Three Times Is Enemy Action

“Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action”

Auric Goldfinger to James Bond in Ian Fleming's Goldfinger.

It started with State Rep. Randy Dunn (D-Kansas City) who introduced House Bill 1940 into the Missouri House of Representatives. His bill would imposed a duty to retreat when faced with a threat. In effect, it would nullify the Castle Doctrine in the state of Missouri.

Dunn says his proposed bill has three main provisions.

"It would require a person to attempt to retreat if at all possible when facing danger," he said.

A defendant must also prove they had no other option than to use deadly force as opposed to the prosecution as it is under the current statue. The third provision would disallow automatic immunity from a civil lawsuit for anyone who uses deadly force or shoots someone.

Then it continued with a move by Rep. Harold Mitchell (D-Spartanburg) to repeal South Carolina's version of the "stand your ground" law. Mitchell, chairman of the SC Legislative Black Caucus, introduced the bill along with 17 co-sponsors. House Bill 4801 requires a duty to retreat anywhere except in a person's home.

From The State of Columbia, SC:

The chairman of the state Legislative Black Caucus, backed by several ministers, former law enforcement officials and activists, has introduced a bill to repeal South Carolina’s “Stand your ground” law.

The bill would not do away with residents’ longstanding right to defend themselves with deadly force while inside their homes, vehicles and businesses, Rep. Harold Mitchell, D-Spartanburg, stressed at a Thursday news conference at the State House.

But the bill – which has 17 co-sponsors in addition to Mitchell – would eliminate the “Stand your ground” legal defense used by those who use a knife or gun to kill or wound people in public places, then claim they used deadly force because they feared for their lives.

“‘Stand your ground’ is ‘last man standing.’ What we want to do is go back and protect people in their homes, their vehicles and their place of business,” Mitchell said.

And finally, the Detroit's chapter of the National Action Network is seeking to a referendum measure put on the November ballot in Michigan that would repeal that state's "stand your ground" laws. According to Fox 2 Detroit, the group was headed today to the state capitol in Lansing to lobby lawmakers to repeal "stand your ground". I have no doubt that they will find a sympathetic lawmaker who will do their bidding and introduce such as bill.

The National Action Network referred to above is run by the Rev. Al Sharpton who led a rally in Tallahassee yesterday to repeal that state's "stand your ground" law. The move to repeal "stand your ground" laws is also supported by Attorney General Eric Holder despite the fact that a study in Florida found that African-Americans benefited from using that state's law as a defense at a rate out of proportion to their numbers in the population.

As to who is coordinating this attack on both the castle doctrine and stand your ground laws, I'm not sure. However, seeing these efforts in states as disparate as South Carolina, Michigan, and Missouri leads me to believe that some sort of coordination is going on. While the Rev. Al can raise hell with his rallies, I just don't see him as being behind legislative efforts. It doesn't fit his profile.

If you have seen similar efforts in your state, let me know in the comments or pop me an email.

UPDATE: It seems the Demanding Mommies have a petition against stand your ground laws according to their Facebook page. Given that they are now merged with Bloomberg's Illegal Mayors, perhaps, and I say just perhaps, this is the next Bloomberg initiative. The curious thing is that all the efforts we have seen so far - Missouri, South Carolina, and Michigan - are African-American led efforts and I just don't see much solidarity between them and the suburban Demanding Mommies.

Castle Doctrine Coming To The Land Of Castles?

It appears that at least a limited form of the castle doctrine may be coming to the United Kingdom according to a story in the Daily Mail Online.

Chris Grayling, the Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary, announced that he is changing the law that would allow home owners (or householders, in Brit-speak) to use "disproportionate force" when faced with burglars or home invaders. Currently, people in the UK are only allowed to use "reasonable" force and it was only within the last couple of years that the duty to retreat even if within the home was removed.

It will mean someone who is confronted by a burglar and has reason to fear for their safety, or their family’s safety and in the heat of the moment uses force that later seems ‘disproportionate’ will not be guilty of an offence.

This could include the use of lethal force. Only force which is ‘grossly’ disproportionate will not be permitted.

Mr Grayling said: ‘Being confronted by an intruder in your home is terrifying, and the public should be in no doubt that the law is on their side. That is why I am strengthening the current law.

‘Householders who act instinctively and honestly in self-defence are crime victims and should be treated that way.

‘We need to dispel doubts in this area once and for all, and I am very pleased to be delivering on the pledge that we made in Opposition.’

It is good to see that the United Kingdom is coming to its senses on this. Many may remember the story of farmer Tony Martin who served more time in prison for killing a burglar in his house than did the burglar's accomplices. Martin was originally convicted of murder and eventually had his conviction reduced to manslaughter on appeal. He still had to serve a five year sentence.

UPDATE: The British paper The Daily Telegraph has more on the changes as proposed by the Justice Secretary Chris Grayling. They note such a "law-and-order" policy is quite popular with the Conservative Party's base.

Why Everyone Needs A Castle Doctrine

The right to protect yourself and your family from attack by criminals is a basic human right. It is the basis behind castle doctrine laws.

Unfortunately, that basic human right is trampled on with regularity in the country that provided us with the original castle doctrine - the United Kingdom of (formerly) Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Andy and Tracey Ferrie of Welby, near Melton Mowbray, Leicestershire, are finding this out the hard way. They have been arrested for shooting two (out of four) burglars who invaded their home early Sunday with their legally possessed shotgun.

From the British newspaper, The Telegraph:

Mr Ferrie, who owns his own mobile caravan and motorhome servicing business, had confronted four burglars, aged between 23 and 33, who broke into the cottage and fired a legally-owned shotgun at them, injuring two.

