The politics of firearms related to the recent home invasion...

I may be out of my league on this one. I am not really "up" on politics but I have to say that I feel everyone has the right to bear arms and protect what is theirs. Be it a home, a family, their belongings, their lives. I would not ever think someone should have to find out what is going on before firing at someone who has entered their dwelling. If someone is kicking down my door or breaking a window to gain entry into our home... I don't care what they intend to steal or do... they can't be up to anything good or I would have recieved a phone call telling me they were on the way to my home and a knock on my door at a reasonable hour of the night. Just my own little thoughts...

quote:

Originally posted by blackacre:
Okay...
Based on the recent shooting in Nitrate City where a homeowner defended his life using deadly force in a home invasion, I thought it might be interesting to discuss the politics of it all (2nd Amendment, “castle doctrine”, etc.). What are your thoughts as this relates to politics? Why do we see higher crime rates in cities that are “gun free zones” and prohibit ownership?

Because only the criminals have guns.

Would you ever vote to convict a homeowner that used deadly force to preserve his/her life even in a city that limited firearms ownership?

NO!!!!!

Is the 2nd Amendment relevant in 2008?

Even more relevant in 2008.

What are your thoughts from a political perspective?

Some politicians see the gun as the problem, not the person who uses it during a crime. Sadly America has become a nation where no one has to take responsibility for their actions.

quote:

Originally posted by blackacre:
Okay...
Based on the recent shooting in Nitrate City where a homeowner defended his life using deadly force in a home invasion, I thought it might be interesting to discuss the politics of it all (2nd Amendment, “castle doctrine”, etc.). What are your thoughts as this relates to politics?

The right to keep and bear arms was never intended to be used solely to protect ourselves from criminals. It was seen as a solution of last resort to throw out a government that was nonresponsive. Most governments have been turned out by revolution. Those that were not were overthrown externally. The nanny-staters hate the fact that people with firearms don't need the government to protect them from everything.

quote:

Why do we see higher crime rates in cities that are “gun free zones” and prohibit ownership?

As guns are blamed for crime, the political environment facilitates excuses that allow people to not be held accountable for their actions. In the 34 states that have enacted "Must Issue" laws, the rates of violent crime have gone uniformly down. In LA, you can't get a carry permit for anything if you're a regular citizen. However, I reckon that I could go toward downtown and purchase a .50 cal heavy machine gun if I had enough money.

quote:

Would you ever vote to convict a homeowner that used deadly force to preserve his/her life even in a city that limited firearms ownership?

Loaded question, as to whether or not it was to preserve his or her life. In that circumstance, I'd have no question about acquitting. However, I was involved in a case where shooting someone through the head was a little extreme...the dead guy was breaking into the homeowner's car. He ultimately was not indicted.

quote:

Is the 2nd Amendment relevant in 2008? What are your thoughts from a political perspective?

Is the first amendment relevant in 2008? Some scholars believe the amendments were written in what they perceived to be the order of importance to the country's freedoms. If you do away with number 2, are numbers three through ten safe?

quote:

Originally posted by blackacre:
Okay...
Based on the recent shooting in Nitrate City where a homeowner defended his life using deadly force in a home invasion, I thought it might be interesting to discuss the politics of it all (2nd Amendment, “castle doctrine”, etc.). What are your thoughts as this relates to politics? Why do we see higher crime rates in cities that are “gun free zones” and prohibit ownership? Would you ever vote to convict a homeowner that used deadly force to preserve his/her life even in a city that limited firearms ownership? Is the 2nd Amendment relevant in 2008? What are your thoughts from a political perspective?

Federal laws trump state/local laws. I don't always agree with this but it is what it is. If something is illegal on a federal level (for example, medical marijuana) but it legal locally (if you were in San Francisco) a person can still be prosecuted. I think the federal law should work the same in reverse. If the Federal law (the 2nd amendment of the US constitution) says it is legal-then it should remain legal on a state level. I don't think some state/local laws should be able to trump federal laws yet others cannot.

