Author Topic: LR191 Castle Doctrine Interim Study - introduced by Sen. Christensen May 18th (Read 5791 times)

FarmerRick · « **on:** May 27, 2009, 07:46:45 AM »

I guess I need to keep a closer eye on the resolutions that are introduced!

LR191 - Interim study to examine Nebraska's laws regarding a persons' right in their home to defend another person's life by reasonable force and to review the Castle Doctrine laws

http://www.nebraskalegislature.gov/FloorDocs/Current/PDF/Intro/LR191.pdf

ONE HUNDRED FIRST LEGISLATURE
FIRST SESSION
LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION 191
Introduced by Christensen, 44.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this interim study is to examine Nebraska?s
laws regarding a person?s right in their home to defend his or
her own life or another?s life by reasonable force, which may
include the use of deadly force, and to examine similar laws in
other states that would potentially provide a model for expanding
this right in Nebraska. The right to defend yourself by the use of
reasonable force in one?s home, which may include the use of deadly
force, is generally called the Castle Doctrine. This study shall
include, but not be limited to: (1) An examination of Nebraska?s
laws regarding one?s right to self-defense within the home; (2)
the review of Castle Doctrine laws in other states; and (3) the
development of potential policy changes, if needed, to strengthen
the right to self-defense within the home in Nebraska.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE ONE
HUNDRED FIRST LEGISLATURE OF NEBRASKA, FIRST SESSION:
1. That the Judiciary Committee of the Legislature shall
be designated to conduct an interim study to carry out the purposes
of this resolution.
2. That the committee shall upon the conclusion of
its study make a report of its findings, together with its
recommendations, to the Legislative Council or Legislature.

I'd like them to study it more than just "in the home", but I'm sure we will have a few people writing in to give suggestions.

Jesse T · « **Reply #1 on:** May 27, 2009, 08:45:38 AM »

Hey it beats them doing nothing, I think this is a good thing!

Dan W · « **Reply #2 on:** May 27, 2009, 08:43:56 PM »

Maybe he has been reading Nebraska Firepower

Dtrain323i · « **Reply #3 on:** May 28, 2009, 08:02:46 AM »

Quote from: Dan W on May 27, 2009, 08:43:56 PM

Maybe he has been reading Nebraska Firepower

That really wouldn't surprise me

bkoenig · « **Reply #4 on:** May 28, 2009, 08:06:16 PM »

Nice! We have some Senators with their heads on straight.

huskergun · « **Reply #5 on:** May 28, 2009, 09:36:44 PM »

This is a good thing. It gets the ball rolling. Hats off to Christensen

Dtrain323i · « **Reply #6 on:** May 29, 2009, 09:02:01 AM »

It seems like Sen. Christiensen is becoming NFOA's voice in the state legislature. This is a good thing.

Dan W · « **Reply #7 on:** May 29, 2009, 05:07:21 PM »

Don't forget about Sen. Tony Fulton. He took a huge political risk , as a Conservative in the liberal bastion of Lincoln, by making LB430 his priority bill. Without that move, it may not have made it out of committee

huskergun · « **Reply #8 on:** May 29, 2009, 08:32:50 PM »

We have a few voices down there in Lincoln right now and they need our support. Scott Laughtenbaugh of Omaha is another friend of ours. Christensen and Fulton though seem to be the top guys.

FarmerRick · « **Reply #9 on:** May 29, 2009, 08:35:28 PM »

Don't forget Sen. Janssen of Fremont, he co-sponsored LB430.

bkoenig · « **Reply #10 on:** May 29, 2009, 10:06:38 PM »

You know what would be neat? A "Take your Senator Shooting" day. Maybe it's a dumb idea, but it would be a fun way to say thank you to those who support us.

AFVet1982 · « **Reply #11 on:** June 07, 2009, 03:27:03 PM »

I sent an email earlier this morning to Sen. Abbie Cornett (my rep in the Uni) asking her to consider either introducing (I hadn't seen this posting at the time) or co-sponsoring a Castle Doctrine bill. My specific request included home, vehicle, watercraft, and locations providing shelter/protection as does a home. I also suggested including language to release a homeowner/defender from liability for injury/death resulting from a "Castle Doctrine use-of-force" encounter, placing that same liability on the "invader" (to include estate and heirs in case of fatal injury), and placing a positive burden of proof on the BG to show that he was on the property "legally." My email was a bit verbose, but if anybody is interested, I'll PM them a copy.

Hope this helps to get the system moving on the issue.

Jesse T · « **Reply #12 on:** June 10, 2009, 01:54:15 PM »

This made the newspaper today...

http://www.journalstar.com/articles/2009/06/10/news/local/doc4a2ef55cf045c111949576.txt

Them naming the bill that and the title of the article do not paint the idea in a positive light at all.

However I thought the newspaper did a good job of showing opposing viewpoints within the article itself. Other then the title and first sentence, the article is OK. Comments of course, are mixed.

huskergun · « **Reply #13 on:** June 10, 2009, 06:01:50 PM »

It could have been better but the article was ok I guess.
I wish I had a Senator like him here in S.W. Omaha.

Dan W · « **Reply #14 on:** June 10, 2009, 07:16:41 PM »

KLIN was blathering all day "make my day" bill ......blah blah blah

SBarry · « **Reply #15 on:** June 10, 2009, 07:57:51 PM »

The power of a few girly-men, dope smokers and man hating feminists has gotten out of hand. Can anyone tell me why these articles are written by such? Are there no "men" working for newspapers now-a-days? Reading that made my blood pressure rise a little, but then I remembered it came from a second rate newspaper with poor circulation, and realized this clown was the only one who would work for them at such low pay.

"Laws that give criminal and civil immunity strip decision making from judges and prosecutors, Malte said. They allow an alleged victim to play the role of police officer, prosecutor, judge and executioner, opponents say."

This is what really set me off, referring to the "alleged" victim becoming police, procecuter, judge, and executioner, like it was a bad thing. What about jury? I'd trust a one man jury who knew all the facts more than a cop who made up "facts", a prosecutor with an agenda, or a judge eyeing a higher court seat.

Burnsy87 · « **Reply #16 on:** June 10, 2009, 09:14:13 PM »

I commented on that article. I did the one that starts with, "There is a whole lot of dumb in this comment section" or something like that, towards the bottom.

bkoenig · « **Reply #17 on:** June 10, 2009, 09:34:31 PM »

Here's a thought...don't break into people's houses, you don't have to worry about being shot. Novel idea, I know, but it just might work.

I saw the article today and wasn't surprised at the biased headline. The article itself did seem to be fairly balanced, though.

Dtrain323i · « **Reply #18 on:** June 11, 2009, 11:28:17 AM »

We need to work to get rid of the "make my day" nomenclature thats being attached to this. that is going to be a cause of controversy

bkoenig · « **Reply #19 on:** June 11, 2009, 12:37:23 PM »

Agreed, I think most rational people would support it if it's explained properly without being tagged with "make my day" or "shoot the burglar" titles.