I didn't say guns weren't dangerous.
I didn't say we need more gun control laws.
I didn't say you need to have your firearms taken away.
I didn't say we needed to infringe, appeal, or tamper with the right to bare arms in any way, shape, or form.

I said MORE guns doesn't equal less crime and I have more than proved that point with support of the Federal government.

1. Every "home invasion" isn't conducted with a firearm.
2. If you shoot an intruder in your home and he is UNarmed, and therefore your life was not in immediate danger, guess which one of you goes to jail that night. This is 2007, Al, not 1807, deal with it.

In most states a person can use deadly force when he perceives his life to be in danger, but not when only his personal property seems likely to be stolen.

I am for all people owning guns that do not have a legal reason to own one. There is a way to get a gun permit if you have need to carry one. I do think that more people should get permits and carry a side arm. There is one thing that is a problem here. Schools have a no gun policy and that is OK in public schools like from high school on down but after that Universities are to wide open not to allow someone with a permit to carry a gun. I think a good idea for public schools would be to arm the teachers that would like to and the principal and assistant principal need a gun and training because they would be the first one to respond if a shooting took place at their school.

Yeah, then instead of the PE coach just molesting someones daughter, he can do it at gunpoint.


Ok, look guys, it's one thing to be in favor of the right to bare arms. I am 100% in favor of the Right of every adult American, not convicted of a felony, to own/carry a firearm when and where it's legal and appropriate.

.....but it's totally in ****ing sane to suggest everyone carry a gun and that we should even put them in our schools at all levels

I think that a few people on campus that have had training should have a side arm either in a safe or on their person. They do have school cops at the schools and I do not know if they carry a gun but if they dont they should. Once again with proper training and understanding of the law. I do not think it will happen but that is my opinion.

I don't know....

I have to say the potential risk of a kid being shot by a teacher, or with a teacher's stolen handgun are just to great of a risk by itself. All the training and safety measures in the world won't prevent every accident nor will it prevent every individual with intent to do harm, while a no gun policy prevents 100% of the accidental shootings at the VERY SLIM risk of one maniac coming in and shooting the place up. Yes I know you hear about it more often today than ever before, but still the ratio compared to the number of schools without shootings, in my opinion, doesn't justify this action.

We can agree to disagree but something needs to be done with kids having guns and crack too.

>I said MORE guns doesn't equal less crime and I have more than proved that point with support of the Federal government.

Whether or not I agree with you, you did not prove that.

>2. If you shoot an intruder in your home and he is Unarmed, and therefore your life was not in immediate danger, guess which one of you goes to jail that night. This is 2007, Al, not 1807, deal with it.

Either him (if he's alive) or nobody (if he's dead). It's perfectly legal in LA to shoot to death an unarmed intruder in your home (or car) even if you know he is unarmed and even if he's only attempting to enter your home or car.

Actually I provided a graph from the Department of Justice that clearly shows firearm related crime is on the rise.

Play the Devil's Advocate to your heart's desire, that doesn't change one fact.
Under Louisiana’s “Kill the Burglar” statute a homeowner can use deadly force against intruders in the home, without any obligation to retreat, if the homeowner reasonably believes that the intruder might use any unlawful force against anyone in the home.

Simply put, you sneak up on an unarmed burglar and shoot him, then you had no justifiable reason to believe unlawful force was going to be used against you....furthermore, I challenge you to find just one case where the homeowner was not charged when the intruder was not armed.

I think an easy way to solve this dilemma is to have a drop gun or knife. wipe fingerprints clean and through it down. Officer I saw that weapon in his hand and I went to shootin'. If you don't believe me officer just ask that criminal...... Oh dead men tell no tales

Now that is defiantly something we shouldn't be telling people.....

>Simply put, you sneak up on an unarmed burglar and shoot him, then you had no justifiable reason to believe unlawful force was going to be used against you

Incorrect. The law assumes that if the person you killed had unlawfully entered your home or was in the process of unlawfully entering your home and you were aware of this fact then you had reasonable belief that the use of deadly force was necessary.

Drop guns and knives are not necessary because it is not illegal to kill an unarmed unlawful intruder (or attempted intruder).