Citizens owning guns definitely deters crime,although crime is wrong still a lot of criminals are very sensible and think twice about entering someone's property that may possibly own a firearm.

As far as homeowners using deadly force it can't be a blanket statement and when your home is entered it can be a free ticket to take a life,it has to be looked at case by case,such as if your home was broken into by a unarmed person whom you could easily overpower it imo would be wrong to shoot that person but at the same time the intruder could be unarmed by just physically the person may be able to beat you to death,i would say just has to be looked at case by case and in no way is a home breakin a free pass to kill even a criminal

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

What part of "shall not be infringed" do they not understand?

Let me start by saying that I support gun ownership and the right to protect your home. However, the Second Amendment argument isn't as easy as it seems. All the amendments originally applied only to the federal government, not to the states. Now, most of them apply to the states through the 14th Amendment. But the 2nd amendment (as well as some parts of the 5th amendment, etc.) were never "incorporated" into the 14th amendment so as to apply to states. The recent gun case out of D.C. (I forget the name) was the first 2nd amendment case in forever. There has been a lot of debate about whether the right to bear arms was even a personal right, or whether it only applied in the context of a militia (the argument being over where the comma is placed in the 2nd amendment). The Supreme Court said it IS a personal right, but bear in mind that DC isn't a state. They essentially follow federal law. Therefore, federal law allows gun ownership as a personal right. But states may still pass gun regulation that is stricter (but not less strict) than the federal government. All that said, woe be anyone who tries to invade my home.....

LawGuy you are exactly right. It's a drastically different republic now and although the constitution has "flexed" with our nation it bears (in my opinion) very little resemblance to the document the founders drafted more than two centuries ago. Thankfully Heller gave some clarification last term with respect to the defining some 2nd Amendment issues.

It is my understanding that although Alabama has always allowed a resident to use deadly force to defend themselves in their homes, the revision a couple of years ago in the statute eliminated the requirement that you were required to make an effort to escape before exercising deadly force. In essence, if you could “avoid using force with complete safety” (IIRC) you had to do so, but apparently the new law deleted this requirement. Although I haven't researched this, it seems like I recall it changing in that manner. I know that at 4:00 a.m. it seems absurd for me to try and climb out a bedroom window to escape from an intruder in my own home. Does this sound strange to anyone else?

I do remember the upheaval following the statutory change by “anti-violence” and community action groups in our larger cities claiming blood would run in the streets and it would be like the wild west again. So far none of that has come to pass.

By the way, this link deals with the “defense of a person” in the Alabama Code:
Link

This link deals with the “defense of premises”:
Link

It is interesting reading.

Great Posts All!

blackacre, you are correct about the change in law. The AL statute for a long time said that you had no duty to retreat in your own home or the curtilage thereof (the castle doctrine), but you did have to attempt to retreat in most other situations before using DEADLY force. 13A-3-23(4)(b) now says:
(b) A person who is justified under subsection (a) in using physical force, including deadly physical force, and who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and is in any place where he or she has the right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground.

That was a major shift in attitude and in my opinion a good one.

Just out of curiosity, with a name like "blackacre" I assume you are in the legal field. Am I correct?

quote:

Originally posted by lawguy07:
Just out of curiosity, with a name like "blackacre" I assume you are in the legal field. Am I correct?

Yes I am.
Most folks who have "been there" put it together immediately. Nice of you to notice.

I have said this before, I am going to repeat myself. You must protect yourself from crimes of violence and potential death, like home invasions and other armed confrontations. The Police do an admirable job but there is no way they can protect you from a home invasion type crime unless they were already visiting in your home. If you will bother to study the history of law enforcement, you will discover that law enforcement evolved to the present day model from a concept that identified protection and justice as the duty of the common man...it all evolved from "Common Law". Law enforcement was structured around the hue and cry, stop theif, drop your work and pursue the criminal. The first law officer paid or compensated was the Shire Reeve from which we get our sheriff.

