Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« Google China's censorship and the right to arms | Main | Kerry on Alito filibuster »

Arizona bill modelled on Florida Self-Defense statute

Posted by David Hardy · 27 January 2006 08:51 AM

The Arizona Senate is proposing self-defense legislation modeled on that of Florida. Different bills would either (a) establish "no retreat" or (b) put the burden on the prosecution to disprove self-defense when it is alleged. Prosecutors are objecting, of course.

(I'm not sure either marks a major change in the law. On the first, present Ariz. law simply requires that the force used be "reasonably necessary." Earlier caselaw had refused to impose a retreat requirement. On the other hand, I suppose it's open to argue that availability of retreat made force not "reasonably necessary," thus bringing it in by the back door. With the other, if I remember correctly, the defendant has the burden of proving self-defense by a preponderance of the evidence (it's more likely than not to have been the case), whereupon the burden shifts to the prosecution to rebut it by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

· contemporary issues

Leave a comment