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

« Robber pulls gun on vet, finds himself kissing a 9mm | Main | DC police ordered to arrest for possession of fired brass »

"No retreat" law repeal

Posted by David Hardy · 5 September 2013 12:36 PM

I've noticed that, whenever a person or group objects to "no retreat," they never say just what they want to do about it, other than "talk" or "have a dialogue" on it. That's because the purpose of the protest is to have a protest, and not to air a proposal. So I'll supply the deficiency with a draft bill they can endorse.

Whereas, the lives and persons of murderers, rapists, robbers, and other violent criminals are offered insufficient protection under existing law, and

Whereas, murderers, rapists, robbers, and other violent criminals are exposed to undue and unreasonable danger from resisting victims, and

Whereas, a home is not a castle,

Therefore be it enacted:

I. Limitation on Use of Force in Self-Defense.

A. The victim of attempted murder, rape, robbery or other violent offense is not justified in using force to resist unless the said victim is unable to retreat from the person attempting the violent offence.

B. A person attempting to prevent the commission of murder, rape, robbery or other violent offense against another person is not justified unless the victim is unable to retreat from the person attempting the violent offense.

C. This Act shall be entitled “The Violent Criminals’ Protection Act of 2013.”

· Self defense

8 Comments | Leave a comment

Tom | September 5, 2013 1:26 PM | Reply

Well, it pretty much works that way in England, so why not in the USA, too?

Liberals would be ecstatic, until the time comes when THEY are the ones facing a bad guy.

Jim D. | September 5, 2013 8:05 PM | Reply

For cryin' out loud, Dave! Don't give them any ideas. They're likely to take this advice.

Rich | September 6, 2013 6:57 AM | Reply

Tom:

They will never face it because their armed security force won't let that happen :)

cp | September 6, 2013 10:43 AM | Reply

I think back in the "old days" there was a "fear" of being hanged for assaulting someone or someone's property......it seemed to work back then.

Lyle | September 6, 2013 12:21 PM | Reply

It's not so much that they want to protect the criminals, though that is a part of it. More importantly, they want to make sure YOU are under someone's thumb. Or as was quoted here;
http://blog.joehuffman.org/2013/09/03/quote-of-the-daysebastian-6/

"It’s not that many who support gun control want to live in a world without criminals having guns, they want to live in a world without people like you and me."

That would explain a whole lot.

Archer | September 6, 2013 12:39 PM | Reply

I like it. Leave it JUST like that. No exemptions for police or uniformed armed security.

That way, Rich's statement above can't come to pass, since the liberals' armed security agents are also bound by a duty to retreat.

Actually, now that I think about it, it's good that there's no "in complete safety" added to the retreat requirement, but maybe we should clarify that to make sure one isn't implied: "...not justified in using any degree of force to resist unless the victim is completely and entirely unable to retreat from the person attempting the violent offence."

Also, make violation of this Act a Class A Violent Felony (or Class 1, depending on jurisdiction).

Windy Wilson | September 6, 2013 2:39 PM | Reply

I think B) covers the ability of hired security to act in protection of others. "A person attempting to prevent the commission of murder, . . . against another person is not justified unless the victim is unable to retreat from the person attempting the violent offense.
Which is as it should be. Security guards have no more special knowledge about when crimes are occurring than do any other citizens.

chris stewart | September 7, 2013 6:20 PM | Reply

Thats almost believable, except for the title.
Doesn't standard naming practice require a name like "The Protecting America Act" or "The Right to Defense Act"?
“The Violent Criminals’ Protection Act" doesn't fit the content.

Leave a comment