The current plethora of violent crimes, fueled by the need for drugs and drug money, creates a situation where you are either going to shoot the dirt bag that kicks in your door or you are going to be robbed, abused and probably killed. I have seen these people first hand and when they are messed up, stung out, they will kill their own mother for just enough to quiet the beast. Get a reliable weapon, keep it close by and reduce their population when they come calling at your house.

It is better to have twelve men judging you than six men carrying you...shoot to kill.

Yes, but, never, never, tell the police you shot to kill. Tell them you shot to stop the criminals from continuing their acts. Some liberal district attorney may prosecute you.

quote:

Originally posted by Howard Roark:
Yes, but, never, never, tell the police you shot to kill. Tell them you shot to stop the criminals from continuing their acts. Some liberal district attorney may prosecute you.

This was taught to me first in the police academy and reiterated throughout my law enforcement career. You "shot to stop". However, in North Carolina, a homeowner was acquitted during a trial in which it was alleged he shot a downed intruder in the head at close range. This was supported by evidence of a contact gunshot wound above the perpetrator's ear. The jury cut him loose.

I wouldn't count on it, though, in all cases.

Here's what one City Alderman in St Louis purposes:

Alderman: Residents should arm themselves
St. Louis city official fed up with rising crime rate, ineffective police
Associated Press

ST. LOUIS - A city alderman frustrated with the police response to rising crime called Tuesday on residents to arm themselves to protect their lives and property.

Alderman Charles Quincy Troupe said police are ineffective, outnumbered or don't care about the increase in crime in his north St. Louis ward. St. Louis has had 157 homicides in 2008, 33 more than last year at this time.

"The community has to be ready to defend itself, because it's clear the economy is going to get worse, and criminals are getting more bold," Troupe, 72, said Tuesday.

Troupe said that when he and residents approached a district police commander last year, they were told "there was nothing he could do to protect us and the community ... that he didn't have the manpower."

Police chief doesn't support
Police did not immediately return requests for comment. Chief Dan Isom told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch he understands Troupe's frustration but doesn't support citizens arming themselves.

Carrying guns, he said, is not a "recipe for a less violent community."

Mayor Francis Slay wrote in his blog Tuesday that some of the most violent crimes in Troupe's ward are committed with guns stolen from law-abiding citizens. . . .


Not sure if I agree with the Mayor on this one. If crime is so bad and police so scarce I say get a gun. I saw him interviewed (alderman) on Fox this morning. He said money that was supposed to be used to hire more police was spent elsewhere. Sad. How many police officers on duty in Florence, Sheffield and Muscle Shoals at a time anyway? I had the occasion to be driving around in the weee hours of the am this past weekend (3:30am) and saw some questionable characters - none of which were driving Mercedes however - but no police patrols. What is up with that? I see them all over hiding to catch speeders, but, no patrolling neighborhoods.

Politics aside, if you come into my house, by force and uninvited, you WILL NOT be leaving on your own power. If you break into my home, I know full well that you are intending to do me serious bodily harm and I will react accordingly. I will put my trust in a good Alabama Grand Jury and/or a jury of twelve.

quote:

Originally posted by redbull:
Carrying guns, he said, is not a "recipe for a less violent community."

Apparently, statistics from states in which citizens have been given the right to carry concealed firearms proves this contention to be a fallacy.

quote:

Originally posted by SHELDIVR:
Politics aside, if you come into my house, by force and uninvited, you WILL NOT be leaving on your own power. If you break into my home, I know full well that you are intending to do me serious bodily harm and I will react accordingly. I will put my trust in a good Alabama Grand Jury and/or a jury of twelve.

As the saying goes, “better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6“.

DC is crowing that murders haven't increased -- other cities have decreased.

quote:

Originally posted by Zeb:
Citizens owning guns definitely deters crime,although crime is wrong still a lot of criminals are very sensible and think twice about entering someone's property that may possibly own a firearm.

