suits was. nt

[Cerridwen]

13. And so,

since South Dakota has a similar law on the books, and I'm driving into the parking lot of its last abortion clinic, and the right wing nuts start harrassing me to the point where I feel threatened, I can just pull a gun and start shooting?

"House Bill 236 and Senate Bill 38, giving people the right to use deadly force at home or in a vehicle when faced with a threat. Sponsors: Rep. J.R. Gray, D-Benton, and Sen. Richard Roeding, R-Lakeside Park."

Am I reading this correctly?

edited to add: presuming, of course, that I am legally licensed to use/carry said gun.

[Acebass]

17. Lets just say I'm working late in my garage one night...

I'm carrying my gun, that a lot of people don't know I have, and have permits for. You as a friend decide to come by for a visit. I dont hear you come up and in the darkness mistake you for an intruder I pull my gun, which I had a lawful permit for, and shoot you dead! I'm not at fault by this law and therefore cannot be held liable for the death, widow, if any and dependence get zilch.

Is this the America you want...do we want quickdraw justice?...

[alfredo]

20. There is no provision to protect innocent bystanders if hit

by a spooked person. If the person did indeed feel threatened, they are off the hook.

[slackmaster]

53. A "spooked" person isn't acting reasonably

There's the protection.

[alfredo]

135. I guess "spooked" was the wrong word. Scared might be the

right word.

[thinkingwoman]

23. only an idiot

shoots what he cannot see.

"...in the darkness mistake you for an intruder"? Sorry, no, that's not "quickdraw justice." That's just plain irresponsible.

And it's a strawman.

Defending yourself and your family against intruders is a basic right in many states. It should be a basic right in all. I refuse to live in a state that doesn't recognize such. You can feel free to do so if you want to.

[MrBenchley]

27. LOL

"only an idiot....shoots what he cannot see."
Hell, the gun owners' "2004 man of the year" just perforated an elderly hunting companion.



Down in the gungeon a couple years ago, there were a spate of threads from the trigger-happy ADVOCATING guns for the blind.

[thinkingwoman]

28. ROFL!

Yep...which proves my point.

[Keseys Ghost]

38. Bingo!

HO HO!

[Acebass]

34. To flee is protecting your family...

I can show you stats where a person stayed to fight and the situation escalated this is not progress this is wild west justice...

[thinkingwoman]

43. Spoken by someone

who has never been threatened with death by a stalker--a stalker with a track record of violent in-home attacks who is too large and too strong for me to fight hand to hand.

Running out the back door would simply mean that me and my children would be killed in our back yard. No thanks.

No matter how diligent, competent, or caring the local police force is, they CANNOT get there in time. They'll tell you that themselves. They've told me. This is the advice I've received on more than one occassion:

1. arm yourself,
2. do what you have to do, and
3. call us. We'll get there as fast as we can.

Since they are the experts, I take their word for it over yours.

[Acebass]

61. For one you are wrong!...

You don't know me so how can you ascertain what circumstances I may or may not have been involved in?
Is fortress American what you want. I would like to see a country where someone who acts as this man does, doesn't have the opportunity to stalk you and you don't need to live in that kind of fear.
Will you help me work to that end? It doesn't involve guns but it can sure make you feel a lot better...
Will you help?

[thinkingwoman]

64. so do you have a stalker?

or not?

Which is it?

Here, I'll tell you what. Let's pretend that the subject line of my post read "spoken LIKE someone" instead of "by" someone. That way you can stay up there on your high horse looking down on us unenlightened self-defense supporting folks.

As for this nonsense:

"I would like to see a country where someone who acts as this man does, doesn't have the opportunity to stalk you and you don't need to live in that kind of fear.
Will you help me work to that end? It doesn't involve guns but it can sure make you feel a lot better...
Will you help?"

A. Who wouldn't want to see a country where somebody doesn't have the opportunity to stalk? But, here in reality, the danger exists TODAY.

B. Help you do what? You've posted nothing concrete. What are you proposing? And why is it an either or situation? Why can't people protect themselves TODAY while working towards the utopia you imagine but don't give any details about?

[NickB79]

59. And when you're trapped in a room with no exit?

I've been in that situation, and the only "fleeing" option was jumping out a 2nd-story window. Of course, I would have been the last one out after my 13-yr old little brother and 14-yr old little sister jumped first while I held the door shut. Does this sound like a good idea?

[thinkingwoman]

66. Hey, nickb79...

wow...scary. Glad you made it out of that one!

[Solon]

49. You mean like that guy who killed the Japanese exchange student?

Hell, I think he didn't even get charged, even though Japan wanted him extradited, to be honest, the guy should have been thrown in jail for involuntary manslaughter at the very least, in a JAPANESE jail.

[thinkingwoman]

50. If I recall correctly

that guy shot a man OUTSIDE his house, on his doorstep or porch or something?

That's not what's allowed under current or proposed Indiana law, and therefore is not relevant to this discussion in any way.

And, personally, I don't think "involuntary" manslaughter for such a case would be a stiff enough charge. I'd think it should be voluntary at the very least. He obviously MEANT to shoot the student and knew full well that could/would cause death, so involuntary isn't even close to the legal remedy. I'd charge murder.

