$nbsp;

Shoot-first bill must not pass

 
LOADING
Mar 08, 2007 - 08:28:35 CST
Frequently the name bestowed on something reveals much about those doing the naming.

Officially it’s House Bill 1319 and the description is “a bill for an act ... relating to the use of and liability for deadly force ...”

Those who like the bill call it the “stand your ground bill” or the “shoot first” provision. A bit more neutral but still with connotations is the “castle doctrine bill.” One’s home is one’s castle — home and family are entitled to security, even if it means employing the fiercest defense.

“The deadly force bill.” That term may not indicate total opposition but certainly means that those who call it that are soberly aware of what’s at stake.

Ultimately it can be a matter of legally killing someone in self-defense, defense of others, even killing an intruder in a workplace or one posing a threat to the occupant of a vehicle.

But current law in the Century Code already recognizes that the use of deadly force may be justifiable and legal.

The proposal to alter the law, having passed in the House and now lodged in a Senate committee, is faulty. It’s not needed. It’s a solution that creates its own problem.

Law enforcement people generally have come out in strenuous opposition. So have prosecuting attorneys.

The fundamental flaw — not much the focus of debate in the House — is that the proposal would create prior immunity, also called indemnity, for an act that may or may not be a crime. Prior immunity tends to be bad law.

If a gun-wielding citizen reacts to a situation of dire conflict, perhaps a rapidly escalating one, with the feeling that he or she has the permission and protection of the law to draw down and kill someone, without even trying to avoid the action in any way, that’s dangerous.

Yes, the law would continue to say that he or she “is not justified in using more force than is necessary and appropriate under the circumstances.” But that’s from current law. No change needed.

The issue is how much a shooter feels the state sanctions and protects a free and quick trigger finger. The proposal says the user of deadly force may not be arrested by law enforcement unless it’s determined there’s probable cause that the permissions of Section 12 were violated.

Who’s going to review Section 12 of the Century Code mentally before pulling the trigger — if the law is changed or, for that matter, as it stands now? Come on, none of us. But now we have to take responsibility afterward. If the proponents get their way, there’s also the bonus of immunity from civil suit.

That is horribly out of character in a country of laws.

North Dakota isn’t Florida, thank heavens. People don’t get prosecuted here for using deadly force in legitimate self-defense. State’s attorneys are not that overzealous.

Florida was the first state to pass a shoot-first law designed by the National Rifle Association. It already has had effect. Police in Clearwater could not arrest a man who fatally shot his neighbor after an argument over how many bags of garbage the neighbor had put out to be hauled off. Garbage, a fight and a dead man.

Colorado and several other states have adopted laws modeled on Florida’s, and the NRA wants the law in every state. Montana legislators are struggling with the issue right now. You can’t call Montanans gun-control nuts. Neither are North Dakotans.

But we don’t need a “Make My Day” law like Colorado’s. Our senators should reject HB1319 decisively.
News > Opinion
   Printer friendly version
Shoot-first bill must not pass
Comments

NoDak John wrote on Mar 22, 2007 8:36 AM:

" "Axes are flexible " it is a word game. If you want to pass a filthy bill, you call it "Social Security restoration" or to "Protect the Children" or similar wording. The nicer the title, the deeper you need to look. The vile love to hide their evil behind nice sounding words. That way when you attack their works, they can come back at you and say "YOU must be in favor of old people starving to death" or "You don't care about the children". Never mind that their legislation will do exactly that, the idea is to fill their pockets and their good buddies pockets at the expense of the people. It is "good old" Orwellian double speak. The problem is that it works. Just look at the number of those who think that carrying or using a weapon for self defense is a crime. Fellow sheep, we have been fleeced. "

Axes are flexible wrote on Mar 21, 2007 2:22 AM:

" A guy in Seattle had his new rims stolen off his truck. The guy replaced his nice rims. When the thief came back to steal his second set of rims he was waiting. He eased up behind him with a double bladed logging axe and while holding it over his head explained he was under citizen's arrest (Private person arrest)(being detained for police). He explained that the police were on the way and then explained how much those rims meant to him and how angry he was. He probably crossed the legal lines when he explained how much he would enjoy it if he resisted arrest. I hear the rim thief was real happy when police finally arrived. The guy had been arrested many times before so the police had a good laugh. It is good to note that the above law HB-1319 is not a gun law but a deadly force law. Guns transported in vehicles still must have gunlocks. Why the above article was titled "Shoot First Bill" staggers the imagination. "

Grumpy Art wrote on Mar 20, 2007 8:07 PM:

" Deb, if you see no trends, back and forth, happening here then that is fine. If you did not understand what NoDak John said about a stabilized blood sample being found at a crime scene that is also fine. I found out a long time ago that the meanest thing you can do to a liberal or a dope addict is to leave them to their reality. Liberals see what is happening to our cities and oppose any solution. Whether it is gun laws or drug laws its all interrelated. The fastest growth of illegal gun use is by drug gangs. The teenagers argue that everyone is wrong about drugs and they get hooked. Then the reality of what they must do to afford drugs becomes a problem. Los Angeles drive by shootings to determine who can push drugs on a certain street corner is a long way from here and not a problem to me. Occasionally the drug smugglers are on the highways but they are not likely a problem to me. Far be it from me to warn anyone who does not want to listen. Nicole Simpson was a liberal and no one could tell her anything. Her weapon was jealousy. We all live by what we believe. Somehow I knew that you would not respond with any sympathy about the position the Marines in Lebanon were placed in. Policemen are often ex-military and procedures and weapons have a way of going from military to police. Hopefully no one will ever require our police to carry unloaded weapons. Hopefully we homeowners will never be required to lock up all our guns. It is good to be proactive. The above mentioned new law should pass. Then increase penalties for parolees and drug addicts having any firearms. "

NoDak John wrote on Mar 20, 2007 8:03 PM:

" Thanks for the good laugh Deb. There are those who pay attention and there are those who find thought to be abhorrent. I do not understand that approach to living, but I do understand that there are those who feel that they must not concern themselves about reality. On the other side of the coin are those who look at a situation and realize that "this does not add up" and they seek the truth of the matter. You are fortunate that there are those such as the investigators in police departments and those who deal in security matters. Their work protects the those who don't really care as it protects those who do care. Criminals enjoy naivete, and fear those who do not like to ignore details, because they know that sooner or later those who investigate thoroughly WILL catch up with them. "

Deb wrote on Mar 20, 2007 4:36 PM:

" Grumpy Art- dude, seriosuly. this law passing or not passing will have nothing to do with and no effect on military people. Soldiers are employees of the Federal Government. This is a state law regarding your rights and privileges in your home or car. Not in Lebanon. Again, you are making less sense with each post. Seriously, dude... "

Grumpy Art wrote on Mar 20, 2007 4:15 PM:

" Deb, because you seem not to believe much, I will give you an article to read about Lebanon. Scroll down a little over half way to the part titled "Learning from our Past". In the second paragraph you will see the words "The Guards, carrying only unloaded rifles"....... http://www.beirutveterans.org/currentnewspage2.htm (Non of those 241 marines were your kids so who cares about rules of engagement, right? Wrong!) The above law should pass. "

Grumpy Art wrote on Mar 20, 2007 1:55 PM:

" Deb, agree to disagree? That is no fun. You are the perfect liberal that knows very little about gun laws and about how guns are normally used in the big cities and real world. You certainly did not watch the OJ trial. A little over 23 years ago 241 of our marines were blown up in Lebanon. The marines guarding the barracks that night were not allowed to load their guns unless fired upon. So the terrorist simply drove past them with the truck full of explosives, crashing into the barracks full of sleeping marines. For some of us that has meaning. Trends in the laws and rules have meaning. This new law has meaning. "

Deb wrote on Mar 20, 2007 12:10 PM:

" Lisa- I said it in previous posts - I would have shot the man had he gotten into the house and threatened my family. Grumpy Art- you're making less and less sense to me as time is going on. Let's just agree to disagree. NoDakJohn: fabulous post. I'm pretty sure you're on your computer in a bunker of some sort? Did you know that the governement can read your thoughts when you are looking at your computer screen? To deter that from happeneing, you can fashion a tin foil hat and wear it day and night. Good luck strong citizen. We're all counting on you!! "

NoDak John wrote on Mar 20, 2007 10:24 AM:

" Yes Debbie, I am sure that anything which does not fit your "knowledge" base sounds crazy. It is interesting to see that you also use the pre-programmed ad hominem response. You Don't even know what I am talking about when I mention John and Mary. When you find that out, then I will explain the rest of the details. As far as the blood samples is concerned, you will find that "crazy" stuff in the trial testimony. Yes, OJ did have criminal knowledge, but he was not tried for that. The jury did exactly what they should have for the trial as conducted. Sure hope you enjoyed the side show. Had the jury been a grand jury, they could have done something about the charges, but they were a trial jury, not a grand jury. "

Lisa wrote on Mar 20, 2007 10:20 AM:

" Deb, I appreciate the fact that you were able to deter a drunk in the night without the use of deadly force. However, if that drunk had tried to force his way in to your house, what would you have done? Personally, I would kill the guy with my bare hands if I had to. I have no problem taking a life to protect myself and my family. Notice I did not say "innocent" life because anyone forcing their way into my home is not innocent. He or she is already guilty of forced entry. Generally people who force their way into another person's home do so with malicious intent, not just to get a cup of coffee and chat about the weather. If someone attacks me or my family, no matter where I am, I will do as much damage to him as I can. "

to grumpy old Art wrote on Mar 20, 2007 5:48 AM:

" You make no sense at all. Are you Ok in the head. Citizens arrests are almost unheard of in this state, other than someone holding a person until the cops get there. If the situation is not serious the cops would rather you not hold someone at gun point. Bad things can come out of it, like you getting your gun taken away and used on you. "