He telephoned police immediately whilst one of the injured men called an ambulance. He was taken to hospital, where he along with three other men were arrested on suspicion of aggravated burglary.

Mr and Mrs Ferrie were arrested at their home on suspicion of grievous bodily harm.

All six remained in custody today for questioning by detectives, whilst the cottage continued to be searched by forensic officers.

If there is anything good about this case it is that the Ferrie's Member of Parliament is standing behind them in their efforts to protect themselves from thugs.

Alan Duncan, the Conservative MP for Rutland and Melton, and Minister of State for International Development, said the householders should not be prosecuted for defending their home.

"If this is a straightforward case of someone using a shotgun to defend themselves against burglars in the dead of night, then I would hope that the police will prosecute the burglars and not my constituents," he said.

"The householder is the victim here and justice should support them and prosecute the burglars."

If this had happened in North Carolina or any number of other states that have strong castle doctrine laws, the Ferries would be free, the burglars would be in custody, and the Ferries would be immune from civil suits by the crooks.


H/T Steve T.

Counter-Attack On NC's Castle Doctrine Law

The attack on North Carolina's Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground law has begun. Today, a group of Democratic legislators introduced HB 1192 - Amend Castle Doctrine/Repeal Stand Ground. This bill would remove many of the hard-won protections that finally passed in 2011 (SL2011-268) especially those related to the workplace and in motor vehicles.

The text of the bill is below:

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING THE "CASTLE DOCTRINE" AND TO REPEAL THE "STAND YOUR GROUND LAWS" SO THAT THE COMMON LAW CONTINUES TO GOVERN THE LAWFUL USE OF FORCE IN DEFENSE OF ONE'S SELF OR ANOTHER PERSON.

The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts:
SECTION 1. G.S. 14-51.2 is repealed.
SECTION 2. G.S. 14-51.3 is repealed.
SECTION 3. G.S. 14-51.4 is repealed.
SECTION 4. Article 14 of Chapter 14 of the General Statutes is amended by adding a new section to read:
"§ 14-51.5. Use of deadly physical force against an intruder.
(a) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence is justified in using any degree of force that the occupant reasonably believes is necessary, including deadly force, against an intruder to prevent a forcible entry into the home or residence or to terminate the intruder's unlawful entry (i) if the occupant reasonably apprehends that the intruder may kill or inflict serious bodily harm to the occupant or others in the home or residence or (ii) if the occupant reasonably believes that the intruder intends to commit a felony in the home or residence.
(b) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence does not have a duty to retreat from an intruder in the circumstances described in this section.
(c) This section is not intended to repeal, expand, or limit any other defense that may exist under the common law."
SECTION 5. This act becomes effective December 1, 2012, and applies to offenses committed on or after that date.

The primary sponsors of this bill are Rep. Alma Adams (D-Guilford), Rep. William Wainwright (D-Craven), Rep. Mickey Michaux (D-Durham), and Rep. Rodney Moore (D-Mecklenburg). Rep. Rosa Gill (D-Wake), and Rep. Pricey Harrison (D-Guilford) are co-sponsors of the bill. All of the legislators with the exception of Pricey Harrison are African-American. Harrison, an heir to the Jefferson Standard Insurance fortune, has sponsored gun control bills in the past including a proposal to create a centralized database of those denied pistol permits in North Carolina. Pistol purchase permits it should be remembered are a remnant of the Jim Crow era and was a way to deny blacks their Second Amendment rights.

The first section removed established the presumption of a reasonable fear of death or severe bodily harm for which deadly force could be used in the home, workplace, or motor vehicle if a person had unlawfully and forcibly entered (or was in the process of doing it) the home, car, or workplace. It also protected the lawful use of defensive force from civil liability.

The second section being removed deals with the defense of person and the use of force to protect oneself if you believe you are in danger of death or severe bodily injury. The current law also removed the duty to retreat as well a protected someone defending him or herself in accordance with the law from civil liability.

Finally, the third part of the Castle Doctrine removed, GS 14-51.4, states that the justification for use of defensive force is not available to anyone in the commission of a felony as well as to anyone who provoked an encounter. However, the person provoking the encounter can regain justification for the use of defensive force if they have explicitly backed off or if they have no possible way to retreat and the provoked person is about to kill them.

Frankly, HB 1192 is about making a political statement and not about changing the existing Castle Doctrine and Duty to Retreat. It has no chance of passing in this General Assembly and the sponsors know it. I'm just surprised that they haven't named it the "Trayvon(TM) Martin Memorial Act". I guess that would be even a bit much for this group of legislators.

Castle Doctrine Comes To North Carolina

The provisions of the omnibus firearms bill, HB 650, passed by the North Carolina General Assembly and signed by Gov. Bev Perdue earlier this year go into effect today.

This means that as of today, North Carolina has a castle doctrine that extends to not only to your home but to your vehicle and to your business. Moreover, if you are a visitor to North Carolina and you have a concealed carry permit from ANY state, it is honored here.

Sean at An NC Gun Blog has probably the best summary of all the provisions of the bill and it can be found here.

Just because we now have the castle doctrine doesn't mean the fight for gun rights is won in North Carolina.

The right to carry in eating establishments and restaurants that serve alcohol (HB 111) has passed the House but not the Senate. It appears that the Republican leadership of the State Senate is dragging its feet on this one. The rumor is that they saw the results of some poorly worded opinion poll showing voters against it. The one word I'd have for the wavering senators is Lubys.

