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 6.8.8
Site Design by Sekimori

« "No retreat laws" and race | Main | Virginia: gun sales up, crime down »

Connecticut, which requires retreat, wants to weaken self-defense even farther

Posted by David Hardy · 3 August 2013 08:40 PM

"In Wake of Zimmerman Acquittal, Legislators Plan to Scrutinize Laws."

The president of the CT Police Chiefs Association "sees no reason to change the current law. "Basically a citizen has to make an attempt to get away, to get to an area of safety. Citizens have to make a reasonable effort to get away before they [can] use deadly force.""

I wonder how the Legislature is supposed to write something more favorable to criminal than that. Maybe no resistance to violent criminals at all?

8 Comments | Leave a comment

John | August 3, 2013 8:57 PM | Reply

Well this is one other thing they can do. Make it illegal to use force to defend yourself in any format?

Jeff | August 3, 2013 10:30 PM | Reply

So if you are at a grade school and the next Adam Lanza is slaughtering kids, do you have to run away rather than stop him?

fwb | August 4, 2013 9:25 AM | Reply

This is just like Canada where the people are subjects and not citizens. One cannot defend oneself even in one's home. They have forced entry while someone is home at much higher rates than the US and these entries usually involve the homeowner being injured or killed.


Note: Seattle is looking to ban the word citizen in favor of resident so as not to offend certain persons.

As happened over and over and over, each country that has embraced immorality has failed. The US is in its death throes now.

Who is to blame? Primarily We the People. We chose the corrupt, immoral, unethical people who occupy our government positions. And they chose even more corrupt, immoral, and unethical people to do the work of destroying the greatness what once was.

Norman Yarvin | August 4, 2013 11:05 AM | Reply

The actual language of the current Connecticut law is not bad at all: "...a person is not justified in using deadly physical force upon another person if he or she knows that he or she can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety (1) by retreating ..."

The knowledge that is is "completely safe" to retreat is absent from most confrontations with criminals. I believe that courts have taken a narrower view of this, but the language as written is fine. And there are exceptions to the duty to retreat for, among other things, people in their own houses.

In particular, when confronting an Adam Lanza type, the "necessity of using such force" is for the protection of others, so that necessity could not be avoided by retreating. (Protecting a "third person" is explicitly allowed for by the law.)

So the law could easily be more favorable to criminals.

The Connecticut statute number is 53a-19.

Rich | August 5, 2013 6:58 AM | Reply

hey if you are a white Hispanic you are supposed to let yourself be killed rather than defend yourself

Archer | September 1, 2013 9:35 PM | Reply

Short and sweet. We've maintained from the start that the TM/GZ case was really about more gun control. If you don't have the right to defend yourself...then you don;t need the tools to do it. Neat how that works, hu?

vince | August 30, 2015 4:51 AM | Reply

law makers, what happened to the right to defend yourself and property

Anonymous | December 8, 2015 2:36 PM | Reply

this is so messed up this is why I want to get out of this state.

Leave a comment