If there is a stranger in my house that definitely constitues immenent danger, and I will be looking for a centermass shot as opposed to a weapon or a cop (that may be there in 45 minutes if I'm lucky).:eek:

I think here in recent news that Tyrone got shot over on Union Street by some old black man and it kilt him and no charges came out of it and he was not armed or his buddy that ran off either.

Then you should be able to cite multiple cases....I'm just asking for one. I can't seem to find any.

>I challenge you to find just one case where the homeowner was not charged when the intruder was not armed.

Unnecessary, the law is quite clear. Even so, the famous Yoshihiro Hattori is a great example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoshihiro_Hattori

I challenge you to find one case under modern LA law where a homeowner was prosecuted for killing an unarmed intruder, especially one already inside the dwelling.

Castle Doctrine
 

HB 1097 is the companion bill to HB 89 (also by Representative LaFleur), the NRA-supported “Castle Doctrine” bill which created presumptions in law for the use of force against intruders in your home, car or place of business and explicitly states in law that you have no “duty to retreat” from criminal attack if you are in a place where you have a legal right to be.


Castle Doctrine refers to a legal concept derived from English Common Law as it is presently applied in sections of the United States of America. It designates one's home (or any place legally occupied, such as one's car or place of work) as a place in which one enjoys protections from both prying and violent attack. In the United States, laws informally referred to as 'castle laws' can sometimes impose an obligation to retreat before using force to defend oneself. The Castle Doctrine provides for an exception to this duty. Provided one is attacked in their own home, vehicle, or place of business, in jurisdictions where 'castle laws' are in force, one may stand their ground against an assailant without fear of prosecution.


The opposite of a "castle" principle is the "Duty to Retreat", which is the case in most U.S. Northeastern states, such as Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts[1] (where Castle Doctrine takes effect only within the confines of the 'dwelling'). Castle Doctrine laws in the U.S. are sometimes referred to as the "use of deadly force" [2] or "no retreat" laws, and originate in the home, but are sometimes (depending on the state) extended to the automobile or the business or any place where one has a legal right to be (a campground or park, for example).

I think the ACLU wants the criminals to have more rights than the law abiding citizen. I say if you enter a house you don't own, rent nor invited into get ready for consequences..... Try breaking into the White House a see what happens- The Secret Service will skin that smoke wagon and go to work.:peace:

>Then you should be able to cite multiple cases

Not really, if it's clear that something is legal it isn't very likely to ever be a criminal case. For instance, can you find a single case where someone picked their nose and wasn't convicted for it?

The law (have you actually read it?) is absolutely clear that it is legal to kill an unarmed intruder in your home, so there are obviously almost no cases in which a homeowner that does so enters the justice system.

You're choice, but I'm telling you the law doesn't automatically provide you with a free ride.

Just like hunting, you don't shoot at moving bushes, or shadows in your home. You must identify your target first. Failure to do so constitutes negligence on your part. Once you see the person, and they are unarmed and making no aggressive action towards them, then you cannot legally shoot them.

I think the disagreement here is I'm telling you what's right and wrong and you are telling me what you could get away with in court

>You're choice, but I'm telling you the law doesn't automatically provide you with a free ride.

Yes, it does. A person legally inside a dwelling has a presumption holding a reasonable belief that the use of deadly force was necessary if confronted by a person who is not lawfully inside a dwelling (or car or place of business).

>I'm telling you what's right and wrong and you are telling me what you could get away with in court

I'm telling you what the law explicitly states. You're making incorrect statements about a topic of which you obviously have little knowledge. Google is a terrible legal research tool.

As for negligence, that was the criminal breaking into my house.

As for the court, history has shown if you have the money, a great lawyer, and a judge that plays golf with your lawyer,,, you pretty much have it made.


Screw the criminals, when he entered my has illegally, he gave up all his rights. Let the ACLU get raped, pillaged, and murdered... not me!

I tried it once, I'll try it again..

HB 1097 is the companion bill to HB 89 (also by Representative LaFleur), the NRA-supported “Castle Doctrine” bill which created presumptions in law for the use of force against intruders in your home, car or place of business and explicitly states in law that you have no “duty to retreat” from criminal attack if you are in a place where you have a legal right to be.