[Solon]

55. Ehh, good point...

Of course, while I don't really oppose the idea of defending yourself inside your own home, it is somewhat situational, if a guy busts down your door and grabs the VCR or DVD player in the living room and dashes back outside, I don't really think that warrants deadly force. Of course, that's assuming you don't even have time to shoot him within the house itself, but you shouldn't have a right to chase or shoot them after they leave the property. Of course, now that I think about it, it is best to know who you are shooting at, there was a man who shot a burglar sneaking through his window once, he found out, too late, that the "burglar" was actually his college age daughter who lost her key. Oddly enough, he suffered a heart attack and her own heart was transplanted into his chest soon after the fatal shooting. The moral is, look before you shoot, and even better, warn them you have a gun pointed at them, that alone would freeze most burglars in their tracks.

[thinkingwoman]

56. There was a case in Indy a while back

where some guy chased a robber out of his house and down the street and shot him then. I think he was charged (and he damn well should have been). I'll try to look it up and post more info about it.

I also know of a case in southern Indiana many years back where a man entered his sister-in-law's house, grabbed his wife by the hair and then began dragging her out of the house. The wife had been abused in the past and was trying to leave him. The sister shot the man in the back as he was dragging her sister out. That one went to a grand jury but no indictment came back and the case was dropped. People still talk about that one to this day and there are strong emotions on both sides.

It's always best to know what you're shooting at, as so many stories, including the one you posted, prove. My moral code requires the warning too...since I own a 12 guage that would come with the pumping. That's an unmistakable sound.

[sendero]

26. On the other hand..

... let's say you are awakened by the sound of someone breaking a door or glass to get into your house.

What are you supposed to do, huddle like a baby and hope he doesn't come to your bedroom or the bedrooms of your kids.

Anyone breaking into a house at night deserves a bullet between the eyes. You can feel free to sacrifice yourself and your kids to the next armed punk looking for some quick cash, I think I'll do otherwise.

In the state of Texas, anyone entering you house without your permission is subject to lethal power. We don't have a big problem with innocent people getting killed.

There is also a Concealed Handgun License, and by all accounts it has REDUCED crime and there have been few if any questionable incidents.

When you folks talk about the police protecting you, I laugh in your face. The police's job is not to protect you, it is to find the guilty after the fact. If you think the police can protect you from anything you must think they are Superman. They are not, they are just the folks who will come after the fact and clean up the mess. Whether it be you, or some asshole breaking into your house.

[Acebass]

40. and you've had how many armed punks come through your window?...n/t

[The Straight Story]

71. So how would you word such a bill?

I don't shoot when I am startled, if you cannot determine there is a threat you should not be shooting - and if turned out to be a friend then explain to jury exactly how you felt threatened.

I live in an area that is not the best, if someone is coming into my home against my will darn right I will shoot them - and if someone does not want shot then they should do the most simple of things, don't try to break into my home. It's that easy.

If some idiot is dumb enough to enter my home looking to steal or do harm I really don't feel bad about seeing them hauled off in a hearst.

In fact I have often pondered putting a sign on my front door:
Before attempting to break in please call the coroner so they can be prepared to pick you up.

Or maybe taping a body bag to the door with a note: This is for you if you plan on breaking in :)

[RamboLiberal]

77. Oh you'll be held liable - it will be in civil court

This law won't protect you there.

And if you shoot your friend coming in to your garage - I think you're a damn dumb gun owner.

I'm one of the few DU'ers who probably has no problem with this law. In too many jurisdictions overzealous DA's have charged innocent civilians who were rightly defending themselves with a firearm.

One caveat from this CCW holder on these laws - I do think anyone wanting to own a gun should be required to complete a course taught by a lawyer on the laws within their state on self-defense with a firearm and to also pass a safe-handling/shooting course.

[thinkingwoman]

87. I'm with you RamboLiberal

And I think more than a few Du'ers and MOST of the general public are as well.

As for this:

"One caveat from this CCW holder on these laws - I do think anyone wanting to own a gun should be required to complete a course taught by a lawyer on the laws within their state on self-defense with a firearm and to also pass a safe-handling/shooting course."

Yes, yes, and YES!!! I would, btw, LOVE to take some training so that I can buy a smaller weapon. I have been battling a carpal tunnel related problem with both hands for more than a decade and our shotgun is tough for me to handle. I want to buy a smaller weapon but want to be trained to shoot it accurately. Problem is I can't find classes locally, and I live in a red state! Maybe I'm not asking the right people...

[okieinpain]

127. lets say I'm stabbing your wife to death and you wake up, and I remind

you that I'm not really threating you just your wife so you shouldn't do anything to stop what I'm doing. sounds pretty ****** huh.

[cherokeeprogressive]

143. WHAT kind of work do you do late at night "in the darkness" in the garage?

I'm with some of the previous posters... If you've made it past my dogs, you're bloody-well not there to visit. I live in the suburbs of L.A. and there are home-invasion robberies more often than most people would believe possible. I don't mind saying that I would not hesitate for a moment if I thought my wife or precious teenage daughter were at mortal risk.