Grumpy Art wrote on Mar 19, 2007 7:59 PM:

" I bet that Deb did not have a Sara Brady approved gunlock on her gun that day she defended herself. Tip, Sara Brady makes good money off her anti gun gig. Had she gone after Hinkley there would have been no money to be made. After shooting Reagan and Brady it was only a couple years before he was released on unsupervised trips home from the mental institution. Sara never said a word about that? Why would Deb not want to change any laws. I am sure that Deb knows how few women ever go to prison in any State. (Oh I forgot, women are always the victims, they never drive drunk and kill people, they never hire husbands killed, they never kill their children, they never lie about husbands in divorce court, they never start fights in bars....... Certainly they seldom go to war. I am not at all surprised that no women seem to be interested in this law being discussed. Why would a woman leave the blinds open when having sex on couch when stalked by husband? Let me count the possibilities. Maybe the bruised face pictures in the safe deposit box meant she was blackmailing him? Otherwise she would have given them to police and used the justice system appropriately. Maybe her sister that was dating made mafia men had given her some tips. "

Deb wrote on Mar 19, 2007 4:31 PM:

" Uhm, NoDak John- My reference to OJ was commenting on what "Grumpy Art wrote on March 15, 2007 11:01 PM" But congrats, you are sounding crazier and crazier every day. Start talking about the judges again - that's my fave! "

Grumpy Art wrote on Mar 19, 2007 3:31 PM:

" http://www.legis.nd.gov/cencode/T29C06.pdf Under 29-06-04 a private person must aid a policeman, if requested, to make an arrest. Then in 29-06-22 it tells when a private person making a private person arrest may break into a building? 29-06-13 says when force may be used when making a private person arrest? Nothing is mentioned about immunity for the private person making an arrest and nothing about lawyer fees or medical. It is good to note that policemen are protected by the laws, and good medical insurance is available for them. Private persons should be aware of the lack of laws protecting him when involved in an arrest and act accordingly. Now we go back the law in the above article being decided this week. It requires retreat before using deadly force. However a doctor can use deadly force (doctors are protected against accidents - a private person aiding a policeman is not?). I will read all this again but it sounds like you can assist or do a felony arrest but if things get serious you must retreat? This new law must pass, and more laws need consideration. "

NoDak John wrote on Mar 19, 2007 2:31 PM:

" Deb, What in the world does OJ have to do with this bill? Your comment "someone here is defending OJ? That's about as low as you can go." Just goes to prove that you like to have others program you so that you have a reply which suits you. I'll drop a "hot rock" on your toes. Do you know that the restaurant manager John and the waitress Mary were also murdered as the investigation progressed? Did you know that the blood samples which by DNA analysis were proved to be from OJ were stabilized blood samples. No, I am sure that is news to you. Stabilized blood samples come from blood taken from a patient in a medical facility. That side show was a coverup for a number of crimes being committed and crimes which had been committed. Look into the use of coke for a start. It is interesting to see how many were mesmerized by that charade. "

To Deb wrote on Mar 19, 2007 7:26 AM:

" I said nothing about there being a previous arrest or prosecution of a person who didn't retreat. I find it interesting that you first say the new law allows you to shoot anyone on your propert (paraphrasing), then change to you don't have to retreat, and now say that no one gets prosecuted. But, this argument just supports a reason to change the laws. If the states attorney's and police are not enforcing a law becuase it is not in line with the public's desires, it shoudl be changed. It is silly to have a law on the books that is not enforced "

Wrong wrote on Mar 19, 2007 1:08 AM:

" http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.html/pen_table_of_contents.html California Penal Code is all online and there is nothing now under "private person arrest" that says the threat of deadly force can be used to effect a felony arrest. It was there some years ago but not now. Maybe that is one of the reasons that the street gangs run the streets. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=833-851.90 "

Different laws in different places wrote on Mar 18, 2007 4:47 PM:

" California law says a citizen can use the "threat of deadly force" (point a gun) if necessary to effect a citizens arrest. In the real world it seems to mean that you can "not" shoot him if he walks away from you. Only if he attacks. North Dakota private persons arrest law says nothing about deadly force or firearms that I could find? http://www.legis.nd.gov/cencode/T29C06.pdf Fortunately we have good logical police and prosecutors. "

Private person arrest wrote on Mar 18, 2007 4:18 PM:

" It does sound like the duty to retreat is in conflict with North Dakota's private person arrest law. http://www.legis.nd.gov/cencode/T29C06.pdf 29-06-20 When private person may arrest "

Conflict in law wrote on Mar 18, 2007 3:25 PM:

" By definition - how can a person do a citizen's arrest when required to retreat. "

Required to retreat? wrote on Mar 17, 2007 10:59 PM:

" Deb, I doubt if any North Dakota Policeman would ask if you retreated before shooting. There are other questions more pertinent. How often is someone shot breaking into a house in North Dakota. No doubt someone is occasionally held for police in North Dakota. Probably occasionally at gunpoint. Usually just holding a gun pointed at the floor is good enough for the average sneak thief burglar. Usually they need money for drug habit. Really violent people come at you fast. Usually no time for retreat or conversation. When in california I knew a lady that had a nutty young street person knock on her door and ask for water (they do that then when inside they look for something to steal). When she walked out on the porch and pointed at the garden hose he hit her in the face with his fist, knocking her down, and walked off. Another neighbor had her television and valuables stolen. They probably knew her teenage kids because they closed the dogs in the bathroom. Another neighbor had a safe with ten(?) thousand dollars stolen. He had just taken the money out of the bank as they were about to travel to Hawaii. So who did they tell? Who did their teenage daughter tell? Who could have gone straight to the safe and not bothered the rest of the house. In another town a friend went home and his neighbor told him someone was in his house and the police were on the way. He charged in his house and was shot with his own 32 auto pistol five times. He almost died. The burglar was a young parolee living a block and a half away. A co-worker who was killed was shot as he got out of his car when returning home one night. I do not know the statistics, just what I remember. My bias would be to not have any requirement for retreat in the law. Usually common sense prevails. "

DUMBFOUNDED wrote on Mar 17, 2007 10:44 PM:

" There are to many times that a DA wants to make a name for himself, and you never know who the target is going to be, we must have the right to defend ourselves without retreating. "

Yes Dan wrote on Mar 17, 2007 9:55 PM:

" But I was once driving old route 66 back when it was a lonely two-lane road in places through Arizona. Must have been 1962. At about 2am I had seen no cars on the road for over an hour. I saw a stopped car on the other side of the road with a flat tire. Only a lady was standing by the tire waving to me. As I stopped two men who were hiding behind the car came running toward me. I took a small revolver from beside me and pointed it at them as they ran to the window. They began saying loud and happy "thanks for stopping, thanks for stopping", and they laughed a very happy laugh. I ask the dummies what was going on. The ladies husband said "we did not think anyone would stop if they saw us, but we knew someone would stop for her", and they laughed again and thanked me again. The husband said they had no lug wrench to change the tire. As I drove him many miles back to a gas station he told me about his trip and the hitchhiker he had just left his wife with. When we got back the wife and hitchhiker were still there. I was surprised by his stupidity twice that night. All I am saying is that in a house break in, where glass or door is broken things are clear. The rest of life is up for grabs. Expect someone to be stupid on occasion. Had I not been traveling with a gun I would have sped off when they ran across the road at me. When you have the advantage you can afford to be patient. That is the best part of gun ownership, buying you time to be patient. "

Dan wrote on Mar 17, 2007 12:46 PM:

" Everybody has the right to protect their families. I say shoot first and ask questions later. If this bill passes the creeps will think twice before entering a business of house. So who cares if a few creeps get dusted, their have been far more innocent people that have died, or been the one's to blame for a robery or break in gone bad. We as American people have the right to bear arms, and should have the right to use them to protect what we love. With all the creeps crawling across the borders I say, Men and Women load your weapons and be steady, you don't want to miss. "

Craig wrote on Mar 17, 2007 12:15 AM:

" Deb I did list one in Arizona that the police decided was a good shoot, the District Attorney decided he was going to prosecute. The guy is sitting in prison because the DA lied about caliber choice, what a hollow point was for (especially since the police use hollow points). The reason my post was so long was because I listed all the reasons it should pass, I haven't seen one reason why it shouldn't pass other than you should just trust the government. I would like to know WHY I as a LAW ABIDING CITIZEN must try to leave where I have legal right to be, let alone live when a criminal that has NO LEGAL RIGHT to be in my domicile? I don't want to shoot anyone, but why should I allow a criminal to come in and take what I work hard for and may be assault my family or myself. Do you really want to trust a criminal to not hurt you when they are already breaking two or three laws? There are criminals that people give over what they have with no resistence and then the bad guy kills them. There are criminals that have successfully sued homeowners that have defended their families. This is part of the 'stand your ground bill.' So I ask you why shouldn't we pass this law? "

Grumpy Art wrote on Mar 16, 2007 10:02 PM:

" Deb, You should be asking how many homeowners have been injured or killed by criminals all over this country because of poorly written laws that favor the criminal? How many homeowners or businessmen have been sued by the criminal and the criminal won? Only in your mind, and the mind of Sara Brady, is there a surge of good people shooting good people. Or perhaps you think this law makes it better for the criminal? More than half of all crime is committed by parolees. Do you want to continue to be required to run from them? We should learn from New York, Florida, and California. If the big coastal cities were to put all the crime and lawsuits in the newspaper each day the paperboys could not carry them. No one could possibly read all the crime from one major city each day. The police precincts go through their crime reports each day looking for the ones with enough evidence or witnesses to forward to the district attorney. The district attorneys filter them again looking for the ones with enough good evidence to be able to convince a jury of people like yourself. Keep it simple and we all win more often. "