Castle Doctrine refers to a legal concept derived from English Common Law as it is presently applied in sections of the United States of America. It designates one's home (or any place legally occupied, such as one's car or place of work) as a place in which one enjoys protections from both prying and violent attack. In the United States, laws informally referred to as 'castle laws' can sometimes impose an obligation to retreat before using force to defend oneself. The Castle Doctrine provides for an exception to this duty. Provided one is attacked in their own home, vehicle, or place of business, in jurisdictions where 'castle laws' are in force, one may stand their ground against an assailant without fear of prosecution.


The opposite of a "castle" principle is the "Duty to Retreat", which is the case in most U.S. Northeastern states, such as Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts[1] (where Castle Doctrine takes effect only within the confines of the 'dwelling'). Castle Doctrine laws in the U.S. are sometimes referred to as the "use of deadly force" [2] or "no retreat" laws, and originate in the home, but are sometimes (depending on the state) extended to the automobile or the business or any place where one has a legal right to be (a campground or park, for example).

FIREARMS REFRESHER COURSE:

1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.

2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.

3. Colt: The original point and click interface.

4. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control

5. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords, bombs, rockets, and grenades?

6. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.

7. "Free" men do not ask permission to bear arms.

8. If you don't know your rights you don't have any.

9. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.

10. The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights Reserved.

11. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you NOT understand?

12. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.

13. 64,999,987 firearm owners killed no one yesterday.

14. Guns only have two enemies: rust and politicians.

15 Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.

16. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.

17. 911 - government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.

18. Assault is a behavior, not a device.

19. Criminals love gun control -- it makes their job safer.

20. If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson.

21. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.

22. You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.

23. Enforce the "gun CRIME control laws" we ALREADY have, don't make more.

24. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.

25. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.

26. "A government of the people, by the people, for the people..." TOTAL BULL ****!!

No I quoted the law, you have done no such thing.

The ACLU won't be going to the slammer (you know why the call the slammer) if you kill an unarmed man.

You are absolutely correct, except a breaking and entering doesn't constitute an attack. Nice of you to highlight where you went wrong in order to save me the trouble.

A big part of the Castle Doctrine and this bill is that it prevents potential victims of having to SECOND guess whether or not an intruder has a gun or a knife.

Provided one is attacked in their own home, vehicle, or place of business, in jurisdictions where 'castle laws' are in force, one may stand their ground against an assailant without fear of prosecution.

Yes, you have every right to defend yourself, but the presence of another person in your home DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY constitute a threat of physical harm against you or your family.

Yes, it does. Please cite one case where it did not.

Now I'm not suggesting you risk your life second guessing by any stretch of the imagination. I'm just saying you aren't automatically given a free ride just because the shooting victim was in your home.

I have to ask again, have you ever actually read the law you are pretending to know about? it doesn't seem like it.

If so, how do you ever interpret:

"...there shall be a presumption that a person lawfully inside a dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle held a reasonable belief that the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent unlawful entry thereto, or to compel an unlawful intruder to leave the premises or motor vehicle, if both of the following occur:

(1) The person against whom deadly force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering or had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle.

(2) The person who used deadly force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring or had occurred."

...to mean anything remotely like what you're saying it does?

>I'm just saying you aren't automatically given a free ride just because the shooting victim was in your home.

It's evident that you're saying that, but it's also evident that you're wrong.

A texas senator speaks of supporting the "Castle Doctrine" bill,
Jeff Wentworth

it would seem to me the heart of this whole discussion, is what is at the heart of the whole Castle Doctrine type bills.

Somebody breaks into my home. I don't have to guess or wonder if he has a knife or a gun, or whatever.

Well I hate that you actually requesting that I look that crap up, but here goes.

I didn't find an actual "case" to support my stance, but I also couldn't find one to support yours. I every single case I found where charges were dropped or never filed were when the perp in fact had a weapon or had attacked someone.

However, I DID find some interesting information on the "shoot first" bill which is what you are REALLY referring to (don't worry, I didn't know it either). The "right" to shoot someone in your home regardless of the perceived intention of the intruder.

http://www.licensetomurder.com/main.php

This website, last updated 4/30/07 shows that many states, including Louisiana and Texas, in fact DO NOT have shoot first laws. I'm sure if you're really interested, they'll have the specific data you are looking for.

In Louisiana, yes you do.

>In Louisiana, yes you do.

No, you don't.