My wife and I thought long and hard about getting a handgun for home protection and part of the decision entailed getting trained in it's use. We both possess Handgun Safety Certificates. And, I'm almost sorry to say, she's a better shot than I am.

Call it "quickdraw justice" if you want. I call it peace of mind.

If you shoot me in the darkness of your garage late at night, it's my own fault for being there, in your garage, unannounced, late at night.

[MrBenchley]

25. You're not in the minority

It's just that the gun loonies scream at the top of their lungs.

[benEzra]

29. IIRC, a majority of states allow self-defense inside your home

without having to try to run away first (e.g., "castle doctrine" laws), including California and Massachusetts if I read their laws correctly. I believe Kentucky is in the minority in not applying the castle doctrine to your own home.

[thinkingwoman]

31. careful there...

everybody knows that facts and common sense are not welcome when the melodrama llama has followed someone home.

People at both extremes of the political spectrum don't take kindly to having facts spoil their emotional outburst arguments.

I'm just saying... :shrug:

[Acebass]

35. what I'm saying is this whole thing is nut's

why can't we demand better funing for law enforcment and reexamine laws that put innocents in jail and let criminals run free...
I don't want to run out of gas on a country road at night and have to worry about being shot as an inturder, while walking up to someones house, when all I want is help...


While hunting, many years ago, I came upon a fellow hunter and asked him how his morning had been, he said 'well I got off a few sound shots but other than that nothing"...
I never went back in those woods again...straw man my ass, guns and humans don't mix...

[Acebass]

36. maybe I'm a dreamer...but I'm not the only one!...

I hope some day you'll join us...then the world will live as one!...

[wicket]

48. "Happiness is a warm gun..."

:P

[Acebass]

100. Yea, now thats a saying you can live with...or not...

[wicket]

134. Just quoting John for you

:)

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[benEzra]

45. If you don't kick their door in, you can't be shot as an intruder...

why can't we demand better funing for law enforcment and reexamine laws that put innocents in jail and let criminals run free...
I don't want to run out of gas on a country road at night and have to worry about being shot as an inturder, while walking up to someones house, when all I want is help...

If you don't kick their door in, you can't be shot as an intruder. If you are merely on the doorstep ringing the doorbell, the Castle Doctrine does not apply.

If someone shoots you because you showed up on their doorstep late at night and rung their doorbell or knocked on their door, they are breaking the law--and committing manslaughter or 2nd-degree murder--under any Castle Doctrine statute in any state in this nation, including the proposed Kentucky law.

The castle doctrine pertains to defending against illegal entry, not to shooting strangers ringing the doorbell.

[Acebass]

63. ben we've been here before...

no pun intended...
With this law all a shooter has to prove is that they feared for there life...

No dragging the body back inside, they've legislated that out now, you don't have to bother...

[thinkingwoman]

69. uh, in Indiana the person has to be inside

And where in the proposed KY law does it say otherwise? Post a quote please.

[Acebass]

86. you first...where does it say otherwise...

[thinkingwoman]

89. You started this thread.

It's your job to back up your assertions.

[benEzra]

128. INCORRECT.

ben we've been here before...no pun intended...With this law all a shooter has to prove is that they feared for there life...No dragging the body back inside, they've legislated that out now, you don't have to bother...

INCORRECT. If you read the law (taking Florida's as an example), the intruder has to actually be illegally INSIDE your house for the presumption of self-defense to apply (or here in NC, actually in the act of making a forced illegal entry). Otherwise, the standard rules apply, including the provision that the person must be in REASONABLE fear of death or serious bodily harm. As in, a typical person of ordinary mental firmness would have judged the situation the same way. You can't shoot someone on your doorstep because you were afraid of them; they either have to be breaking in, have to have already broken in, or have to present an actual threat as perceived by a rational person.

The Brady Campaign tried to paint Florida's law as "if you feel threatened, you can kill somebody" but that is NOT what the law said.

A summary of the Florida law (which is more expansive than Kentucky's):

http://www.floridafirearmslaw.com/florida-selfdefense-law-analysis.pdf

“The bill permits a person to use force, including deadly force, without fear of criminal prosecution or civil action for damages, against a person who unlawfully and forcibly enters the person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle. Additionally, the bill abrogates the common law duty to retreat when attacked before using deadly force that is reasonably necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm.

“The bill creates a presumption that a defender in his or her home, in a place of temporary lodging, as a guest in the home or temporary lodging of another, or in a vehicle has a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm when the intruder is in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering or enters. It also creates a presumption that the intruder intends to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence. These presumptions protect the defender from civil and criminal prosecution for unlawful use of force or deadly force in selfdefense.

“These presumptions about the intent of the intruder, however, do not apply when the intruder:

• Has a right to be in the home, place of temporary lodging, or vehicle, unless there is a domestic violence injunction or written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person;
• Is seeking to remove a person lawfully under his or her care from a home, place of temporary lodging, or vehicle; or
• Is a law enforcement officer, acting lawfully, and the defender knew or had reason to know that the intruder was a law enforcement officer.

