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 6.6.2
Site Design by Sekimori

« Article on arming teachers | Main | Self defense, proportionality & gap between law and popular views »

MA gubernatorial debates turn to castle doctrine & gun laws

Posted by David Hardy · 25 October 2006 07:23 PM

The transcript is here.

Interesting that the castle doctrine (or as Brady calls it, the "shoot first law") plays that well even in Boston.

· State legislation

2 Comments | Leave a comment

Rick | October 26, 2006 9:29 AM | Reply

It's interesting because the law in Massachusetts has made a complete turn, and did so about 1995. Up until that point (under a law enacted in the Mike Dukakis administration) we had what might be described as the exact opposite of castle doctrine: in the event of an intrusion, the home owner was obligated to flee the premises, and was only permitted to use self-defense if it could be proven that there was no possible means of escape. (For example: during an intrusion, you've barricaded yourself in a bedroom when intruder kicks in the door. You shoot. If you're on a first floor and could have gone out a window...bad for you. If you're on the 10th floor and would have plunged to your death...OK, grudgingly, you did all you could do.)



The absurdity of this finally sank in even to the legislature here, and the law was changed around 1995.



Ironically, most people in this state who are alarmed about the "shoot first" laws cropping up in other states don't realize that it's already in effect here.

mike | October 27, 2006 6:02 PM | Reply

If you really think this is playing well in Massachusetts then you should read "mAss Backwards" comments on these statements.

Be enlightened.

Leave a comment