Carry in state, municipal, and county parks is now legal except for athletic facilities. The problem has come in how many towns and cities are broadly defining athletic facilities to include virtually the entire park including walking trails, greenways, and lakes. I'm afraid it is going to take a court challenge to cities such as Winston-Salem who have passed such broad ordinances to force cities to comply with both the letter and spirit of the law.

Nonetheless, this is a new day for North Carolina and those who worked so hard for so many years should be proud of what they have accomplished.

PA Governor Signs Castle Doctrine Into Law

From the NRA-ILA on today's signing of the Castle Doctrine into law by Gov. Tom Corbett (R-PA):

Pennsylvania Governor Signs NRA-Backed Castle Doctrine into Law

Fairfax, Va. - Governor Tom Corbett has signed Pennsylvania Castle Doctrine legislation into law. This common-sense measure permits law-abiding citizens to use force, including deadly force, against an attacker in their home and any place where they have a legal right to be. It also protects individuals from civil lawsuits by an attacker or attacker’s family when force is used.

“Gov. Corbett and Pennsylvania lawmakers know that law-abiding citizens must have the right to protect themselves when criminals attack without fear of being second-guessed by an overzealous prosecutor,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director, National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action. “Crime victims don’t have the luxury of time when confronted by a criminal and must be able to count on the law being on their side. This new law accomplishes that by removing any mandate of forcible retreat.”

The NRA has led the nationwide movement to pass Castle Doctrine legislation, beginning with Florida in 2005. Pennsylvania is the 27th state to adopt this important measure with overwhelming bipartisan support. House Bill 40, sponsored by Rep. Scott Perry (R-92), passed by a 164 to 37 margin. Richard Alloway, II (R-33), sponsored the companion bill to HB 40, Senate Bill 273, which passed 43-4.

“I am very gratified that Governor Corbett has signed this legislation into law, correcting the grievous error made by the previous administration in denying these long-sought protections to our citizens,” said Rep. Perry. “There are many people who have worked hard to get this legislation to this point, and I am grateful to my House and Senate colleagues and to the National Rifle Association for their support. The time has finally come to return common sense and good judgment to state government, and this legislation is a step in that direction. A criminal should never have an advantage over a citizen who abides by the rules of decent society, and today, we finally achieved the goal of returning the right of self-defense to the law-abiding.”

"Law-abiding gun owners should not have to fear prosecution for acting to prevent a violent crime," said Sen. Alloway, who introduced Castle Doctrine legislation that was approved by the Senate in March. "I am thankful that the General Assembly has taken action to protect responsible gun owners who respond when facing a serious threat from a criminal. I would also like to thank the NRA for their strong leadership and hard work on this effort as it moved through the legislative process.”

“On behalf of NRA members and all gun owners in Pennsylvania, I would like to thank Rep. Perry; Sen. Alloway; and Gov. Corbett for their leadership in helping make Castle Doctrine a reality for Pennsylvanians,” concluded Cox. “This Castle Doctrine bill places the law on the side of law-abiding gun owners who unfortunately become victims of crime – exactly where the law should be.”

In less than one week, the governors of both North Carolina and Pennsylvania have signed legislation implementing the Castle Doctrine in their respective states. There is only one thing to say about this.

Winning!

NC: One Signature Away From Having The Castle Doctrine

With the State House voting 80 to 39 to concur with the State Senate version of HB 650, the State of North Carolina is just one signature away from being protected by the Castle Doctrine.

HB 650 has been ordered engrossed and sent to Gov. Bev Perdue for her signature. I have not heard any comments that would seem to indicate she plans to veto the bill. I hope she doesn't forget she was endorsed by the NRA when she ran for Governor in 2008.

Sean at An NC Gun Blog has more on the bill and the vote. Thanks to him we have the vote which has not yet been reported on the General Assembly site.


UPDATE:  WRAL is reporting that Perdue could well sign HB 650.

But other bills are likely to get a warmer reception, and Pearson said H650 Amend Various Gun Laws/Castle Doctrine might be among them. "As you know, the Governor is a lifetime NRA member," Pearson said. "She understands and supports gun rights. She'll have to read it carefully, of course, but she tends to be pretty moderate on guns."

You sure wish that Perdue's media person Chrissy Pearson would differentiate between "lifetime NRA member" and NRA Life Member.

UPDATE II: Below is how the State House voted on the motion to concur (that is, pass) with the Senate version of HB 650.

Ayes

Democrats: Alexander, K.; Brisson; Crawford; Earle; Faison; Graham; Hill; Lucas; McGuirt; McLawhorn; Spear; Wilkins; Wray

Republicans: Avila; Barnhart; Blackwell; Blust; Boles; Bradley; Brawley; Brown, L.; Brown, R.; Brubaker; Burr; Cleveland; Collins; Cook; Current; Daughtry; Dixon; Dockham; Dollar; Faircloth; Folwell; Frye; Gillespie; Guice; Hager; Hastings; Hilton; Hollo; Holloway; Horn; Howard; Hurley; Iler; Ingle; Johnson; Jones; Jordan; Justice; Killian; Langdon; LaRoque; Lewis; McCormick; McElraft; McGee; McGrady; Mills; Moffitt; Moore, T.; Murry; Pridgen; Randleman; Rhyne; Sager; Samuelson; Sanderson; Setzer; Shepard; Stam; Starnes; Steen; Stevens; Stone; Tillis (SPEAKER); Torbett; Warren, H.; West

Noes

Democrats: Adams; Alexander, M.; Bell; Bordsen; Brandon; Bryant; Carney; Cotham; Farmer-Butterfield; Fisher; Floyd; Gill; Glazier; Goodman; Hackney; Haire; Hall; Hamilton; Harrison; Insko; Jackson; Jeffus; Keever; Luebke; Martin; Michaux; Mobley; Moore, R.; Owens; Parfitt; Parmon; Pierce; Rapp; Ross; Tolson; Wainwright; Warren, E.; Weiss; Womble

Republicans: None

Excused: McComas (R)

The only thing that stands out about this vote is that Speaker Tom Tillis did vote on this bill. He has only voted 92 times out of a possible 1179 votes. This is not due to being a slacker but the tradition that the Speaker only votes on critical issues. I'm glad to see that he wanted to go on record as being for the amending the various firearms laws and, more importantly, the Castle Doctrine.