The attacker has to be actually breaking into your home or car, or have already made an illegal entry, in order for the law to apply. YOU CANNOT SHOOT SOMEONE STANDING ON YOUR DOORSTEP BECAUSE YOU ARE SCARED OF THEM. Period.

FWIW, Mr. Gutmacher is the leading authority on Florida self-defense law and his book on Florida firearms law is used as a training text by many Florida police academies. That link has an in-depth analysis of the new law and how it relates to existing Florida case law.

[DrGonzoLives]

46. How often do intruders knock on the door?

They tend to attempt to sneak in.

"While hunting, many years ago, I came upon a fellow hunter and asked him how his morning had been, he said 'well I got off a few sound shots but other than that nothing"..."

And this is relevant how? A hunter didn't go 1 for 1, so he's some kind of crazy-ass loon now?

[Acebass]

65. did you know Cheny thought his lawyer friend was a quail?...

[thinkingwoman]

67. You don't ACTUALLY believe that do you?

If so, I've got a bridge you can buy. Cash only please. :evilgrin:

[Acebass]

75. No...want a hunting vest? bright red, says "I'm Human"on it...n/t

[thinkingwoman]

83. Those would make money.

Somebody should make them up and start selling them.

[DrGonzoLives]

131. Way to not answer anything

You have somehow managed to extrapolate one hunter not hitting a target into all hunters somehow being crazy. Care to actually explain one of your positions in this thread?

[Anita Garcia]

39. that is insane! n/t

[Acebass]

41. Most of the crime in Kentucky specially Louisville is black on black

it has nothing to do with someone breaking into someones house...it's about another push, another excuse, some candy for the IRA so Mr Redneck can play with his guns...

[APPLE314]

44. NOT TRUE

Percentage wise you are right but literally you are wrong. There is a disproportional increase in crime based on race alone but because Blacks only comprise a small percentage of the overall population the truth is......... Most of the crime in Louisville is Caucasian on others. This is the same all over our great land.
I'll cede the dis-proportionality issue. I'm sure there are cities somewhere in America where your statement is true ( ie: where there is a Negro majority in the city ) but that should be considered as pathological.

[Acebass]

57. Well realistical Black folk are killing black folk...

I live here, and literally can't pick up the paper without seeing one poor unfortunate black soul get's shot by another...Do you live in Louisville?

[APPLE314]

149. I was born there

I agree there is a lot of b on b crime but there is more of other crime, just like in every other city. I lived there over 40 years mainly down in the West End in Portland. In the 50's it wasn't as bad but by the 60's it started falling apart. People started moving out of the inner city and the city started deteriorating. I still get there three times a year ( I go for the riverboat action in New Albany ) and the local news programs scare me. What you see headlining the news is not all the news.

[IndianaGreen]

51. Our state legislature recessed until next year

so I don't know what the fuzz is all about, particularly since the link no longer works.

We always had the right to shoot an intruder, particularly now that "home invasions" have become common in some communities.

[Acebass]

58. This one does...

http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060319/NEWS0104/603190406

since the link don't work there's no problem?...

particularly now that "home invasions" have become common in some communities.

got any references?

[IndianaGreen]

130. Don't you read the newspaper?

Many of the local crime stories don't make it to the web.

There is an increasing number of home invasions, where people break into a home while there is people inside, looking for money and drugs.

Or do you live in a community in which crime is rare?

[slackmaster]

54. Just in case anyone is interested in actually READING one of the bills

http://www.lrc.ky.gov/record/06RS/HB236.htm

AN ACT relating to general principles of justification.

Create a new section of KRS Chapter 503 relating to justification for use of force, to provide presumptions and principles relating to the use of force; amend KRS 503.010 relating to definitions to redefine dwelling, and to add definitions of residence and vehicle; amend KRS 503.050 relating to use of force for self protection to extend protection for any felony offense involving the use of force and add provision specifying that a person does not have a duty to retreat; amend KRS 503.070, relating to protection of another, to extend protection for a felony offense involving the use of force and add provision specifying that a person does not have a duty to retreat; amend KRS 503.080 relating to protection of property to include robbery and any felony offense involving the use of force and add provision specifying that a person does not have a duty to retreat; create a new section of KRS Chapter 503 to provide immunity from prosecution in certain use of force cases and provide that law enforcement can investigate claims of lawful use of force but cannot make an arrest unless there is probable cause to believe that the use of force was unlawful.

[Acebass]

60. Thats the one!... n/t

[slackmaster]

62. Did you know California has pretty much the same laws in place?

I'm interested to know how you feel about that.

[Acebass]

68. To bad for them...n/t

[slackmaster]

72. What do you think the law should say?

Are you advocating a "Duty to Retreat" system like they have in the UK?

[Acebass]

74. I advocate common sense...and common sense tells me...

That injecting guns into an already explosive (no pun intended) situation is not good, and that we should be making the public safe so they don't have to feel that they need to have a gun...

Humans-Guns=A Good Thing...

[slackmaster]

76. We'd all love to see the plan

we should be making the public safe so they don't have to feel that they need to have a gun...

Great, how do you propose to end violent crime?