Russ in Minot wrote on Mar 16, 2007 7:46 PM:

" This article says "The proposal says the user of deadly force may not be arrested by law enforcement unless it’s determined there’s probable cause"--is this not the standard we all believe should be for any search, seizure, detention, or arrest? I really don't see how this "castle doctrine" can be an issue for a reasonable person. After all, liberals, conservatives, and independents (at least most) believe we are presumed innocent, not presumed guilty. That is why we are considered a free people! "

Deb wrote on Mar 16, 2007 4:13 PM:

" to "to Deb": show me a case where someone was found guilty of the charge because they didn't retreat. My guess is that if you can find a case, it is most likely beucase it is the type of case that changing this law will allow more of - the needless killing of innocent people not becuase of self defense. "

To Deb wrote on Mar 16, 2007 2:59 PM:

" Bull - Read it. The current law clearly says, "The use of deadly force is not justified if it can be avoided, with safety to the actor and others, by retreat or other conduct involving minimal interference with the freedom of the person menaced." If you can retreat, you have to. Courts have interpreted the law that way. "

Grumpy Art wrote on Mar 16, 2007 1:42 PM:

" Deb, how in the world did you read that to be a defense of OJ. In the real world people do dumb things. Nicole could have led her life better and made wiser decisions when dealing with a violent husband she was separated from and was being stalked by. And Deb how can you read the present law and not read that it requires you to retreat if you can. Your posts on this have been delusional at best. You think you will be protected from harming another person if you just claim self defense. You think you will get your money back from any trial and inconvenience if you say the right words. It says if a court decides. Let me give you a big tip. Someone is not a threat to you unless they have a weapon and are close enough to use that weapon and show or state that they are going to use that weapon (the actual laws read better). As always in all states if a felony is committed, or in progress of being committed, you can use reasonable force to detain the person for police. Reasonable force is always the minimum necessary force. Read this law and the other laws on "use of force". Look at the wording in this law and the words lined out. The words all mean something. None of the words mean that you can use any degree of force on any other human just because you feel like it. The above article is propaganda. However if your life is in real, absolute, definite, imminent danger, you have the right to defend yourself. Someone swinging a feather at you does not count as dangerous, but perhaps in your mind it might. If so you will be tried by 12 reasonable people. They will evaluate if you acted as a reasonable adult. They will take the time to read the law. They will not give you your money back for your time and inconvenience. "

Deb wrote on Mar 16, 2007 12:56 PM:

" The current law does not say you MUST retreat. And seriously - someone here is defending OJ? That's about as low as you can go. "

To Deb and others wrote on Mar 16, 2007 11:15 AM:

" Come on. You read the bill. It says, "When used in lawful self defense, or in lawful self defense of others, if the force is necessary to protect the actor or anyone else against death, serious bodily injury, or the commission of a felony involving violence. . . ." The only thing that is removed from the bill is the requirement that you MUST retreat if you can. All the other rules to self-defense are still there. There are verly litigated and very real case law rules involving self-defense. The language of the amneded statute includes a bunch of them. Exs. "When used in lawful self defense, or in lawful self defense of others" - there are all kinds of cases on when self defense is lawful (and shooting your neighbor or ex-spouse are not in them in the siutations blogged), "if the force is necessary" - case law talks about this too. the force is not necessary if someone is standing on your porch with no weapon and is not trying to break down the door, nor is it necessary when your neighbor puts too many garbage bags out, nor is it necessary when you hate your ex-spouse. "to protect the actor or anyone else against death, serious bodily injury, or the commission of a felony involving violence." Again, there is danger of death, serious bodily injury, or the commission of a felony involving violence... for someone standing on your porch with no weapon and not trying to break down the door, when your neighbor puts too many garbage bags out, or when you hate your ex-spouse. Plus, the one thing everyone doesn't get is that the self-defense rule is based on a reasonble person standard, not subjective according to each person. So if a reasonable person would think you needed deadly force, then ok. It is NOT that when YOU feel threatened, go ahead. It does not allow people who are more scared to shoot more often people than those less scared. It's not that kind of standard. "

Grumpy Art wrote on Mar 16, 2007 11:02 AM:

" Rhonda, You are assuming she would have gone to prison if she had to shoot him. I doubt it. You might note that I referred to a previous occasion where (they were separated and) she was dialing 911 and he was breaking in the door. Even with both of them having a history of alcohol and reportedly cocaine abuse, and even in California, no jury would ever convict her. She should never have allowed herself to be repeatedly beaten. Batterers get braver each time like all criminals. Even being a few miles from liberal Hollywood Brentwood is different. She had pictures of her battered face in a safe deposit box and police complaints to back them up. She first should have taken him to court. She should have had a lawyer. Instead she chose to continue to have intimate relationships, the same as he was, while going though divorce action (competition?). She knew how jealous he was and at one time had sexual relations on the couch with the blinds open (while he was outside stalking her). They were both on the wrong course. She endangered the men around her. Few men can compete with a world class athlete. She should have hired a lawyer. She needed to remain sober, use the police and courts to the maximum, and buy a gun. She was not in an apartment building and a safe warning shot in the floor could have been fired. If he kept coming toward her, from the broken door, with his history of battering her, no jury would have convicted her for shooting at him. It would be nice if the first shots were aimed at his legs if time permitted. "

To Hand it to Republicans wrote on Mar 16, 2007 10:56 AM:

" That's awesome. I just absolutly love how every raving liberal says everything is a republican backed bad idea. The fact is that the power in our legislature is with Republicans. Bills are rarely, if ever, supported here WITHOUT their support. It's a simple situation and not a republican conspiracy. Sheesh "

Rhonda wrote on Mar 16, 2007 9:29 AM:

" Sorry, but I disagree about the whole OJ thing. Yes, she should have had a gun and fired it, but not warning shots. I don't think that would have made him stop; he would have killed her anyway; the difference is, had SHE killed HIM with a gun, she would be in prison instead of in a grave, and he would be where she is, instead of playing GOLF!! She couldn't count on police even when they WERE there; let alone when they weren't. You've never been a battered wife, so don't make assumptions about how safe, she would've been, and how he would've thought twice about beating her up. Had she only fired warning shots, he would've gotten her eventually and done the same thing that he ultimately did to her. Had she killed him, everyone would've hung her from the rafters for killing the great OJ. "

Grumpy Art wrote on Mar 15, 2007 11:01 PM:

" Thank you Bobba Gedusch. Very well stated. This law is good law. It should be called the "It's okay not to run and hide" law. The Duke Lacrosse case and the O.J. Simpson case are just two examples of justice gone awry. In the Duke Lacrosse case it was obvious from the start that the dancer showed up wasted on drugs and/or alcohol. As she left her concern was "where is my 400 dollars" and the fact that someone had apparently used racial slurs. If justice was logical they would pay her the 400 dollars and apologize for any racial slurs. Then she should be prosecuted for the false rape charges and then be required to do the same amount of prison time that they would have done for rape. The O.J. Simpson case should never have happened. Nicole Simpson could have resolved it long before on the day she called 911 as he was breaking in through the door. A few warning shots would have saved her a beating, and probably changed his attitude about the future of beating on her. We cannot count on police to be everywhere we want them to be. We cannot count on every prosecutor to be correct every time. We cannot count on every law to be written as concise as possible. "

Bobba Gedusch wrote on Mar 15, 2007 5:50 PM:

" Deb, my appology to you and Sen. Bachman, the only thing I read about "her" was "she" is apparently down on gays, be that as it may. You feel ambigous laws are good...subject to interpretation by the courts. I on the other hand disagree, laws should be cut and dried...clearly stated,no grey areas. The revisions to this statute clearly makes it known that if a person creates a threat, the threatened individual has no need to retreat. It also makes it clear that if a States Attorney wants to investigate thats fine. But the cost of defense for the property owner is going to be picked up by the county, even if the property owner is guilty (which they will have to be if they defended themselves or property)and ambulance chasing attorneys wont be able to sue in matters of self defense or property protection. I see nothing wrong with that. Think back to our US Constitutions Bill of Rights, weren't we guaranteed protection from unreasonable search and seizure of property...what has happened in 200+ years, it has become a shame...the right to bear arms...it is becoming another shame (you can only bear certain arms) freedom of speech and the press...LOL...It is because of you and others in your camp that we are slowly losing our rights as individuals and more importantly as property owners. And unless our legislature restores some of these rights, the criminals (and courts) will own us. (Which they probably already do.) "

Grumpy Art wrote on Mar 15, 2007 2:35 PM:

" To Bobba Gedusch. Thank you for mentioning the Duke Lacrosse case. She did not walk out of the building yelling rape she walked out yelling, "where is my 400 dollars". Everyone knows what happens when a stripper or prostitute is robbed or not paid. Everyone except that prosecutor apparently. "

bubba wrote on Mar 15, 2007 12:31 PM:

" if you dont think there are aggresive prosectuters in this state have never had to deal with them. If you think judges do not legislate from the bench you need to spend more time reading through the news. Judges with agendas are on the benches everywhere. We may not see it much in this state, but how many high profile, political verdicts come from ND. This law is about protecting people from needless prosecutionj and forcing them to spend a lot of money defending themselves. If you plan to go into peoples homes uninvited you should probably pay close attention to what you are doing. "

Deb wrote on Mar 15, 2007 12:02 PM:

" Sen. Michele Bachman R-MN is a WOMAN. And, she is so far to the right of the wing that she needs to look to the left to see Strom Thurmond. Minnesota as a liberal utopia died the day Paul Wellstone's plane crashed (a right wing plot to take over the Congress allowing us to go to war in Iraq, but I'll keep my conspiracy theories to myself). Grumpy Art- I have no idea where you are going with the bar fighting, so I'm going to just let it go. Bobba Gadush - you and I seem to have a fundamental disagreement on the interpretation of the current law. When I was forced to protect my family, we were in the country, so I'm with you on not having the luxury of a cop stand on the corner. I still don't think it's necessary to rewrite the law to allow for less accountability for the land/home/car owner. You should not kill people is my baseline. Above that is: if you are threatened, you should defend yourself. The very last stage of that is killing in defense of your family. I said it before and I'll say it again, I don't think there is a prosecutor in ND who would aggressively go after someone who had to kill in defense of their family. But the situation should be investigated. Law is not made by attorneys or juries or judges. The law is written to be interpreted by attorneys, argued to juries & judges, and the decision of guilt or innocence is then made. Cutting out verbiage like they are doing with this law allows for less interpretation, which is not a good thing. Situations like what happened in Fla and Ky are what happen when laws like this one are rewritten - cop's and prosecutor's hands are tied and people get off scott free for needlessly killing other people. "

Bobba Gedusch wrote on Mar 15, 2007 9:12 AM:

" Deb, my apoligies, regarding Sen. Bachman and Hoeven...one might have better stated Bachman is nothing more than a voice in the wilderness he is a bit more right wing than Hoeven LOL "

Bobba Gedusch wrote on Mar 15, 2007 8:34 AM:

" Deb, while I'm on this rant... You're grasp of the law as it currently written, is great, if you live in an apartment complex, 1/2 block way from a police station, and the apartment building has security doors etc. But for those of us who live in rural ND perhaps one or more hours from any form of police protection, we have to live in a different world, especially with 'doped trash' moving into our state, because, well basically, all the other places are filling up, In North Dakota, especially rural North Dakota, we have developed a reputation nation wide for being 'friendly, trusting, etc'(rubes) this is what gets us in trouble regarding people coming in and stealing, etc. And if there are no legal deterents to future crime its only going to get worse. This law is a first step. In regards to States Attorneys not pursuing charges in a property defense cases BS... take a look at the drive behind the States Attorney in the Duke Lacrosse case and think about how much money it cost those college kids to get cleared in that rape case, I'll bet there was $500K+ involved. Now take a county states attorney with political ambition and give him a shooting under the current law and see what it will cost the homeowner to defend his property. "

Bobba Gedusch wrote on Mar 15, 2007 8:01 AM:

" Deb, Minnesota, where last month a 80 yr old man was charged with 'reckless endangerment' for pointing a loaded shotgun at a 26yr old admitted Meth addict, who was stealing gas from the 80 yr. olds farm fuel tank... (no shots were fired) But this is where this revised law has its place. Sen. Backman is no more conservative than Gov. Hoeven... (which is a stretch to call either one conservative) People (property owners) deserve the right to protect themselves (family) as well as their property without the need to prove there was no ablity to 'retreat first' There should be NO mandate to 'retreat first', its a good idea to retreat, but there should be no duty to. That is what the revision to the law most importantly addresses. Because of this States Attorney's and litigation lawyers will have to prove that there was malicious intent beyond self defense. This revision to current law removes the financial burdon on the property owner to prove his/her innocence, regarding malicious intent while defending themselves or their property...What is wrong with this??? If you are going to try to use this law to murder someone it will not work. The way the law is now written, its an open door for anyone who defends their property with deadly force to be sued by an intruder...becuase the property owner 'didnt retreat first' Is this the way it is supposed to be? (perhaps in your mind) but for the rest of us who have property to protect I think not. "

Grumpy Art wrote on Mar 15, 2007 3:42 AM:

" Deb, I will not be available to argue until later Thursday so will add a little fodder now. (1) Present law does say you have a duty to retreat if you can. If you ask any lawyer I'm sure he would tell you that the words "stop or I'll shoot" are technically an illegal threat not supported by law. Under present law you might say "stop or I'll run to the bedroom, lock myself in, and call the police. I would not recommend saying that but if you want to be legal it's legal. (2) I am for increased penalties for people who are repeat bar fighters. Many years ago in a large city I took a Kung Fu San Soo class. Basically the upper belts would go to the bars at night to try out techniques they had learned. I got tired of listening to the bragging the next day. Years later in a medium size town a friend of a friend was considered to be one of the toughest bar fighters in town. His fights always ended with him pinning the other guy against the wall using thumb on adams apple while striking with his other fist. (I will say no more about him because he was a Correctional Sergeant in an old troubled west coast prison). One day he was shot between the eyes by a guy who had previously killed. No one I know was unhappy when he (the shooter) was also shot. Not enough room for other stories. In other words I long ago lost patience with people who go to bars and fight for recreation. Penalties should be increased for such behavior. Bars that have a history of such should be required to have surveillance cameras inside and out front. The recorder should be locked away from the bartender in a safe. In other words what happens in bars should not affect gun laws. Most small town bars are good places. Many big city bars have very little good to say about them. Most deaths in every state involve drugs or alcohol. "

Mike wrote on Mar 15, 2007 2:52 AM:

" It doesn't matter if the bill passes or not, if someone breaks into my house the outcome will be the same either way. "

Deb wrote on Mar 14, 2007 10:47 PM:

" Bubba Gedosch: clearly, you haven't been to MN lately. Heard of Sen. Bachman? Now talk to me about liberals. Rhonda: "Stop. Or I'll shoot" is the defense that I used against my assialant - and if you will read the previous posts rather than jump in late in the game, you will see that it worked well for me and my family. Grumpy Art: whoa whoa whoa - you are all over the map there. I will talk to you on Thursday. Food for thought: please read the section of the proposed legislation regarding the immunity of police, public servants and security officers. That should answer some of your questions. How you think you are keeping your side of the argument up with the "Police who work the night shift know that you can keep more people alive if you keep them disarmed" is far beyond me. Thank you tho, for arguing my point, I think... "

Grumpy Art wrote on Mar 14, 2007 10:07 PM:

" Lets review: Deb wrote on March 14, 2007 11:57 AM: Then the part that you are focusing on says "The use of deadly force is not justified if it can be avoided, with safety to the actor and others, by retreat or other conduct involving minimal interference with the freedom of the person menaced." (To that Deb comments) Retreat is not mandated in that sentence. If you are threatened, you are allowed to use deadly force, period...... Deb, again your "opinion" is that retreat is not mandated. If an attorney for an injured career criminal was to ask you all those yes or no questions like "was there an open door behind you? Was there anything between you and that door"? (And so on) You would become aware that "the law" is what the lawyers and juries decide it is. When you read all that was lined out of present law, and the clear concise language that replaces it, then you should agree the new language is clearer. Really Deb, you do not want to be put in the position where you need to prove to a jury that you could not have safely retreated. "

Bobba Gedusch wrote on Mar 14, 2007 7:01 PM:

" GrumpyArt... instead of dropping the gauntlet in front of Deb, we would all be better served if you would offer her a oneway bus ticket to Minnesota, so she could be with "her kind" over there. And I feel there are several lefty pro-gun control, anti-property owners rights posters that I wish we could send along...to include ambulance chasing attorney's,Hillary supporters,etc.... both North Dakota and Minnesota would have to benefit, North Dakota would be a place for humans to live, and Minnesota could become a liberal utopia....OH wait...it already is... "

Rhonda wrote on Mar 14, 2007 5:57 PM:

" Deb, just so you know...no one is going to care about their high property taxes if someone breaks into their home and kills them or one of their family members. As far as trying to stop the person and getting them to retreat before using deadly force...how's this: "STOP, or I'll SHOOT!" "

Grumpy Art wrote on Mar 14, 2007 4:36 PM:

" Deb, I am impressed that you read a little further down. That means we need to get down to the nitty gritty. First you notice that the Castle Doctrine is now extended from "your home is your castle" to (in the age of carjacking) "your car is your castle", and finally "your body is your castle". Second, your examples are not good because there are unsolved crimes all over this country. There are bad juries occasionally in every state. Most criminals do not get caught the first time (and so on). Third, look at the old law and imagine yourself as a bodyguard, security guard or bouncer. Rich people want their bodyguards to be proactive, not required to huddle around them and escort them away from the attacker (read third person defense). Fifth, this new law is a nightmare for big city police who spend too much time responding to "fights" in bars. Actually it is not usually a fight, someone attacks another. Often someone baits and provokes another. But with the witnesses and participants all imbibing none want to talk to police, none are good in court. Police who work the night shift know that you can keep more people alive if you keep them disarmed. So, Deb, pick one and lets argue. (Yes I'm throwing down the gauntlet). "

Deb wrote on Mar 14, 2007 11:57 AM:

" Grumpy Art- we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one. The way I interpret the sections that will be crossed out is that it already says that you don't necessarily have to retreat. First, it mentions necessary and appropriate force. Then the part that you are focusing on says "The use of deadly force is not justified if it can be avoided,with safety to the actor and others, by retreat or other conduct involving minimal interference with the freedom of the person menaced." Retreat is not mandated in that sentence. If you are threatened, you are allowed to use deadly force, period. If you feel that retreat is an option - use that option. The statute goes on to say the following: "A person seeking to protect someone else must, before using deadly force, try to cause that person to retreat [which I did in my example], or otherwise comply with the requirements of this provision, if safety can be obtained thereby." This statute is laying out options so that it is difficult for a trigger happy, unstable, or otherwise unbalanced person to use a shoot to kill mentality. It is protecting the "blizzard refugee" if you will. Taking these provisions out will allow for situations like those in Florida and Kentucky to go on here in ND. And, in all honesty, with ND being one of the lowest crime rated states per capita - why are we proposing legislation in search of a problem? Someone told me we have ridiculously high property taxes. Why aren't we solving real time problems? "

WOW wrote on Mar 14, 2007 11:43 AM:

" Craig you are either a fast typer or took a big chunk of your day to type all that. Whatever you meant! "

GEZZZZ wrote on Mar 14, 2007 9:52 AM:

" If you don't belong in my house, you're going to get shot! Plain and simple. "

Craig wrote on Mar 14, 2007 3:02 AM:

" This so-called 'shoot the burglar first' law is really mislabelled by the media (I know a real shocker). It isn't any different from the stand your ground law in other states. And really when dealing with a criminal, why should a LAW ABIDING CITIZEN have to try to flee and surrender their property to the criminal, other wise known as a person that is more than willing to sacrifice your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. I have heard interviews with criminals that were mad because they weren't able to take what they wanted because they believed they deserved what they wanted to confiscate from you. As I have said, criminals need to be more afraid of us good guys than the other way around. Those of us who are LAW ABIDING CITIZENS should be given more than the benefit of the doubt. It would be different if the Supreme Court hadn't ruled from on high 20 different times that law enforcement doesn't have to respond. This law is a way to protect the law abiding citizen from having to spend thousands of dollars from a prosecutor that pursues a case because of a political agenda or perhaps they failed to do their job to prosecute the criminal in the first place and is playing a game of 'cover their own democratic symbol.' It isn't something without precedents. There was a shooting down in Arizona. After the sheriff department declared it a clean shoot, the District Attorney decided to file charges. The DA went as far as to lie about why the choice of caliber the guy used, denying that it was a valid choice because it was more powerful than the police was using. Failing to point out that the 10 MM was developed for the FBI but there were agents to wimpy to handle the recoil from the weapon. Something to ponder: Knowing that there are criminals that will kill you even if you give up your possessions, do you really want to trust someone that think they deserve your property that they aren't going to kill you? What if they want something worse? Isn't it better to protect the citizenry from an overzealous prosecutor, then send a LAW ABIDING CITIZEN that did nothing than protect themselves from a criminal that the legal system was either unable or unwilling to protect that citizen from anyway? "

NoDak John wrote on Mar 13, 2007 8:33 PM:

" SE Forty, That would be true if you had either real Democrats of real Republicans in office. About 95 % of either of them have not a clue as to their roots. Each of them vies for position by supporting a cause which they think will bring in the most votes. After they are elected, they dance to the tune of the corporations who own them. You right to keep and bear arms is being systematically attacked. Deb apparently has not read about the cities who decided to reduce their crime load. Hint: A former anti-gunner investigated gun ownership so that he could once and for all shoot down (pun intended) all arguments for disarming the people and to promote following the UN mandate. His investigation caused him to become pro gun. He traded his ignorance in for knowledge. "

Grumpy Art wrote on Mar 13, 2007 5:40 PM:

" Deb, please read the law. Please read what was lined out of the law. http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/60-2007/bill-text/HAVO0200.pdf You are wrong. The present law requires you to retreat. You could not shoot in your example. When you told someone to leave and they left, you were not protecting yourself or your property. You were simply ordering a person off your property and he left. Again read what was lined out of the present law. Some words are a little difficult to read with a line through them but it can be read. "

Grumpy Art wrote on Mar 13, 2007 5:14 PM:

" Deb, there is a guy in Alaska making good money selling "fried ice cream" in his restaurant. It's not really fried ice cream because he adds wheat flour (he makes a great ice cream pancake). If you think you can shoot someone and just claim you were in fear of your life, and the police will say, "okay those are the right words, goodbye" then you need to get out more. Read what the law actually says. "

Grumpy Art wrote on Mar 13, 2007 5:02 PM:

" Okay Deb I read your propaganda website http://www.shootfirstlaw.org/press/ and saw nothing except usual propaganda. In North Dakota this is not a "shoot first" law it is an "okay to hold your ground" law. It simply removed the language in the law that required you to run away if threatened. The website you recommended had a story about a guy (florida?) who shot a kid who knocked on his door and ran away. All that story implied is a very weak, confused jury. They even admit that it happened before the law was passed. When California changed their law ten or so years ago they removed the language that required a person to prove he was in fear of his/her life when taking action against a person breaking in their house. The law then read that a person is presumed to be in fear of life or injury when someone breaks into your house. Florida and California has very high crime rates. It is good to know what is working and what is not, in those states. "

Deb wrote on Mar 13, 2007 4:45 PM:

" Displaced North Dakotan: I'm not sure what your point is in pointing out the details of the Florida. What does it matter what profession the offender had? What does it matter what size was the man who was outside of the home? Why is it right to shoot at a man over garbage bags? I was quite young when I defended my family from a large man outside of my house. I didn't have to shoot him, and I didn't shoot him - I told him to go away. That's called "appropriate force" which is protected under current law. Had the man forced his way into my house, and had I shot him, that is also "appropriate force" and I would have been protected under current law. If I had opened up my door and shot him (like the Fla incident?) is that "appropriate force." My opinion is that it is not. "

Deb wrote on Mar 13, 2007 4:40 PM:

" Grumpy Art: let me clarify - people who shoot other people and claim self-defense under the castle doctrine are immune from arrest and prosecution. If they are arrested, for whatever reason, they are due compensation from the state (or city, or whatever jurisdiction under which they were arrested) including lost wages and legal fees accrued. "

Grumpy Art wrote on Mar 13, 2007 3:41 PM:

" Please Deb, you claim to have read the law, where does it say that police cannot investigate a shooting? Please forget all the anti "castle doctrine" blogs you have read and read our law again. "Deb wrote on March 13, 2007 11:31 AM Taking away the investigation part of it (which is what the castle doctrine does)" "

Diplaced North Dakotan wrote on Mar 13, 2007 3:20 PM:

" As I sit here in my Manhattan office, I find this discussion quite interesting. Deb, Please read the whole story on the shooting in Florida. The person defending himself was a retired police officer. The neighbor was not across the fence but banging on the front door of the man's house. The pictures of the neighbor show him to be an extremely large man. We do not know if the retired police office was 50 years old or 80 years old. We do not have all the information but are making judgements. To SE 40. A Democrat in North Dakota is nothing like a North East Democrat. Having lived here for almost four years, I have learned that owning weapons will quickly earn you the distain of true democrats. Further look at the laws here in New York and the one recently overturned in Federal Court for Washington DC. It is illegal to own a handgun. Long guns must be dismantled, have a trigger lock and be in a locked case. I would like to see you defend yourself with this law. In California, there is a law that weapons must be under lock and key. A farm couple was gone, leaving the children home alone. A crazed man attacked them in the yard with a pitch fork killing one I believe. Although the daughter (14-15 years old if I remember correctly) had taken a self defense class she could not remember where key was and could not defend her siblings. These comments are shared to ask everyone to think carefully about the unintended consequences of any change. Does North Dakota have people that may use this proposed laws inappropriately? Maybe, but I believe all of the people I know in my home community will think carefully before using deadly force. "

Deb wrote on Mar 13, 2007 2:52 PM:

" Grumpy Art- the funny thing is that I didn't make any of that up. Here's the website, that has links to the local newspapers from which the stories came. The Florida shooting happened, the Kentucky shooting happened. Really, you can't make this stuff up. Read about more: http://www.shootfirstlaw.org/press/ "

Grumpy Art wrote on Mar 13, 2007 2:43 PM:

" To: NoDak John, yes I remember story about the town that required all the townspeople to have firearms. Perhaps 25 years ago story? If I recall correctly it was a small midwest town and they did not require concealed carry permits to pack. I could not find anything about it on an internet search. I seem to recall that the town had no crime anyway, everyone owned guns anyway, and they were just making a statement for any criminals thinking of moving their way. I read that about half of all crime is committed by parolees, and they like to move to California where laws are weak, houses have more valuables, and they can get lost in the crowd. "

Grumpy Art wrote on Mar 13, 2007 2:15 PM:

" Deb seems to think that our law is the same as Florida's law and our judges and juries are the same. Our law has nothing that allows shooting a person in a drug deal, shooting a person shaking fist at you (misdemeanor assault at most) or shooting a person running away. Lets review Debs silly comment obviously copied from some anti gun propaganda site. (A few months for manslaughter? Really Deb?) "Deb wrote on March 09, 2007 3:28 PM: In Kentucky, a drug debt turned deadly. But when the judge, jury and prosecutors were confronted by Kentucky's new "Shoot First Law," they had to broker a plea deal with the killer. After pleading to the lesser charge of manslaughter, the killer could be eligible for parole in a matter of months." (Also deb wrote about a florida shooting) "The dead include a man who shook his fist at another man in a neighborhood dispute, and the wounded include a 15-year old would be car thief shot in the back of the leg while running away." "

SE Forty wrote on Mar 13, 2007 2:00 PM:

" 99.9% of us will NEVER Have this happen to us anyway. This seems to be Guns against Anti guns. I personaly am a GUN owner. Love em. Law or no law I will protect myself and my family(if the circumstances allow it) from someone who decides to break into my home when I am there. Some post's seem to think all democrats are Anti's. I am a democrat! I personally beleive if democrats were in control I would still have all my guns. "

Deb wrote on Mar 13, 2007 11:31 AM:

" NoDak- huh? Where the heck did you get Rosie O'Donnell from my posts? I got all of my info from anti-castle doctrine websites & blogs. And what cities to you know of where people are "required to be armed"? I know of no such state or city in the US. My point is that there is a current law on the book that allows people to defend their homes from intruders. Taking away the investigation part of it (which is what the castle doctrine does) is a foolish choice that can, and has in other states, and most likely will here too, allow for unnecesary killing of people for foolish reasons. "

NoDak John wrote on Mar 13, 2007 9:29 AM:

" Deb, It sounds like you have been watching that beautiful, pleasant personality called Rosie O'Donnel. You might like to know that in spite of the fact that she says that everyone who has a gun "should be shot", did that thing also tell you that her body guards are heavily armed and that one bragged that he had an Ozzie. TV programming does not serve the people, it serves the programmers. Her comment about shooting all gun owners cost her the K-Mart contract. The sanctity of the home has been well established and every single one of the scenarios you put out there about shooting family and friends is ludicrous at best. If you knew anything about the law, you would know that "self defense" is all but impossible to establish if a family member or friend is shot. It happens, but it comes close to the area of hens teeth. In towns where you are required to be armed, the crime rates drop off dramatically because the thieves, rapists and child abductors know they are putting their life on the line. Conversely where arms are banned, break ins occur in broad daylight and the home owners are often killed. (See the record in England and Australia). "

Grumpy Art wrote on Mar 13, 2007 12:23 AM:

" To Deb, what part of this is confusing: 1. An individual is not justified in using more force than is necessary and appropriate under the circumstances. http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/60-2007/bill-text/HAVO0200.pdf "

Crazy Eddie wrote on Mar 12, 2007 8:46 PM:

" If you are not doing something that would get you shot, you don't have to worry about the law. Lust like the crazies that are worried about big brother listening into your conversations. He doesn't care if you are telling momma how much you love her. He wants to know if you are planning to blow up the local mall. "

ls wrote on Mar 12, 2007 7:39 PM:

" Blood will run in the streets.......or not. "

Just a little common sense wrote on Mar 12, 2007 4:25 PM:

" To Bad day for ND. You should take the time to read the existing law and the proposed changes before making comments. You are wrong about both the existing law and the bill under consideration. Your statements are just the opposite of the truth. "

Bad day for ND wrote on Mar 12, 2007 3:21 PM:

" It would be a bad day for ND if this bill passes. I am not saying this is a bad idea, it is just poorly written. Citizens have the right to protect thier property all ready. You do not have to retreat if some one enters your home. The way this bill is written gives any body with a gun the presumption they can kill at will. Sadly inocent people may be killed, and all the killer has to say is I was scared they were going to break into my home or harm me. "

Deb wrote on Mar 12, 2007 3:21 PM:

" Grumpy Art: Oh, but the trash people were protected by this law. It happened in Florida. The man who shot his neighbor was not able to be prosecuted because he was protected by the castle doctrine. You can easily google it. "

Grumpy Art wrote on Mar 12, 2007 12:02 AM:

" This is good law. As usual Deb quotes something inaproppriate. Sorry Deb people arguing about trash are not protected by this law. Drug dealers are not protected by this law. "

to GL wrote on Mar 10, 2007 10:54 PM:

" Better hope it isn't the swat team. God maybe talking to you first. "

bubba wrote on Mar 9, 2007 7:25 PM:

" I would have to assume that most of you who would be against this law have never been involved with a prosecutor. They dont care how much it cost the state to bring a case. It may not cost a couple of hundred thousand bucks to defend yourself, if you were unlucky enough to have a moron break into your home and you shot him or her. But what would it do to your checkbook to have to shell out 20 or 30 thousand to defend yourself when you were protecting yourself. I cannot see how this would turn ND into the wild west. You say what if the person was drunk and broke in, well what would mothers against drunk drivers say about that person driving on the street, I dont think they are very forgiving about that, but we are suppose to overlook it if they break into out home while they are drunk. People with Alzheimers usually do not break into a home in the middle of the night, they may just wander into an unlocked home, most people lock the doors. This law is about protecting average law abiding citzens. If the police are afraid to serve a search warrant because a crack head may shoot them because of this law then they are in the wrong buisness. What makes anyone think that if this law passes criminals will sudenly get some guns and shot at the cops when they serve a search warrant? Dont the police use bullet proof vests and use assult rifles now when they do a search? How would this law make that situation more dangerous than it already is. I would like to see this law passed. "

Snowflake Carl wrote on Mar 9, 2007 6:59 PM:

" I am a resident of Arizona, but recently had to defend myself in an altercation in Florida, home of the Castle Doctrine law. The two men, younger and larger than I, were intoxicated, but that would not have kept them from punishing me for being in their way in a hotel stairwell. Since I had a licensed firearm, I was able to "reason" with them without fear of subsequent persecution by a state prosecutor out to show "carpetbaggers" how the law works in Florida. No one was harmed, particularly the white haired short guy, but the two young punks sobered up rapidly "

Bobba Gedusch wrote on Mar 9, 2007 4:21 PM:

" Whoa Deb...step back from the ledge!!! This bill will not create a gunslinging 'Wild west'... and I'm shocked that you would be quoting Jim Brady's wife (an avowed Reblicrat) What the bill would do protect private property owners right to protect their families and property, without fear of uncontrolled litigation. This is something that has slowly been eroding in our country over the last 200 years, more so in the last 20 years. You might look at this bill as a backlash bill, but the carnage it will supposedly unleash is greatly overstated. Remember the sources you used were located in the southern USA an area that probably is more prevalent to violent crime to begin with, and remember the sources you are quoting are anti-Castle Doctrine and therefore are biased. Ask yourself or better yet research how many undefended homeowners were killed or injured by intruders during this same time period. And how many cases were as of yet unsolved. In a case of a property owner defending himself with deadly force it will be a case solved in short order. And... in worst case senario if the bill passes...move to 'peaceful' Minnesota... and avoid deer hunting season, in the deep woods. "

GL wrote on Mar 9, 2007 4:10 PM:

" I dont care if it is legal or not.. I catch sombody in my house without permission.. I shoot first. I will let god ask the questions later. "

Deb wrote on Mar 9, 2007 3:28 PM:

" Just a little common sense: "hundreds of thousands of dollars" - yeah, right. I'm not sure you have a handle on the legal system. Name me a prosecutor in their right mind who would charge someone for defending their home and/or family, and I'll show you a prosecutor who won't have his job for very long. Remember, it costs the state money to prosecute these people too. Regardless, you think that there won't be trouble around here if this passes? Here's just a handful of questionable incidents that I've uncovered since 15 states passed this law: The Shoot First Law has complicated or nullified investigations into a number of shootings, including that of a man who complained that his neighbor had left out too many trash bags. Jason Rosenbloom survived being shot twice; the shooter was not arrested, and faces no criminal charges under Florida's "Shoot First Law." In Kentucky, a drug debt turned deadly. But when the judge, jury and prosecutors were confronted by Kentucky's new "Shoot First Law," they had to broker a plea deal with the killer. After pleading to the lesser charge of manslaughter, the killer could be eligible for parole in a matter of months. The judge in the case told the Lexington Herald-Leader, "I'm not quite sure that the drafters had even a marginal knowledge of criminal law or Kentucky law." The Orlando Sentinel reported that in five counties in Central Florida 13 people killed six men and wounded four others, and that all but one of those shot were unarmed. The dead include a man who shook his fist at another man in a neighborhood dispute, and the wounded include a 15-year old would be car thief shot in the back of the leg while running away. "The net effect of the new 'Shoot First' law in Florida is, unfortunately, precisely what we feared," said Sarah Brady, honorary chair of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "People are dying who did not deserve to die. Meanwhile the legitimate cases of self-defense would have been viewed as legitimate self-defense without this law. "

Just a little common sense wrote on Mar 9, 2007 2:53 PM:

" To Deb. As usual you are picking and choosing which lines to quote. You have to read the entire amended bill and not the original bill that you are quoting from. Pay special attention to lines 9 thru 15. The only part deleted is the part about retreating. This is a very grey area of the current law that is now determined by individuals that were not present during the incident. The way the current law is enforced the homeowner is considered guilty until spending hundreds of thousands of dollars defending themselves in court. The new bill gives the victim/homeowner the benefit of the doubt as it should be. For your information there are about 20 other states that have a castle doctrine on the books without suffering the bloodbath that you would like to have everybody believe is going to happen when this law takes affect. "

Deb wrote on Mar 9, 2007 2:51 PM:

" Actually, if you read the bill, there is an exemption for cops, i.e. regardless of the reason you shoot at a uniformed cop, you are still subject to prosecution. And the war on drugs comments is incorrect as well - there is an exemption to people involved in illegal activities - so if you're running a meth lab, and you kill a cop or someone coming in your house, you're still subject to prosecution. "

Bobba Gedusch wrote on Mar 9, 2007 2:25 PM:

" This bill isn't going to make a bunch of homeowners suddenly become homicidal madmen, what I think it does is curb zealous states attorneys from charging homeowners with crimes such as "reckless endangerment" (pointing a loaded gun at an intruder, without firing the weapon) or ambulance chasing lawyers, from bringing in wrongful death lawsuits or due care lawsuits directed towards the home/property owners, who did feel the need to protect themselves. If the bill passes and it is tested it will probably be overthrown by the Supreme Court anyway. However at the same time it will encourage the public to respect private property rights. It never hurts to knock at the door and shout out "Is anyone home", If there is a question as to whether or not you are an invited guest. And going to the side of police officers on an unannounced search warrants... whats different? Police have to assume that the criminals are armed and dangerous regardless,therefore its a mute issue. (other than the felons cant be charged with firing weapon at law officer...but chances are there are enough other charges that 1 or 2 more wouldn't matter) I would like to think there are still a few people in ND with some common sense. (Although reading these posts I'm beginning to wonder) "

Deb wrote on Mar 9, 2007 2:23 PM:

" To "Just a little common sense": I did read the bill - did you? Here's the link:http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/60-2007/bill-text/HAVO0200.pdf Notice how the entire subsection relating to appropriate force is crossed out? I'm not lying, or even telling half truths. If that subsection is removed, the bill reads that you are allowed to use deadly force, without fear of arrest or prosecution if anyone attempts (ATTEMPTS) to enter your home, property, or car. Blast away gun nuts! "

bryan wrote on Mar 9, 2007 10:38 AM:

" This is a bad bill and will have bad consequences. You can defend yourself and your family under current law. If it passes you will see alot of boyfriends and girlfriends shot while trying to sneak back into thier gf/bf's house. "

drugs wrote on Mar 9, 2007 10:13 AM:

" If this law passes, say goodbye to the war on drugs. Often times, the way a meth lab is busted is with a no-knock search warrant. Put this law into effect, paired with the meth addicts already being paranoid and armed, and there will be a lot of dead law enforcement. Or, there will be a lot of officers refusing to do those searches for fear of their own safety. Why should the general public have more freedom to kill than a trained officer? "

Dale B wrote on Mar 9, 2007 9:11 AM:

" I'm glad I live in a community where the local newspaper has the courage to stand up to the trigger happy mentality. Good job, Tribune. I think the ND legislature will agree with you. Contact your legislators, and encourage them to support sanity in North Dakota. No on the "shoot to kill bill." "

NDreturned wrote on Mar 9, 2007 8:51 AM:

" You can sure spot the people in this debate that have never lived outside of ND. The way it has been in ND is that "no act of self defense will go unpunished" If you use deadly force to defend yourself, the law enforcement people will take your weapons and arrest you. They have no interest in justifiable homicide. You are going to jail. I lived in Arizona for 15 years before I had the chance to return home. And no one was shooting any girl scouts. But then as now, if you break in to my house you are going to be confronted with the threat of deadly force. "

TAG wrote on Mar 9, 2007 2:08 AM:

" If a criminal breaks into my house and I decide to use force please tell me why I should get hammered with a bunch of questions. Could I get out? Was the rest of my family safe? Did I actually see the intruder w/a weapon? My first question would be why the heck is this person in my house? Or, what do I have to do to keep my family and I safe? The bottom line is to me is we are making it more inviting for these thugs to break into people homes. If these people don't want to get shot they should get jobs like the rest of us and stay out of homes they are not welcomed. Worry more for the innocent citizens than the criminals. "

anakin skywalker wrote on Mar 8, 2007 11:38 PM:

" gunnuts, your statement "you can't get elected unless you are loyal to the NRA" is based on what? which elected office are you talking about - a school board, park board, county commissioner, etc? finally you say that the NRA is dangerous. i say people like you are dangerous. with the assault on gun ownership by the socalists, if it wasn't for the NRA, you would not have your guns. it's quite obvious you aren't a NRA member by your statements such as wild west attitude and promoting fear and violance. ever heard to crystal nacht? that's the night the nazis started their roundup of jews. a few days before that event they passed a law banning the private ownership of guns and confiscated their guns (that means they took them). think about it. coffe's brewin, can ya smell it? "

Just a little common sense wrote on Mar 8, 2007 10:08 PM:

" To Deb. Where is your outright lie. Don't you really mean which lie are you referring to.You have written so many half truths and outright lies about this topic you should be ashamed. Do everyone a favor and read the bill before making anymore of your ridiculous comments "

Deb wrote on Mar 8, 2007 9:31 PM:

" Mike R: what is your opinion, as a former cop? "

Deb wrote on Mar 8, 2007 9:25 PM:

" Rizam: where is my outright lie? If a disgruntled ex-wife is upset with her divorce settlement and her ex-huband comes over to pick up the kids, what is to stop her from saying "I felt threatened" and blast away at her ex-husband? Nothing, with this new legislation. Mandan: it would be within my rights to kill a saleperson or a girlscout if I felt threatened by them. If you would read carefully, you would see that it is my position that killing salespeople and Girl Scouts is ridiculous. And it should never allowed to be legislated - don't you agree? If so, then call your legislator and urge them to vote NO on this bill. "

Susan wrote on Mar 8, 2007 9:15 PM:

" Shoot first or die first, pick one. In the darkest of moments, it might very well come to that. "

Mandan wrote on Mar 8, 2007 7:34 PM:

" To Deb you obviously did not read the exact law because you could only do this if you felt threatened not just somebody coming on your property i.e. salesperson, girl scout. This does though relieve the homeowner of having to worry about being prosecuted for protecting their family or themselves. Mouth from the South is right, about the hindsight comment especially. The fact is without the changes with this law the police can now come back and say that it was possible to use less force but to the person involved there didn't see another way, now they have to defend themselves because some idiot thought they could break in their home. Anymore the criminals have more rights then the victims. "

Rizam wrote on Mar 8, 2007 7:25 PM:

" Deb whelped... "This bill will allow crazy mccrazies to do as they please to whom they please. It is unnecesary." Nothing like outright lying to make your point eh, Deb? "

Pat wrote on Mar 8, 2007 6:07 PM:

" If someone breaks into your home in N.D you will have to defend yourself twice! Once from a possible felon out to do you harm, and then again in court because your state does NOT have a "Castle Doctrine" which protects you from prosecution if you chose to defend yourself! All i can say is,,, I am glad i don't live in N.D. Good luck! "

Deb wrote on Mar 8, 2007 5:51 PM:

" To "Just a Little Common Sense": Oh, but it does. For any reason that you feel threatened, you can shoot someone on or in your property, according to this bill. The current law on the books right now does not guarantee that you will not be prosecuted for doing something stupid, like shooting a neighbor for having too many bags of garbage on the boulevard - happened in Florida. That man who did that stupid thing was immune from arrest and prosecution under the Florida state law, intiated by the NRA, which is the adapted version ND is attempting to pass. Sounds stupid right? Well, you'd be stupid to agree with this HB 1319. If your family is under attack in your home, you can kill the intruder for reasons of self defense - that law protecting you is already on the books. This bill will allow crazy mccrazies to do as they please to whom they please. It is unnecesary. "

Just a little common sense wrote on Mar 8, 2007 5:48 PM:

" To Deb and all the other fear mongers. Go to this website and actually read the bill before you come on here and make all your false statments. This bill clears up some of the grey areas of the existing law. www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/60-2007/bill-text/HAVO0300.pdf "

Lillian wrote on Mar 8, 2007 5:45 PM:

" I am generally a non-violent type person. I don't like violent movies. But, if someone is trying to get into my house, my car, or taking one of my grandchildren, I would not hesitate to use "Deadly Force". Maybe if this bill passes, some of those that are more inclined to try their luck at "breaking and entering" might just think twice and reduce the crime rate. "

Mouth from the South wrote on Mar 8, 2007 5:37 PM:

" to Deb; I am not talking about opening your door to someone. I am talking about someone who is already in your home and/or is attempting to break in. That is criminal activity, be the person drunk or sober. And as far as I am concerned, of course the family of the individual killed would want to know why and should deserve to know why. But if my relatives and friends are drunk and attempting to break into someone else's home, I would certainly not blame the homeowner for whatever action that needs to be taken to deter them. I would be hurt, sick, angry and grieving, but to blame someone else for my relative's or friend's mistake is just not my style. Drunk people have been known to rape, rob and murder others, also. Oh, and where I live, it would take the sheriff's department at least a half an hour to provide me with any assistance or protection, providing that they were wide-awake in the middle of the night and just waiting for my phone call. That is just not going to happen. I am going to have to protect myself. Thankfully most of us still live in an state where this type of crime is not rampant. However, I do forsee the day coming that this will no longer be the case and we may have to deal with this on a regular basis. As to the question of "appropriate force," who determines that and when? "

Just a little common sense wrote on Mar 8, 2007 5:33 PM:

" To Deb. The changes to the law would not allow you to open your door and shoot somebody for simply being on your property. Lets be real and stop making things up to scare people. People need to be protected from prosecution and civil lawsuits for protecting themselves from intruders. That’s what this law does. "

RIGHT ON wrote on Mar 8, 2007 5:16 PM:

" To Deb. Your so right! I agree 100 % with you "

Deb wrote on Mar 8, 2007 5:01 PM:

" Mouth- appropriate force is just that -what is appropriate. I've already told my story of protecting my family. Thank goodness that my experience is the absolute minority and that rarely happens to other people. We later found out the guy was drunk and looking for a party at a park by our house. Under this law, I could have opened up the door and shot the man dead. Simply because he was on my property and I felt threatened. I didn't need to do that because it wasn't appropriate - I told him that he wasn't welcome and that he needs to go away and he did. We called the cops to come out just in case. No one died. Some guy just woke up not remembering what a total idiot he is. So here's my point - because I'm a rational person who does not want to cause harm to someone, I told him to leave and he did so. If I were an irrational person and knew that I would NOT go to jail for any reason, I could have opened up the door and killed this man. Think about it this way: what if the man had gotten into my house and I had shot and killed him. Do you think that there is a jury in the world who would convict me for murder? No, is the answer. Now, what if I had not attempted to make him go away and opened up the door and shot and killed him - there is a chance that I could be convicted becuase I used overwhelming force. Doesn't his family at least deserve an answer as to why I killed him? Under the legislation being considered, they would not - I felt "threatened" and it was my right to kill him. That's just ridiculous. He didn't need to die. And to what "Betty" said - isn't this giving a license to disgruntled ex-wives and ex-husbands to kill their ex-spouses? It could go that far... "

Mouth from the South wrote on Mar 8, 2007 3:41 PM:

" My home is locked at night. If there is anyone trying to get into it without knocking or making a lot of noise, they are probably there with the intention of committing a crime. Few intoxicated people are going to be quiet. An Alzheimers patient probably wouldn't be either. Plus those of you putting the blame on the NRA is simply ludicrous. I am not a member of the NRA but had guns when I was a child and still have them in my home. This bill is simply a matter of allowing me to defend myself and my property without fear of prosecution. And to Deb; just what is the definition of 'appropriate force' at 2:00 in the morning to a half-awake person who hears someone prowling around in their house or bedroom.? This is where the present bill gets just a little 'sticky.' If prosecution of the homeowner were to be determined at that precise point, I would be less inclined to agree with the need for a revision of the old law. But it is so easy for law enforcement to argue the next day that the situation "should have been handled differently and according to what we now know, there was no need for deadly force." Of course, hindsight is always so much better. "