Scare Tactics From NCGV On Castle Doctrine

North Carolinians Against Gun Violence (NCGV) is mischaracterizing the Castle Doctrine bills as a "shoot first" bill. This would be par for the course for this organization.

They say they represent families across North Carolina but all their leaders are from the Research Triangle. Not to take anything away from the good people of Raleigh, Chapel Hill, and Durham but to say they are representative of the rest of the state is ludicrous.

HB 74: A Threat to North Carolina

Information you need to know to protect your self against this dangerous legislation . . .

Send a letter to your Elected Officials asking them to stop HB 74

HB 74 is NOT Self-Defense

In North Carolina every citizen has the right to use deadly force to defend themselves or their families. If someone protects themselves with force they will not be prosecuted as long as they had no opportunity to retreat. There are no individuals in jail anywhere in the country who are in jail for acting in legitimate self-defense. HB 74 removes this “duty to retreat” and is an invitation to reckless use of guns. The new law eliminates a citizen's duty to avoid the threat, and allows the use of deadly force before other options.

Who Does this Bill Endanger? You.

This bill provides protection for someone using deadly force -- it provides no protections for the innocent victims caught in the crossfire. Worse yet, this legislation directly threatens North Carolinians whose jobs require them to visit others homes and properties. A social worker on an unannounced home visit, a volunteer distributing materials door to door, or even a mailman delivering a package is in potential danger.

Where Does Your Castle End?

HB 74 often referred to as the “Castle Doctrine” implies that this legislation applies only to a home or residence. However HB 74 extends past the individual’s home if they believe someone is committing a ‘forcible felony’ – which thereby includes nearly all public places. The shooter could receive immunity for shooting recklessly into a crowd, as long as he reasonably believed he was in serious danger. If passed this “Shoot First” law will not only permit shooting in our streets, the shooter will not be prosecuted for any death or injury whether to a hardened criminal or a helpless child who was only a by-stander.

No Recourse For Victims

If passed this “Shoot First” law will give the shooter complete immunity from criminal prosecution or civil liability. The shooter will not be prosecuted for any death or injury even if they kill or injure a person an innocent bystander or the wrong person.

The Threat is Real.

After passing similar legislation in Florida:

Kenneth Allen, 58, twice shot his neighbor, Jason Rosenbloom, 30, in early June 2006. Rosenbloom went to Allen’s house about a complaint filed. “I was no threat. I had no weapon… He had a gun. I turned around to put my hands up. He didn’t even say a word, and he fired once into my stomach. I bent over, and he shot me in the chest,” Rosenbloom told the New York Times. [New York Times, 8-7-06]

In 2008, two gangs in Tallahassee got into a shoot-out. A 15-year-old boy was killed. A judge dismissed charges against the shooters, citing Florida's 'Shoot First' law. [ St. Petersburg Times, 10-17-10]

Christopher Cote, 19, of The Acreage, Florida was shot twice with a shotgun and killed by his neighbor, Jose Tapanes, 62, September 17 after an argument began when Cote walked his dog on Tapanes’ property. Tapanes has been charged with first-degree murder and has argued that the new Florida law gave him the right to kill the teen.[ Miami Herald, 9-18-06 ]

In Colorado:

Gary Lee Hill got in an argument with a group of people at his house. There was a physical fight, but as the group of people drove away, Hill walked out away from his house with a gun and shot one member of the group, John Lee Knott, in the back. Mr. Hill was found “not guilty’ according to the standards of Colorado’s “Shoot First” law.

S. 34 - The Castle Doctrine - Passes NC Senate

The Castle Doctrine bill, S. 34, passed its Third Reading tonight by a vote of 35 ayes, 13 nays. The legislature's website doesn't have the full vote details yet but I will put it up as soon as it is available.

S. 34 passed its Third Reading with no new amendments which is good.

The bill now goes to the State House where its companion bill, H.52, has three primary sponsors and 26 co-sponsors. On a side note, the three primary sponsors are Democrats which shows that party label is not the key ingredient in support for gun rights - at least in North Carolina.

UPDATE: Here are the voting results with the roll call on S. 34.

ROLL CALL
Legislative Session Day 19 (02-28-2011)

SB 34 THE CASTLE DOCTRINE. 2nd Ed.
Sponsor: BROCK, D. BERGER, HARRINGTON
Third Reading Outcome: PASSED
Time: Feb 28 2011 7:15PM
Total Votes: 48 Ayes: 35 Noes: 13 Not: 0 Exc. Absent: 2 Exc. Vote: 0

Ayes: Senator(s): ALLRAN; APODACA; BERGER, D.; BERGER, P.; BLAKE; BROCK; BROWN; BRUNSTETTER; CLARY; CLODFELTER; DANIEL; DANNELLY; DAVIS; EAST; FORRESTER; GOOLSBY; GRAHAM; GUNN; HARRINGTON; HARTSELL; HISE; HUNT; JACKSON; MEREDITH; NEWTON; PATE; PRESTON; RABON; ROUZER; RUCHO; STEVENS; TILLMAN; TUCKER; VAUGHAN; WALTERS

Noes: Senator(s): ATWATER; BLUE; GARROU; JENKINS; JONES; KINNAIRD; MANSFIELD; MCKISSICK; NESBITT; PURCELL; ROBINSON; STEIN; WHITE

Exc. Absence: Senator(s): BINGHAM; SOUCEK

NC Castle Doctrine Bill Scheduled For Final Vote Tonight

The North Carolina State Senate has put the Third Reading or final vote for S. 34 - The Castle Doctrine - on the Senate calendar for this evening's session. It passed its Second Reading with a 37-13 vote. Normally, it would have had the Third Reading then but for an objection from one of the anti-gun senators.

