©
By Michael Sluss
RICHMOND
The General Assembly may be inching toward a compromise on legislation that would give Virginians immunity from civil lawsuits if they use deadly force against an intruder.
The state Senate today passed a revised version of the so-called “castle doctrine” bill that emerged from the House of Delegates earlier this month. Under the legislation, a homeowner or lawful occupant of a dwelling would have immunity from civil liability for using force against an intruder if the occupant “reasonably believes he or another person in the dwelling is in imminent danger of bodily injury.”
The original bill (HB48) would have provided criminal immunity, but the Senate Courts of Justice committee amended it to conform with a bill (SB4) that already has passed the Senate.
“There is a very significant body of common law when it comes to self-defense in the criminal arena, as opposed to the civil arena” said Sen. Richard Stuart, R-Westmoreland County, who sponsored the Senate version of the bill.
As the “castle doctrine” bills have moved through the legislature, some lawmakers and interest groups – including pro-gun groups — have raised concerns that embedding the bill into the state code could weaken common law protections that Virginia has observed for centuries. The bill the Senate passed today contains a sentence stating that the law should not be interpreted as limiting “any defense or immunity already existing in statutory or common law.” The bill passed by a vote of 24-16.
The House postponed a scheduled vote on Stuart’s bill today. That bill has been amended to mirror a similar measure (HB14) that was introduced by Del. Greg Habeeb, R-Salem. Habeeb’s bill passed the House but was killed by the Senate courts committee. Negotiators from the two houses may have to work out differences on one or both of the bills.
“I expect the end product to be maintenance of the status quo, or a civil bill that doesn’t change the common law but provides essentially an affirmative defense,” Habeeb said.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo
If...
They forced their way in, they have the intention. If they used a tool to gain access they have the means of breaking in and also a potential weapon. If your'e at home when it occurs there is a potential like in many cases the threat of bodily harm or death. I'll shoot the intruder. Dead men (intruders) tell no tales. They shouldn't be in your house in the first place. They're there for a no good reason and they'll do it again if let to live to see the court system.
Republicans
Republicans want everyone to have guns, and no one to have health care....especially women.
So let me see if I have this right
You have the right to remove an unwelcome intruder from your home, even if it means deadly force. But you don't have the right to remove an unwelcome intruder from your body, at least not without a bunch of non-doctors forcing you to jump through a lot of expensive and unnecessary hoops. Someone explain to me how a two-week-old zygote is a "person" and must be protected at all costs, yet the living, breathing human on the other end of your gun isn't.
"duty to retreat"
Will this term be removed?
"duty to retreat"
Will this term be removed?
Support the Second Amendment!
American citizens have the Constitutional right to carry a gun 100% of the time. Many states have laws infringing upon that Second Amendment right.
In Virginia, any citizen that shoots and frightens, wounds, or kills an attacker while defending their family in their own home, should not fear criminal charges or civil lawsuits.
The State of Virginia should honor these citizens who have defended their families and themselves from criminal attackers and publicly recognize them and commend them for good citizens.
It is not the job of the police to protect you and your family from violent criminals. If you have not already done so, enroll in firearms training classes and purchase sufficient firearms. Carry firearms regularly.
SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTION!
Why not support all 27 amendments? How many of us are willing to exercise our 2nd amendment rights in support of a fellow citizen's exercise of his/her 1st, even if we disagree them?
Right, and wrong
Thouhg I support your overall point in this, I must point out that American citizens do not have a right to carry a gun 100% of the time. In fact the 2nd ammendment gives a caveat on how people are allowed to own guns. It says, "a well regulated militia, being nessary to the security of a free state..." thus the only reason to own a gun, according to the 2nd ammendment, is to keep a militia for the defense of the state.
As with other posters using the constitution.....
.....you must use the statement of the amendment in it's entirety.
"....the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Please define "infringed" in the context of the entire amendment?
Support the Second Amendment!
American citizens have the Constitutional right to carry a gun 100% of the time. Many states have laws infringing upon that Second Amendment right.
In Virginia, any citizen that shoots and frightens, wounds, or kills an attacker while defending their family in their own home, should not fear criminal charges or civil lawsuits.
The State of Virginia should honor these citizens who have defended their families and themselves from criminal attackers and publicly recognize them and commend them for good citizens.
It is not the job of the police to protect you and your family from violent criminals. If you have not already done so, enroll in firearms training classes and purchase sufficient firearms. Carry firearms regularly.