In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

Castle Doctrine passed in Alaska

pickenuppickenup Member Posts: 22,844 ✭✭✭✭
edited July 2006 in Gun Rights and Constitutional Law
Governor Frank Murkowski (R) has signed SB 200, the "Castle Doctrine" self-defense bill, into law. This bill simply states that if a criminal breaks into your home, your occupied vehicle, or your place of business, the potential victim does not have a "duty to retreat." The bill also provides protection from criminal prosecution and civil litigation for those who defend themselves from criminal attack. The "Castle Doctrine" bill met with overwhelming, bipartisan support, passing with a unanimous 33-0 vote in the state house and 16-0 concurrence vote in the senate. Alaska joins 10 other states that signed similar legislation into law this legislative cycle. Congratulations, Alaska!
· Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Comments

  • codenamepaulcodenamepaul Member Posts: 2,931 ✭
    edited November -1
    I'd like to see them all do it.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • gunphreakgunphreak Member Posts: 1,791 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    This seems to be a much quicker fight in the states than concealed carry was.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • One shotOne shot Member Posts: 1,027 ✭
    edited November -1
    As people get tired of the trash in society it will probably get a lot "quicker". In the wonderful state of Oregon the only time leathal force can be used is when the perp enters your home. Then you have to be damn sure nothing gets splattered outside when you pull the trigger.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • WoundedWolfWoundedWolf Member Posts: 1,658 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Even here in Nevada, lethal force may only be applied for a person "to save his own life, or to prevent his receiving great * harm". I took the CCW class last weekend and our instructor said that when shooting an unarmed assailant it is very difficult to prove the "great * harm" justification, even if the assailant is in your home and charging at you. He even went as far as to say we should "take a few blows" before using a gun on an assailant.

    I objected to this, if someone is in my home charging at me, armed or not, then I will be using lethal force.

    His response was "you better get a good lawyer".

    Don't you love America?

    [:p]
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
Sign In or Register to comment.