In something of an anomoly, one of the senators voting against the bill in the Second Reading was St. Sen. Ed Jones from eastern NC. Senator Jones is one of the co-sponsors of S. 34 and is still listed as a co-sponsor.

S. 34 as passed out of committee is a strong bill with support from both the NRA and Grass Roots NC. The fear is that the anti-gun legislators will attempt to add amendments which will weaken the bill. GRNC sent out an alert last evening telling members to ask their state senator to pass the bill as it is currently written.

HB 74 - The Second NC Castle Doctrine Bill - Opposition From Surprising Corner

Grass Roots North Carolina sent out this message a couple of hours ago regarding HB 74, the second - and originally stronger - castle doctrine bill. The amazing thing to me is that the person attacking the bill is Republican House Majority Leader Paul Stam. Without pro-gun voters there wouldn't be a Republican majority in the NC General Assembly. The former House Majority Leader went down to defeat over this very issue.

* Republican House Majority Leader attacks HB 74, portending battles to come
* Senate version passes 2nd Reading: 3rd Reading Monday

Two Castle Doctrine bills are working their way through the NC legislature. Which bill might ultimately be enacted into law remains to be seen.

SB 34 has been much improved from its original weak version and today passed its 2nd Reading Senate by a vote of 33-17. Vote details for particular Senators will be published when they become available. Generally (although not always), 3rd Reading is a formality. Both may be accomplished in a single day provided no member of the body objects. Apparently, one of the perennial anti-gun members objected, delaying 3rd Reading until Monday.

AMBUSH IN THE HOUSE

HB 74, originally the stronger Castle Doctrine bill, met far tougher resistance in a House Judiciary subcommittee, however, as it was repeatedly attacked not only by anti-gun Democrats, but also by Republican House Majority Leader Paul "Skip" Stam (R-Wake, formerly GRNC ****).

In relentless questioning apparently intended to tie up the bill, painted scenarios of drug dealers shooting it out and using Castle Doctrine as a legal defense (this was rebutted by committee counsel), likening the bill to "expedited execution." Using phrases like "dead people on the floor" and "shoot first and ask questions later," Stam eventually produced handwritten language he claimed would accomplish "95%" of what bill supporters want, but which actually offered crime victims few protections beyond current law.

Equally obstructionist were Reps. Darren Jackson (D-Wake, 0-star), and Grier Martin (D-Wake, GRNC 0-star), both of whom repeatedly demanded impossible statistics on home invasions until both GRNC president Paul Valone and representatives of the Administrative Office of the Courts pointed out that such statistics are not kept.

Advocating passage of the bill were subcommittee chair Mark Hilton (R-Catawba, ****), stalwart George Cleveland (R-Onslow, ****), freshman Jonathan Jordan (R-Ashe, ****) and Shirley Randleman (R-Wilkes, ****). Hilton, Cleveland and Randleman are primary sponsors for HB 74.

The bill eventually passed in a 5-3 vote with Reps. Cleveland, Jordan, Hugh Blackwell (R-Burke, ****), Rayne Brown (R-Davidson, ****) and Ric Killian (R-Mecklenburg, ****) voting for it, and Stam, Jackson and Martin voting against it.

IMPLICATIONS FOR THE FUTURE
HB 74 now heads for the full Judiciary Committee, where it will undoubtedly meet resistance not only from the same individuals but other anti-gun Democrats including Deborah Ross (D-Wake, 0-star), who chaired the committee which in the last session killed Castle Doctrine by denying it a hearing. Moreover, when the senate bill, SB 34, crosses to the House, it will also be referred to the same committee, portending tough battles for both bills.
IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED

* CALL AND E-MAIL MAJORITY LEADER SKIP STAM: Remind him that gun owners helped replace previous leadership over precisely this issue. Reach him at: Paul.Stam@ncleg.net and 919-733-2962. Note: If his office complains about the subcommittee hearing giving "no public notice," remind them that ad hoc committees are not required to and rarely do. If he says his proposal is "better," remind them that HB 74 mirrors every other state which has adopted Castle Doctrine.
* E-MAIL SPEAKER THOM TILLIS: Pro-gun Speaker Tillis (R-Mecklenburg, ****) supports Castle Doctrine, but needs POLITE AND CONSTRUCTIVE input to rein in Majority Leader Stam. At this point, gun owners from outside his district should e-mail only. Constituents should call. Reach Tillis at: Thom.Tillis@ncleg.net

Castle Doctrine Passes Second Reading In NC Senate

S. 34, The Castle Doctrine, passed its Second Reading in the North Carolina State Senate today. It passed this reading with only one minor amendment that merely clarified the language. It will now go to its Third (and final) Reading.

As mentioned on Tuesday, the Senate Judiciary II Committee approved substitute language which strengthened the bill. Moreover, both the NRA and Grass Roots NC have endorsed the updated bill.