PARNOID wrote on Mar 8, 2007 3:20 PM:

" Seem like there are alot of parnoid people out there. Thats scary enough! "

Dave wrote on Mar 8, 2007 2:57 PM:

" If someone breaks into my house during the night and they are a stranger, i'm shooting at them regardless of any law. If I know them, they usually knock on the front door and they won't get shot at. "

marlan wrote on Mar 8, 2007 1:59 PM:

" Betty makes a good point. Who is this "intruder" that is coming into your house? It may be a spouse or boyfriend who has a protection order against him. You can't just shoot the guy. Betty makes the point that this bill could encourage people put away spouses or partners who feel they have a right to get into the house. Not all "intruders" are murderers. There are several reasons that people end up inappropriately in someone else's home: Alzheimers, intoxication, mental illness, just plain stupidity. You have to use a little judgment. "

Mike wrote on Mar 8, 2007 12:45 PM:

" I can't believe the comments. I am not a gun nut and don't have one in the house. However, there is no law that will ever stop me from protecting my family. I will spend a lifetime in prison so that my wife and kids can live their life. If I have a gun it will be quick and painless for the intruder. If I have no gun it will be piece by piece with a knife! If it were you which way would you rather die! Leave the NRA alone! "

Unintelligent wrote on Mar 8, 2007 12:35 PM:

" I guess the liberals are right. If this law passes, I am going to have a gun on my kitchen counter and shoot anyone for entering without knocking first. As soon as I hear the door knob turn, I am pulling the trigger because I guess I am that stupid. I just hope my husband learns to knock before this bill passes. By the way, Betty, if thier boyfriends and husbands are really trying to kill them and they beat them, then it is considered self defense the way the law currently stands. And you are right, he is a jerk anyhow. I feel bad for your kids. You would rather have them be terrified and traumatized every time dad decides to smash mom's face in than to teach them that it is not ok to treat women like that and that the only reason you shot at him was to defend themselves and thier mom so they can live without fear of him coming back to do it again. "

Just a little common sense wrote on Mar 8, 2007 12:02 PM:

" I have to shake my head when I read the posts by the people against this bill. Come on now, shooting salesmen and girl scouts. Time to put the drugs away and think rationally for a few minutes. The only thing this law does is protect the property owner from overzealous law enforcement. "

Edward wrote on Mar 8, 2007 11:53 AM:

" "People don’t get prosecuted here for using deadly force in legitimate self-defense. State’s attorneys are not that overzealous." BS. What about the Cass County case used as an example? The individual was prosecuted and found to be innocent. What did it cost the innocent party in defense costs? Maybe the States Attorney should have to pay the charged party's legal fees and costs if they are found to be innocent. "

Deb wrote on Mar 8, 2007 11:47 AM:

" Nodak John, et al.: You are already protected under current law to protect yourself and your family from an intruder. You are protected under current law to protect your property with appropriate force. What this legislation is doing is telling those people who are a bit too "out there" that it's okay to go out there and shoot anyone w/o fear of prosecution - ever. Your neighbor's dog comes into your yard and you feel threatened - shoot him & the dog. Salesman walks into your house and you weren't prepared- shoot him. Those pesky Girls Scouts bothering you - shoot them. Sounds crazy right? To you and me, maybe, but not to unbalanced gun nuts. This legislation is unnecessary and dangerous. As a person who has had to protect her family, with a gun, from a guy trying to get into the house, I can tell you that if he had gotten in, I would have shot him down, and I would have been justified in doing so. I have the right to do it now - why do we have to take it any farther? "

Chavez wrote on Mar 8, 2007 11:07 AM:

" None of us should be surprised that the Republicans support a "shoot first" bill of this sort. It is the very policy they have on any legislation that benefits the poor, women, and working people: shoot it down, quick, before it becomes law! "

Allen wrote on Mar 8, 2007 10:48 AM:

" If you don't want to get shot, KNOCK!!! It is just that simply. "

NoDak John wrote on Mar 8, 2007 10:45 AM:

" If you enter my home in the dead of night, you had better have a burial plot bought and paid for. If you think I am going to put the lives of family members in jeopardy because the burglar or whomever just might not be prepared to gun down anyone who challenges him/them, you have another guess coming. The very act of entering the home forcibly is more than sufficient evidence that you are up to no good. As to law enforcement pulling a stupid stunt like that, they won't because they know me well and know that I have backed them when it was needed. Good idea for you to get to know those in law enforcement in your area. They don't bite. Really! "

It is a crazy bill wrote on Mar 8, 2007 10:18 AM:

" This bill will help those who like to kill and think killing is okay. Now they can kill little kids who come on their property to sell candy for Scouts. Some may find those door to door sales irritating, but do we really want protection for those who kill them? "

Hand it to Republicans wrote on Mar 8, 2007 10:04 AM:

" This bill is backed by mainly Republicans. It shows where their priorities are - bills to shoot people and building unnecessary prisons. "

Just a little common sense wrote on Mar 8, 2007 9:42 AM:

" First just let me say that this editorial missed the target by a mile. Pun intended. The reason that law enforcement and prosecutors are against this bill is that it would reduce their power and control. Tell me why anybody should face arrest and prosecution for defending themselves? Why should that same person have to spend everything that they have made and will ever make defending their decision to defend themselves? The costs to defend a murder charge could easily exceed $200,000.00. The way the law now reads you could very well find yourself on the wrong side of the court room fighting for your freedom. The next thing the legislature needs to address is no knock search warrants. They should be the exception not the norm. The reason I bring up the no knock warrant is that law enforcement is using these warrants in their arguments against this bill. The Senate needs to pass this bill with overwhelming support. "

Gun Nuts wrote on Mar 8, 2007 9:37 AM:

" I own guns, but am opposed to the NRA mentality. The NRA has an agenda that appeals to the worst in people. In North Dakota, you cannot get elected unless you are loyal to the NRA. Nothing shows more how dangerouse this orgnaization is than this attempt to intorduce more insanity into the wild west attitude they promote. There is a good chance they will get their way, because most politicians are afraid of them. Unfortunately Republicans dance their tune, and will in this case. They feed on fear, and the silly idea that we are all threatened by some unseen force lurking in the dark. Promoting fear and violence is in the best interest of the NRA. "

betty wrote on Mar 8, 2007 9:32 AM:

" This bill might help women whose husbands or boyfriends are trying to get into the house to terrorize, beat, or kill them. So she can sit there with her handgun or automatic weapon waiting for him to break his protection order. Should she shoot him when he is on the front step, as he walks into the door or breaks open the door? Maybe he has just broken the window and is crawling in. Time to shoot him? What if he is intoxicated?Does that make it more or less justifiable for her to shoot to kill. Oh, it's so much fun think of ways to use our guns to kill people. Isn't that why we bought them in the first place. Yes, a woman's home is her castle and it might be cold outside. We couldn't think of taking our children outside when we have an oppotunity to shoot their father. He's a jerk anyhow. "

Carl wrote on Mar 8, 2007 9:30 AM:

" One of the worse (most dangerous) things you can do is turn your back to an assailant in order to "retreat". You are much safer standing-your-ground and stoping the threat point-blank. "

tad wrote on Mar 8, 2007 9:16 AM:

" Great editorial, Tribune. We don't need the NRA trying to control our lives here in North Dakota. This bill is a set up by the NRA to protect gun companies, manufacturers and distributers, from lawsuits when trigger happy gunowners go ballistic. "

Lynn wrote on Mar 8, 2007 9:09 AM:

" Would you propose that if someone were breaking into my home in the middle of the night, in the winter that I leave rather than using force? Let's examine the reality of this situation: I am a small framed woman, with medical conditions; I have three children, 2 of them young. The winter temps here can be devastating. We only have one sheriff and 2 deputies, not all on duty at one time, and have taken hours to answer calls in the past. So Let's say someone is breaking into my home, should I bundle up my children quickly and go out into a frigid possibly hyperthermic night with them, and hope that my cell phone picks up a Canadian tower because the US ones rarely allow for calling out; hope I can reach the sheriff then hunker down until he or his deputies get around to coming? Nope, I tend to very liberal on many issues, but I have a right to defend myself in my home, to defend my children, and not have to flee to what could be just as dangerous a situation. "

Mouth from the South wrote on Mar 8, 2007 8:57 AM:

" NO homeowner should have to worry about being prosecuted when protecting his/her home, family or self from any intruder. It shouldn't even be an issue. Self-defense laws were great when they had some teeth in them. They have been so greatly watered down over the past years TO PROTECT THE INTRUDER, that they are virtually useless. And how ridiculous to assume that more of us will now shoot people indiscriminately because of this law. "

anakin skywalker wrote on Mar 8, 2007 8:40 AM:

" typical liberal stand by the trib staff on this one. quite frankly i don't beleive the stories you discuss in your opinion. as a homeowner i should not have to be assumed guilty if (God forbid) i would ever have to use deadly force to protect my family from an inturder. put the burden of proof on the inturder not me! this is the same type of hysterial that has been trumped up everytime a concealed carry law is legislated. give me a break, the trib is definately controlled by a group of socalist liberals that are brick by brick tearing down the wall of freedoms in our country. i belong the NRA just for these types of issues; oh yea, i just renewed my NRA membership for another year. "

Post Your Own Comment
(optional)
   
All online comments are limited to 350 words total.
Comments are reviewed for taste, tone and language before posting.
Some comments may be used in the Tribune's print edition.
We value and respect your privacy, but The Bismarck Tribune might
disclose certain information to governmental entities if served with subpoena.
Local Headlines:

North Dakota News

Bismarck News

Recent Headlines:
LOADING

Copyright © 2009 Bismarck Tribune, a division of Lee Enterprises.  -PRIVACY POLICY