[Acebass]

80. Changing attitudes like yours...wish me luck...

[slackmaster]

85. What's wrong with my attitude?

You don't even know enough about it to make that kind of statement IMO.

It's called argumentum ad hominem.

[Acebass]

88. your attitude about this is very clear, and thats all I was refereing to..

[slackmaster]

96. "very clear" about WHAT?

:shrug:

You haven't asked me a single question about what I think about anything.

[Acebass]

102. You seem to have a defeatist attitiude

Great, how do you propose to end violent crime?

I would say, reducing the amount of guns that the general public has it's hands on.
Now I ask you what would you do to reduce violent crimes?...

[rinsd]

105. End violent crime vs reduce violent crime....

"I would say, reducing the amount of guns that the general public has it's hands on"

Based on what evidence other than it "sounds right"?

Crime is to be connected far moreto economic conditions and enfranchisement vs what weapons are available.

[thinkingwoman]

109. my sociology minor says...

you are absolutely correct about this:

"Crime is to be connected far moreto economic conditions and enfranchisement vs what weapons are available."

People serious about reducing crime should focus their efforts on easing poverty and infusing the poor with hope. There are many, many people already working to that end. They could use some help.

Disarming the general public will do nothing to reduce crime. In fact, sadly, crime is likely to increase instead. This is not England. The U.S. is not an island and anyone who thinks that criminals will be stripped of their weaponry because more gun laws are passed aren't living in reality.

[Acebass]

114. you were doing really good then...

Disarming the general public will do nothing to reduce crime. In fact, sadly, crime is likely to increase instead. This is not England. The U.S. is not an island and anyone who thinks that criminals will be stripped of their weaponry because more gun laws are passed aren't living in reality.

You just gotta know how this looks on my screen...
Why do you worship guns? It makes me think you relish your situation so you can use a gun...
Are you in your situation because of a love for guns? I'm only asking, only you know?...
I have to much respect for human life to sit back and let this bad legislation go past without saying something...sorry...

[thinkingwoman]

117. Why do you worship guns sounds like Why do you hate America?

What nonsense.

Nothing in my posts on this thread imply a "worship" of guns. The only that that comes close, and could be misinterpreted, is a response to a gun relic collector somewhere in this mess. I happen to think collecting all kinds of relics is pretty cool. I'm just a freak that way I guess.

Anyway, asking "Why do you worship guns" and "are you in your situation because of a love for guns" lets me know that the opportunity for real discussion with you has passed, if it ever existed. Neither question should be dignified with an answer, so I won't.

Have a nice night.

[Acebass]

119. See Ya...

[Acebass]

113. Let's just say it's a move in the right direction...

Instead of proliferation, we reduce the need for so many of the little bugger's...

[slackmaster]

108. There was violent crime before guns were even invented

So why do you believe reducing the number of them would reduce violent crime?

Now I ask you what would you do to reduce violent crimes?...

I think these areas need to be addressed:

- Focus more effort on identifying and treating children with behavior problems before they become violent criminals.

- Ensure that every child has the opportunity to become educated and successful. Address the root causes of poverty and inequality.

- Lock up the ones who slip through the cracks, and keep them in jail.

- Educate and empower people on ways to avoid confrontations, and ways to defend themselves when a situation can't be avoided.

[Acebass]

116. the first one mmmmmm... maybe...

but the rest are cool...and they didn't involve a gun either, good work...
I'm trying to get some people elected here that say they are going to work on doing just that, but first we need to get some of these guys out...

http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060320/NEWS0101/603200356/1024


http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060320/OPINION02/603200344/1018/OPINION

[thinkingwoman]

91. There's nothing wrong with your attitude

It just doesn't jive with the OP's utopian la la land. :shrug:

I asked for his plan to make us all safe as well...still waiting for a reasoned response.

[Acebass]

94. Do you prefer this to a Utopian la la land?

I didn't say I had the answer, I'm just saying it sure isn't by arming the populace for the final shoot out at the OK coral...


Why guns? When have you had an instance to use a gun? When where you last threatened enough to need to use a gun?...

[slackmaster]

97. I've never felt threatened enough to need to use a gun

OTOH I've never felt threatened enough to use the fire extinguisher in my kitchen either.

But there it is, just in case.

(If you'd bothered to read my profile you would know specifically why I choose to own firearms.)

[thinkingwoman]

101. ROFLMAO

I just have to comment on the fire extinguisher analogy--BRAVO! :applause:



P.S. your post to ace made me go read your profile as well (something I rarely do here on DU)...wow you collect relic firearms? That's cool. Very cool.

[Acebass]

104. Now about that attitude thing...

They didn't make fire extinquishers to kill either...

[Acebass]

121. I never said anything about collecting them...

I said this law is a bad law...We are a progressive society are we not, arming the population and giving them the right to shoot first and ask questions later is a bad law...not every crime deserves the death penalty...
I long for the day when only collectors are the one's who want to own guns, why is that so wrong?...

[slackmaster]

123. This law won't do any of those things

We are a progressive society are we not,

Progress does not mean an erosion of personal freedom or empowerment.

arming the population

Nothing in this bill would arm anyone who isn't already armed, nor will it have any foreseeable effect on future decisions of individuals to arm or not to arm themselves.

giving them the right to shoot first and ask questions later

That's just plain hyperbole. I read the bill, and it will do nothing of the kind.