The legislative calendar does not state when the final vote in the State Senate will be held on S. 34. After it passes the Senate, it still must be approved in the State House. As soon as I have more updates, I will post them.

As a sidebar, I was at a training meeting the last two days with limited access to a computer. I love my new iPhone but it is hell to try to do a blog post on it. My thumbs must be too fat!

UPDATE: According to GRNC, the objection of one anti-gun NC State Senator is what held up the 3rd Reading and final vote on S. 34. It will be held on Monday.

UPDATE II: WRAL published a video of the actual debate on the bill in the NC Senate. It is an hour long video so you may only want to skip through it to listen to highlights.

Castle Doctrine In North Carolina Is Out Of Committee

SB 34, the first castle doctrine bill filed, has been reported out of the NC Senate Judiciary II committee. It will come to the floor of the State Senate as early as tomorrow.

As I discussed earlier, this bill had been criticized as not going far enough as it did not cover people in their vehicles nor did it have a "stand your ground" provision. These defects have been remedied as the Judiciary II committee adopted substitute language to strengthen the bill. It now adds both of these provisions.

Both the NRA and Grass Roots North Carolina have indicated their support and approval of the strengthened bill. The NRA released this tonight:

Earlier today, NRA-supported “Castle Doctrine” self-defense legislation was favorably amended and reported by the Senate Judiciary II Committee. The full Senate will now consider this important legislation, which could take place as early as tomorrow.

Introduced by state Senators Andrew Brock (R-34), Doug Berger (D-7) and Kathy Harrington (R-43), Senate Bill 34 would codify the “Castle Doctrine” in the home, as well as establish immunity from civil lawsuits for those who use lethal force to defend themselves or their loved ones while in their home. The bill was amended to add automobiles to the Castle Doctrine protections, as well as "Stand Your Ground" language. This greatly expands the legislation to offer more protections for law-abiding citizens who use their firearms for personal protection.

Please contact your state Senator TODAY and respectfully urge him or her to support your right to self-defense and pass Senate Bill 34 when it comes up for a vote.

From an alert sent out by Grass Roots North Carolina this evening to its members:

Under guidance from Grass Roots North Carolina, the Senate Judiciary II Committee today passed SB 34: "Castle Doctrine" in a stronger version which could ultimately create the most comprehensive such law in the country.

Thanks to the efforts of Sens. Buck Newton (R-, GRNC ****) and Andrew Brock (R-Davie/Rowan, ****), an amendment was made to the bill to incorporate most of the desirable features of HB 74, plus an added protection against crime in the workplace.

GRNC Legislative Action Team members were heavily involved in improving the language of the bill, drafting and reviewing sections, and providing information to sponsors and committee members.

Speaking on behalf of the bill were Sens. Berger, Clary, Daniel, Newton, and Tucker. Raising questions about the bill were Sens. Dannelly and McKissick. Sen. Berger initially offered an amendment to remove workplaces, but later withdrew the amendment and voted for the bill. SB 34 passed unanimously.

Improvements made to SB 34 include:
* Presumption of reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily injury when an attacker makes an unlawful and forcible entry not only of a home, but also a motor vehicle and a workplace. Beyond including the carjacking protection long-sought by GRNC, this may be the first law in the country to include the workplace among protected areas
* "No duty to retreat" before using deadly force in anyplace the victim has a lawful right to be.
* Protection against malicious prosecution: Police may not arrest a victim forced to use deadly force unless they have probable cause to believe the use of force was unjustified.

Update On Castle Doctrine Hearings In North Carolina

Grass Roots North Carolina released this alert today on the Castle Doctrine bill hearing in the State Senate:

Senate Bill 34: "Castle Doctrine" received its first hearing in the NC Senate Judiciary II Committee yesterday, and thanks to your input and the efforts of two pro-gun Senators, it is likely to be passed out of the committee far stronger than it its original version.

In the days leading up to the meeting, members of the GRNC Legislative Team worked the committee, handing out comparisons between current NC law, the three Castle Doctrine bills thus far introduced, and other states which have adopted similar laws. Chaired by longtime GRNC supporter Sen. Austin Allran (R-Catawba, GRNC ****), the first meeting was intended to give all parties their say on the bill.

Although SB 34 is presently a weak bill based on a compromise made in the previous legislative session, Judiciary II co-chair Buck Newton (R-Nash/Wilson, ****) and SB 34 sponsor Andrew Brock (R-Davie/Rowan) are preparing amendment language to address weaknesses in the bill, potentially bringing it to a version similar to GRNC's preferred version, HB 74.

Second Castle Doctrine Bill Introduced In North Carolina

A second (and stronger) Castle Doctrine bill has been introduced in the North Carolina General Assembly. This bill expands the castle doctrine to include your vehicle. More importantly, it introduces a "stand your ground" provision if one is attacked in any location where you have the right to be.

According to correspondence with Paul Valone, head of Grass Roots North Carolina, this bill was modeled on the State of Florida's Castle Doctrine bill.

The primary sponsors of this bill are all Republicans. They represent a diverse group including a police officer (Hilton), a retired Clerk of Superior Court (Randleman), a retired Marine (Cleveland), and a medical social worker (Brown).

HOUSE DRH30070-LH-51 (01/19)
Short Title: Castle Doctrine.

Sponsors:
Representatives Hilton, Randleman, Cleveland, and R. Brown (Primary Sponsors).

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED

AN ACT to provide when the use of force or the use of deadly force is justifiable in defense of self, others, or one's home or vehicle, or in preventing the commission of a forcible felony, and to provide immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action in those circumstances.

The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts:

SECTION 1. Chapter 14 of the General Statutes is amended by adding a new Article to read:

"Article 62.