As far as homeowners using deadly force it can't be a blanket statement and when your home is entered it can be a free ticket to take a life,it has to be looked at case by case,such as if your home was broken into by a unarmed person whom you could easily overpower it imo would be wrong to shoot that person but at the same time the intruder could be unarmed by just physically the person may be able to beat you to death,i would say just has to be looked at case by case and in no way is a home breakin a free pass to kill even a criminal

I understand what you mean here, however.... I find it hard to believe that I would take the time to ask the person if they are armed, or if they can fight good or not..... pop off a round and it could be Dakota Fannin or Brock Lesner and you get the same result.... hesitate too long to assess the situation...and well, you put you and your family at risk.

quote:

Originally posted by Peter Rielly:
I understand what you mean here, however.... I find it hard to believe that I would take the time to ask the person if they are armed, or if they can fight good or not..... pop off a round and it could be Dakota Fannin or Brock Lesner and you get the same result.... hesitate too long to assess the situation...and well, you put you and your family at risk.

Taking someone's life, even if it seems like a good idea at the time, stays with you and haunts you. You can be elated after a gunfight, but the reality of what you've had to do eventually sinks in. Well, unless you're a psychopath, that is. The best advice is, if you're going to keep a firearm around the house is (1) learn how to shoot it so you won't shoot yourself in the foot, and (2) do your thinking in advance, and (3) practice, practice, practice.

quote:

Originally posted by zippadeedoodah:

quote:

Originally posted by Peter Rielly:
I understand what you mean here, however.... I find it hard to believe that I would take the time to ask the person if they are armed, or if they can fight good or not..... pop off a round and it could be Dakota Fannin or Brock Lesner and you get the same result.... hesitate too long to assess the situation...and well, you put you and your family at risk.

Taking someone's life, even if it seems like a good idea at the time, stays with you and haunts you. You can be elated after a gunfight, but the reality of what you've had to do eventually sinks in. Well, unless you're a psychopath, that is. The best advice is, if you're going to keep a firearm around the house is (1) learn how to shoot it so you won't shoot yourself in the foot, and (2) do your thinking in advance, and (3) practice, practice, practice.

I do not want to have to shoot someone but if they are endangering my family they will be shot center of mass. If they die from the gunshot I honestly do not think it will bother me as they caused it not me. The way i look at it I did not shoot the criminal he shot himself when he chose to break into my home. I agree with the rest of your post and no I am not a psychopath.

At some point people need to take responsibility for their actions. If you do not want to get shot do not break into my home. It is unrealistic to not think you might get shot if you choose to.

I think this is the first thread i've read on these forums that i 100% agree with.

quote:

Originally posted by raine:
I may be out of my league on this one. I am not really "up" on politics but I have to say that I feel everyone has the right to bear arms and protect what is theirs. Be it a home, a family, their belongings, their lives. I would not ever think someone should have to find out what is going on before firing at someone who has entered their dwelling. If someone is kicking down my door or breaking a window to gain entry into our home... I don't care what they intend to steal or do... they can't be up to anything good or I would have recieved a phone call telling me they were on the way to my home and a knock on my door at a reasonable hour of the night. Just my own little thoughts...

Guns aside, it was only a few years ago in a North Florence neighborhood that a man tried to wake up a family whose garage was on fire and got the heck beaten out of him. Not all people call in an emergency

Was the guy yelling, "Your garage is on fire, your garage is on fire!!" ?

quote:

Originally posted by zippadeedoodah:
Taking someone's life, even if it seems like a good idea at the time, stays with you and haunts you. You can be elated after a gunfight, but the reality of what you've had to do eventually sinks in. Well, unless you're a psychopath, that is. The best advice is, if you're going to keep a firearm around the house is (1) learn how to shoot it so you won't shoot yourself in the foot, and (2) do your thinking in advance, and (3) practice, practice, practice.

I never said I wanted to shoot someone, and I'm sure that if I had to in that situation that it would stick with me....HOWEVER, if I hesitated and this person hurt my family... THAT would stick with me a lot longer and harder than shooting an idiot that broke into myhouse would.
and I handle firearms quite well due to responsible handling of many different types, from hand-guns, shotguns, and rifles, from my childhood up to now. My step-dad taught me how to shoot when the guns weighed as much as me. LOL

It would be a VERY bad idea to break into my home. Double Tap comes to mind!