I long for the day when only collectors are the one's who want to own guns, why is that so wrong?...

I haven't passed any kind of value judgement on your opinion, Acebass. You are entitled to it, and as long as you express it politely I don't have any problem with you or your viewpoint.

You are free to own a gun or not to. You have the right to ban them from your own home. I'm perfectly OK with that. And if you want to try some kind of non-violent, non-confrontational approach to defending yourself in the event someone breaks into your home, I'm fine with that too.

All I ask is that you not try to impose your beliefs on everyone. No two people live in exactly the same situation.

[thinkingwoman]

98. For more than half a decade

my family has lived in hiding, with protective orders, because of a stalker who was released from prison after doing 10 for attempted murder. The judge had no problem believing we feared for our lives. Every cop I've ever spoke to about the situation (about a dozen officers from 3 different jurisdictions) all believed we should be prepared to defend ourselves as well. I mentioned this on other posts in this thread. We recently got sick of living in hiding and decided to live the rest of our lives as normal people, which increases the danger for us again. I know real danger. I've seen no evidence from your posts that you ever have.

I also group up in rural southern Indiana. There have been instances when there were attempted break ins (nobody shot anybody, because the break in did NOT completely occur) at homes I lived in as a child and as an adult. I have also known people who have experienced home invasions. Usually these are committed by drug addicts who won't respond to reason and leave the homeowner no alternative but to shoot in self-defense.

That being said, home invasions are fairly rare in southern Indiana and it's a well known fact that most homeowners are armed. Nobody is ever shot on the porch for asking for help when their car breaks down or mistakenly shot when they wander over to the neighbor's open garage to say hi. I've lived in southern Indiana for 4 decades and my family has been here since the early 1800s. Those scenarios just don't happen--they're strawman arguments.

On the flipside, shooting somebody in your home isn't an automatic self defense if your story is bullshit. A good example of this can be found here:

http://tmnews.com/articles/2006/03/20/sections/news/news51.txt

I was speaking to cops (in a neighboring county) the day after that shooting happened. All of them said the story stank and charges would be filed. I expect a guilty verdict will be delivered when all is said and done. We "trigger happy" rednecks (whether liberal or conservative) don't take so kindly to murder, regardless of our thoughts on self defense.

Your posts on this thread reveal either a profound lack of knowledge of the reality of self-defense situations or a willfull denial of them. Whatever the case you seem rather unwilling to entertain any ideas besides your own. How sad for you.

[Acebass]

110. You've got your story I've got mine...

And reading yours hasn't changed my mind as I'm sure reading mine wont chang yours, so I wont bore anyone with it. I'm sure benezra remembers some of it...

I'm sad for you, that you must live in the fear that you do and would support laws that would punish someone for what this person is doing. I wish that you wouldn't have to worry again. However this law in Kentucky is a bad law and wether it would help you situation or not we here in Kentucky do not deserve to be saddled with it...

Here are some opinions of how we feel...

http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060306/OPINION02/603060337&SearchID=73237778851685

[thinkingwoman]

115. I have no interest in changing your mind

My opinions don't need validation from you, and I'm not one of those people who needs to have everyone agree with me.

[Acebass]

118. It's a Free country...so far...

to bad though...I don't think your a bad person, I just wouldn't want you to give a bad person a gun. It happened to me, so don't ever think it can't happen to you...

[simonm]

107. better chance for survival

Guns provide a higher chance for survival especially when confronting a larger enemy or multiple enemies. I've studied martial arts and would never recommend close combat unless there is no other option.

With a gun, at least you can fire a warning shot from a safe distance that will stop most intruders.

[Acebass]

111. Has the invasion started ?... this is still America right?...

[simonm]

120. choice

Has the invasion started

How you deal with a situation is your choice. I prefer to be realistic and avoid becoming a victim out of ignorance. Violence is a part of life and you can't expect the government to be around all the time.

this is still America right?

Yup, it sure is. In a utopia we would never have to fight for our freedoms. You need a lesson in U.S. history and our founding fathers.

[Acebass]

122. making assumtions seems to be a habit...

There was another here who did that...
I've studied our founding fathers thank you...
In life you get what you strive for. I strive for utopia and admit the flaws along the way, but to give up is not in my vocabulary...Why is my way so bad?...

[simonm]

124. nothing bad

There is nothing wrong with your ideology. I believe attacking the symptom (a person's need for protection) is a waste of time. There are good reasons why most here choose to protect themselves.

Working towards utopia requires eliminating the root causes of the problem. Root causes like destitution, lack of education, drugs, poor economy, conflict, opportunity...etc.

Just suggesting your focus is misdirected.

[Acebass]

125. It stems from a broader hypothesis ...

a lack of respect for life, and I'm not talking abortion...

[rinsd]

79. And maybe later we can all sing kumbayaa and peace will reign...

...christ come back to planet Earth.

[Acebass]

81. No, you come into the future...

[thinkingwoman]

70. Almost every state has the same type of laws

For good reason...they're necessary, unfortunately.