"Justifiable Use of Force.

"§ 14‑470. Definitions.

The following definitions apply in this Article:
(1) Criminal prosecution. – The term includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

(2) Deadly force. – Force that is likely to cause death or great bodily harm. The term includes the following: (i) the firing of a firearm in the direction of the person to be arrested, even though no intent exists to kill or inflict great bodily harm and (ii) the firing of a firearm at a vehicle in which the person to be arrested is riding. The term does not include the discharge of a firearm, which is loaded with a less‑lethal munition, by a law enforcement officer or correctional officer during and within the scope of his or her official duties.

(3) Dwelling. – A building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.

(4) Forcible felony. – Treason; murder; manslaughter; rape, sexual offense, sexual battery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; felonious stalking; malicious use of explosive or incendiary device; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.

(5) Law enforcement officer. – Any person employed or appointed as a full‑time, part‑time, or auxiliary law enforcement officer, correctional officer, probation officer, post‑release supervision officer, or parole officer.

(6) Less‑lethal munition. – A projectile that is designed to stun, temporarily incapacitate, or cause temporary discomfort to a person without penetrating the person's body.

(7) Residence. – A dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.

(8) Vehicle. – A conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

"§ 14‑471. Use of force in defense of person.

A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that the conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if either of the following applies:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

(2) Under the circumstances permitted pursuant to G.S. 14‑472.

"§ 14‑472. Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.

(a) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if both of the following apply:

(1) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle.
(2) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

(b) The presumption set forth in subsection (a) of this section does not apply if any of the following apply:

(1) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or title holder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person.
(2) The person sought to be removed is a minor child or minor grandchild or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of the person against whom the defensive force is used.
(3) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in a forcible felony or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further a forcible felony.
(4) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in G.S. 14‑470, who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the lawful performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.

(c) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

(d) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

"§ 14‑473. Use of force in defense of others.

A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that the conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property other than a dwelling or personal property, lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

"§ 14‑474. Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.

(a) A person who uses force as permitted in G.S. 14‑471, 14‑472, or 14‑473 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in G.S. 14‑470, who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer.

(b) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (a) of this section, but the agency shall not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

(c) The court shall award reasonable attorneys' fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (a) of this section.

"§ 14‑475. Use of force by aggressor.

The justification described in G.S. 14‑471, 14‑472, and 14‑473 is not available to a person who is doing any of the following:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of a forcible felony.

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself unless one of the following situations exists:
a. The force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant.
b. In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

"§ 14‑476. Defense to civil action for damages; party convicted of forcible or attempted forcible felony.

(a) It shall be a defense to any action for damages for personal injury or wrongful death, or for injury to property, that such action arose from injury sustained by a participant during the commission or attempted commission of a forcible felony. The defense authorized by this section shall be established by evidence that the participant has been convicted of such forcible felony or attempted forcible felony, or by proof of the commission of such crime or attempted crime by a preponderance of the evidence.

(b) Any civil action in which the defense recognized by this section is raised shall be stayed by the court on the motion of the civil defendant during the pendency of any criminal action which forms the basis for the defense, unless the court finds that a conviction in the criminal action would not form a valid defense under this section.

(c) In any civil action where a party prevails based on the defense created by this section:
(1) The losing party, if convicted of and incarcerated for the crime or attempted crime, shall, as determined by the court, lose any privileges provided by the correctional facility, including, but not limited to the following:
a. Canteen purchases.
b. Telephone access.
c. Outdoor exercise.
d. Use of the library.
e. Visitation.
(2) The court shall award a reasonable attorneys' fee to be paid to the prevailing party in equal amounts by the losing party and the losing party's attorney; however, the losing party's attorney is not personally responsible if he or she has acted in good faith, based on the representations of his or her client. If the losing party is incarcerated for the crime or attempted crime and has insufficient assets to cover payment of the costs of the action and the award of fees pursuant to this subdivision, the party shall, as determined by the court, be required to pay by deduction from any payments the prisoner receives while incarcerated.
(3) If the losing party is incarcerated for the crime or attempted crime, the court shall issue a written order containing its findings and ruling pursuant to subdivisions (1) and (2) of this subsection and shall direct that a certified copy be forwarded to the appropriate correctional institution or facility.

(d) A law enforcement officer is not liable in any civil or criminal action arising out of the use of any less‑lethal munition in good faith during and within the scope of his or her official duties."

SECTION 2. G.S. 14‑51.1 is repealed.

SECTION 3. This act becomes effective December 1, 2011, and applies to offenses committed on or after that date. Prosecutions for offenses committed before the effective date of this act are not abated or affected by this act, and the statutes that would be applicable but for this act remain applicable to those prosecutions.

UPDATE: Grass Roots North Carolina sent out an alert this evening regarding this bill - HB 74 - and the other one - SB 34 - which was introduced a few days earlier.

WHAT MAKES HB 74 BETTER?

Last Friday, the NRA issued an alert backing SB 34, sponsored by Senators Andrew Brock, Doug Berger and Kathy Harrington. While the pro-gun sponsors have the best of intentions, SB 34 and its companion bill, HB 52, (Reps. Tim Spear, Bill Owens and Jim Crawford) are dangerously flawed.

SB 34 and HB 52 are substantially similar to SB 928, which passed the Senate in the last session but was killed in the House when Rep. Deborah Ross and former Rep. Hugh Holliman (who was defeated by GRNC in the last election) denied it a committee hearing.

The problem is that SB 928 passed the gun-hostile Senate in a greatly weakened fashion: Although the original Edition 1 offered victims protection both inside and outside the home, particularly in motor vehicles, the amended Edition 2 offered protection ONLY WITHIN THE HOME, meaning it offered little beyond present law.

By contrast, HB 74 is the result of longstanding collaboration between Rep. Hilton and GRNC. Drafted by GRNC in 2005, it was substantially improved by Hilton and legislative staff in the 2009-2010 session, when it was introduced as HB 1131.

The bottom line is that while SB 928 might have been the best bill attainable in the last, gun-hostile session of the legislature, you have worked hard to produce a pro-gun majority this year in both chambers, and you deserve better.

ADDITIONAL PROTECTIONS OF HB 74:

* Better definitions, including defense against "forcible felonies;"
* Presumption of reasonable fear to victims of carjackings;
* "Stand your ground" protection: No duty to retreat when attacked outside the home; and
* Better protection against lawsuits: If attackers or survivors file malicious lawsuits which are thrown out of court, they would bear the full cost of litigation, freeing crime victims of tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees.

More On Castle Doctrine In North Carolina

As I posted earlier this evening, a Castle Doctrine bill has been introduced in the North Carolina State Senate. The bill has 16 co-sponsors including two Democrats. The majority of the co-sponsors are newly elected freshman Republicans. Three women and one African-American are among the co-sponsors.

The bill has been referred to the Senate Judiciary II committee for hearings. Two of the three co-chairmen of that committee are also co-sponsors of this bill.

With a Republican majority in both the NC House and Senate, this may be the year in which we get the castle doctrine passed. The text of the bill is below. Having not read other states castle doctrine bills, I don't know how it compares. I don't think it is as broad as the one in Texas where deadly force can be used outside the dwelling. That said, it is a start.

SENATE BILL 34
Short Title: The Castle Doctrine. (Public)
Sponsors: Senators Brock, D. Berger, Harrington; Apodaca, Clary, Daniel, Goolsby, Gunn, Hise, Jones, Newton, Pate, Preston, Soucek, Stevens, and Tucker.
Referred to: Judiciary II.
February 7, 2011
*S34-v-1*
A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT TO CLARIFY WHEN A PERSON MAY USE DEFENSIVE FORCE TO PROTECT AGAINST THE UNLAWFUL AND FORCIBLE ENTRY INTO THE PERSON'S DWELLING BY ANOTHER, TO PREVENT THE REMOVAL OF A PERSON AGAINST HIS OR HER WILL FROM THE PERSON'S DWELLING, AND TO PROVIDE THAT A PERSON IS JUSTIFIED IN USING DEFENSIVE FORCE IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES AND SO IS IMMUNE FROM CRIMINAL PROSECUTION AND CIVIL ACTION FOR THE USE OF SUCH FORCE.

The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts:

SECTION 1. Article 14 of Chapter 14 of the General Statutes is amended by 10 adding a new section to read:

"§ 14-51.2. Home protection; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm; immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.

(a) The following definitions apply in this section:
(1) Criminal prosecution. – The term includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) Dwelling. – A building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is 19 designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(3) Law enforcement officer. – Any person employed or appointed as a full-time, part-time, or auxiliary law enforcement officer, correctional officer, probation officer, post-release supervision officer, or parole officer.
(4) Residence. – A dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.

(b) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if both of the following apply:
(1) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling or residence, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the dwelling or residence.
(2) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

(c) The presumption set forth in subsection (b) of this section does not apply in any of the following circumstances:
(1) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling or residence, such as an owner or lessee, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person.
(2) The person sought to be removed from the dwelling or residence is a child or grandchild or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of the person against whom the defensive force is used.
(3) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in, attempting to escape from, or using the dwelling or residence to further any criminal offense that involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.
(4) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling or residence in the lawful performance of his or her official duties, and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(5) The person against whom the defensive force is used (i) has discontinued all efforts to unlawfully and forcefully enter the dwelling or residence and (ii) has exited the dwelling or residence.
(d) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's dwelling or residence is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(e) A person who uses force as permitted by this section is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer."

SECTION 2. G.S. 14-51.1 is repealed.

SECTION 3. This act becomes effective December 1, 2011, and applies to offenses committed on or after that date. Prosecutions for offenses committed before the effective date of this act are not abated or affected by this act, and the statutes that would be applicable but for this act remain applicable to those prosecutions.

(Democrat co-sponsors are in bold type)

UPDATE:  It is my understanding from others that a stronger castle doctrine bill will be introduced into the NC House within the next week or so. The bill above is the same as S. 928 (including a weakening amendment) that passed the State Senate in the last session of the General Assembly. In other words, it is a start but could be improved and strengthened.

Castle Doctrine Bill Introduced In NC

Just got this by Twitter from the NRA-ILA. I will have more on the bill later tonight after I finish teaching class.

North Carolina: 2011 legislative Session Begins with the Introduction of Castle Doctrine Legislation in Raleigh!

Monday, February 07, 2011


The North Carolina General Assembly convened last week, and the NRA is working with state legislators to introduce several pro-gun reforms. Our legislative goals include Right-to-Carry reforms that will expand where permit holders may lawfully carry their concealed firearms, eliminating the archaic requirement that law-abiding citizens request permission from their local sheriff before purchasing a handgun, passing a solid Castle Doctrine law, and fixing the problems with the current statutes relating to a declared state of emergency.

State Senators Andrew Brock (R-34), Doug Berger (D-7) and Kathy Harrington (R-43) have already introduced Senate Bill 34, which would codify the “Castle Doctrine” in the home, as well as establish immunity from civil lawsuits for those who use lethal force to defend themselves or their loved ones while in their home.