[Acebass]

73. I don't think so...

Does your state have a concealed carry law?...

For good reason...they're necessary, unfortunately.

Not that your any different than a seeming majority of people, which this thread represents, so don't take this personal, but this attitude drives me up a wall...
Is this the America we want? It wasn't always like this! What happened?...
This is the deevolution of man, when we run out of gun powder will we revert back to rocks and sticks? This is, like I said before, giving up, or is that what they want us to do, who knows?...
And in the end this law is not nessesary. This is not the crime thats the problem. The problem we have here in Louiville is the black on black Gun crime...
Other crime goes on, thats a fact, but this is whats taking lives. Now they want a law that gives people even more reason to shoot first ask questions later...
All I gotta say is, God help us, if your out there!...

[slackmaster]

78. There are two reasons for the bills

1. People who engage in legitimate acts of self-defense should not have to worry about being prosecuted or sued, and

2. Maybe people who are thinking of breaking in to an occupied house will think twice about it.

I agree with #1 completely. #2 sounds good but I haven't seen any hard evidence to support it.

[thinkingwoman]

84. There are statistics that claim to prove

that states which enact concealed carry laws show a drop in their crime rates, at least initially. I'm not endorsing or refuting this view...just stating that it exists.

#1 says it all for me though.

[Acebass]

92. Statistics change for any number of reasons...

To say that enacting gun legislation is the cause is ludicrous...

[thinkingwoman]

93. If you read carefully, it will be clear

that I didn't say any such thing, and, in fact, anticipating your knee-jerk response, took pains to make that crystal clear.

[Acebass]

95. I read carefully...and yes it was clear...

but now I don't really know where your coming from...
I just made a statememt to reaffirm your post, and my knees didn't even twitch...

[thinkingwoman]

99. You did?

Hmmm, my apologies for misreading your post then. Sincerely. I'll go reread.

[Acebass]

103. I just agreed...

in my own way that stats don't really show the whole picture, and until we look into the human side we can only quess...
We can always hope that it was because people just felt nicer about each other, but that would be too utopian wouldn't it?...

[thinkingwoman]

106. I see what I missed

and reiterate my apology.

re: utopia --

There's nothing wrong, imho, with working toward utopia, as long as one remembers that the world they live in today isn't the same as the one they're trying to build. Change like that doesn't happen overnight.

If you were arguing against self-defense purely as a pacifist, I could respect that argument even as I disagreed with it. But telling folks they're wrong to advocate self-defense and offering "can't we all just get along" style justifications doesn't reflect reality.

[Acebass]

112. We still have a ways to go...

but we're making progress...

[politicat]

126. So if I kill the cops who break down my door on a no knock warrant,

am I spared the legal ramifications of killing a cop? After all, they're intruders, they're unannounced, they're usually not making it clear what they're doing, and since their record of accuracy is pretty miserable, am I justified in defending myself?

The mind boggles.

[benEzra]

129. If the police have a warrant,

then no, the law would NOT protect your actions.

If the police did NOT have a warrant and were conducting an illegal entry, or carelessly had the wrong house, you can lawfully use force in self-defense in most states, since the police in that case would be conducting an illegal forced entry and would be treated by state law as any other criminal. You don't get a free pass to commit crimes just because you are wearing a badge.

Having said that, police are usually VERY careful to make sure they have a warrant and are at the right place before staging a no-knock raid, so if you are a law-abiding person not doing anything illegal, and your door gets kicked in in the middle of the night by people yelling "police, get down on the floor," they are probably NOT police.

[politicat]

138. Not in this state...

Denver police have a horrible track record of getting the right house. They've no-knocked (and killed) neighbors of those named on the warrant, houses where they have been supposedly surveilling for weeks but are still unaware of conditions inside the house (like birthday parties for children), addresses on the wrong side of the city from where they're supposed to be, addresses where the named party hasn't lived in months or years (and the lease has changed)....

And innocent civilians have died because of these incompetent bullies. Maybe of they knew people might be shooting back (and likely to get off as self-defense) they'd check their paperwork more carefully.

[benEzra]

139. That's scary... (n/t)

[MrBenchley]

133. Gun loonies running wild....

Can't say it much better than this, and from deepest Dixie, too:

"Jefferson County District Attorney David Barber and other prosecutors have argued the new "deadly force" bill is not just a license to kill for law-abiding citizens, but for criminals. Barber has gone so far as to say the law could double the murder rate.
Specifically, the bill expands the circumstances in which people can use deadly force to protect themselves. It also creates the presumption that people who use deadly force against aggressors are justified, and it protects them from criminal and civil liability.
It all sounds good in theory, of course. But in practice, prosecutors foresee criminals using the law to get away, literally, with murder.
The bill provides enough cover that someone could be killed for sport or spite, and the killer could argue it was done in self-defense. All he'd have to say is he felt threatened. Under this law, if a jury found the argument plausible, the killer would be presumed justified and immune from prosecution.
Why open this door? Because so many people are in prison today because they shot burglars coming into their homes? Hardly. "

http://www.al.com/opinion/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/opinion/114276400150840.xml&coll=2

And of course, it's worth noting that the slogan the NRA and the GOP uses to push this disgrace is "Your Home is Your Castle"....which owes its provenance to the last ditch attempts to shore up Jim Crow.

[slackmaster]

136. Mr. Barber is blowing smoke

Barber has gone so far as to say the law could double the murder rate.

Based on what?

It hasn't happened in Florida, where the deadly force law isn't even confined to one's domicile.

[benEzra]

141. Or Massachusetts...or California...or NC...or Maine...or Vermont... (n/t)

[MrBenchley]

145. We got 30,000 a year killed by guns

and another 60,0000-75,000 wouynded every year....that's far too fucking many. No other civilized nation suffers nearly that amount of bloodshed...

[DrGonzoLives]

146. How many die in traffic accidents?

n/t

[MrBenchley]

147. Funny, I don't see the AAA pushing to increase traffic accidents

or trying to get bills passed to allow motrorists to run down pedestrians in "self defense."

[DrGonzoLives]

148. Yeah, that analogy works

:eyes:

[MrBenchley]

144. Between you and Barber, guess which one has credibility....

Here's a hint...it's him.

[slackmaster]

150. Let's talk about credibility, MrBenchley

MrBenchley claims smokeless powders used in Europe contain taggants. They don't.

"...about the assertion that taggants (such as are used in Europe) would make guns explode?"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=44507&mesg_id=44563&page=

Rather than acknowledge that the Pink Pistols is a genuine pro-gun group of gay people, he'd rather believe that the Roman Catholic Church supports gay rights:

"A pastoral letter released today by the U.S. Catholic Conference encouraging families to accept their gay loved ones and reaffirming the basic human rights of gay people was welcomed by the Human Rights Campaign as an important step forward on the road to ending discrimination based on sexual orientation."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=20608&mesg_id=20675&page=

He claims proposed Iraqi constitution says "All gun owners must be registered and all guns licensed." It doesn't.

Under Iraq's proposed Constitution... ...All gun owners must be registered and all guns licensed.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=49018&mesg_id=49135&page=

MrBenchley claimed that kits to convert semi-automatic firearms into fully automatic machineguns are legal (thanks to efforts by the gun lobby), and that anyone can buy one at a gun show.

Are you trying to tell us conversion kits are illegal? It happens that the gunbb lobby fought tooth and nail to make them legal.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x50058#53363

Of course, that isn't true at all. See http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/atf_letter37.txt

MrBenchley admits he hasn't even read a magazine that he's criticized repeatedly, and even posts images of its cover.

And who really fucking NEEDS to be told that a gun magazine for kids (with ads marketing guns to kids) is a crappy, irresponsible idea?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=55135&mesg_id=55138

And my all-time favorite, MrBenchley posted two links that were supposed to identify five "assault weapons",

"Uzis and AK-47's are not semi-automatic."
From gun merchant SecurityArms.com...

"Maadi AK-47 (Egyption)
Its caliber is 7.62x39mm, and it is semi automatic. "

http://www.securityarms.com/20010315/galleryfiles/1600/1635.htm

From gun merchant "Magnificent World"

"UZI SPECIFICATION
Models
UZI SMG
Mini UZI SMG
Micro UZI SMG
UZI Pistol
Ammunition
9mm Parabellum
Operation
Blowback firing from open bolt position (OBP)
Blowback firing from closed bolt position (CBP or OBP)
Blowback firing from CBP
Mode of firing
Semi-automatic, Automatic
Semi-automatic "

http://www.info.com.ph/~mwgs/specs_3.htm

I'll take my playmates ovber the scum the gun nuts associate with any day....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=55681&mesg_id=55811&page=

But he was wrong on 4 out of 5. Three of them are machineguns and the fourth is a post-ban semiautomatic AK variant which is perfectly legal under the AW ban.

MrBenchley claimed he typed an 88-word quote from a newspaper published 10 weeks earlier from memory with 100% accuracy, when he actually took the quote from a pro-RKBA source and didn't want anyone to read the rest of the article - http://www.2ndamendment.com/Miscellaneous/News/20040227-05.htm

Actually I didn't feel like paying the Kansas City Star for an archived article, especially since I remembered it 100% correctly.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=56802&mesg_id=56915

And MrBenchley thinks 2003 - 12 = 1994.

12 years (ending in 2003) would coincide with the passage of the Brady law... (ending in 2003 added by slackmaster for clarity - see the thread if you don't believe me)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=57473&mesg_id=57575

the whole point of assault weapons is that they can be converted to full auto fire with a few minor modifications.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1655413&mesg_id=1655831

[IA_Seth]

151. Lol.. Thank you. N/T

[Radio_Guy]

137. I'm absolutely against such a law

But one upside is maybe it will keep the Jehovah's Witnesses away.

[benEzra]

140. Do the door-to-door types routinely kick in doors in your state?

I know they can be pushy sometimes, but since they actually have to break in for the law to apply...

[Radio_Guy]

142. No, but

If I put up a sign saying "intruders will be shot" even though I don't own a gun, that may give them second thoughts about knocking on my door.