1. #1
    Gopher Fan!

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North
    Posts
    1,841

    HF 1467-- Major Pro-Gun Legislation in MN House

    I saw that a major piece of pro-gun legislation will be moving through the House Public Safety Committee tomorrow (Thursday 4/28). Two of the big things the bill would do would remove a person's "duty to retreat" when outside of their home, so that the could use deadly force if they are attacked any place they have a lawful right to be. It would also create the presumption that someone illegally entering your home is there to cause significant bodily harm or death. I believe the current law puts the onus on the individual to show that they reasonably believe that the person is there to commit a felony, whereas this bill would make it so that that is assumed.

    http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=6683

    http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/bil...ssionvar=20110

    Thoughts?


  2. #2
    Forum Member
    Hokie13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    MD
    Posts
    419
    Sounds awesome, wish MD would do the same.

  3. #3
    Gopher Fan!

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North
    Posts
    1,841
    Quote Originally Posted by Hokie13 View Post
    Sounds awesome, wish MD would do the same.
    I don't know what chance it has of passing. I think this has been introduced in the past, but maybe now with the GOP controlled house and senate, it will at least make it to Dayton. Hopefully he would sign it. If it were passed by both chambers, I would definitely give Dayton's office a call to let him know where I stand.


  4. #4
    Forum Member
    Hokie13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    MD
    Posts
    419
    Good luck!

  5. #5
    STORM THE CASTLE!
    squad51's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    MN
    Posts
    4,501
    Well I like portions of the bill, I do not necessarily care for the removal of the duty to retreat when you are outside of your home.
    Happy to be here proud to serve

    "Well it appears this lock does not accept american express."

    Never trust fire fighters to point out a suspect.

  6. #6
    Gopher Fan!

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North
    Posts
    1,841
    Quote Originally Posted by squad51 View Post
    Well I like portions of the bill, I do not necessarily care for the removal of the duty to retreat when you are outside of your home.
    I can see that potentially causing problems.


  7. #7
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    1,088
    yikes! This is some bad legislation. I work in a college town and we have numerous cases of drunken college kids that think they are home and crash in a house that isn't theirs. Killing a drunken college kid that committed a misdemeanor trespass isn't right! What is the deal with a vehilce? Do you have to be in the vehicle? If not, you shoot somebody on a misdemeanor vehicle tampering? Really? Why not make it a felony to burglarize a vehicle?

    What is a forcible felony? A guy gets into a fight, gets his nose broken and shoots somebody? What if the bad guy started the felony and gets his a ss handed to him and now he is a victim of a forcible felony and pulls his gun and shoots the victim? Really?

    So, if I'm a victim of a forcible felony while I'm working, do I get to shoot? I've been assaulted numerous times over the years.....there would be some dead folks.

    Judge, jury and executioner. Not good law.

  8. #8
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    1,088
    I pulled up the bill and read it. I still don't like it.

  9. #9
    Peanut Gallery Sniper
    CSaL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Twin Cities, MN
    Posts
    59
    In the same respect that there wasn't armed mayhem in the streets when Minnesota became a 'shall issue' state, I seriously doubt that removing the duty to retreat, etc is going to cause lawlessness and unjustified shootings of trespassing college students.

    If you ask me, this bill is a win for the good guys. Protecting regular people from civil and criminal liability for using force including deadly force to protect themselves and theirs from the savagery of the criminal element, that's a win.

    I'd rather that the law spells it out, than to take my chances with some sleazy attorneys and a bleeding heart judge rendering an interpretation of what is reasonable.

    We, as peace officers are given enormous responsibility with statute 609.066. I imagine that when that particular legislation was introduced long ago, the same arguments applied, i.e., 'the cops will shoot everybody and ask questions later'.

    So, if I'm a victim of a forcible felony while I'm working, do I get to shoot? I've been assaulted numerous times over the years.....there would be some dead folks.
    Seriously? This is a rhetorical question, right? We are allowed to use reasonable force to carry out our duties and to protect ourselves and/or others. But, you know that.

    The proposed legislation in my opinion is extending protection to private persons to use reasonable force in mostly the same respect.

    Currently, all it takes now to run afoul of the law is a publicity seeking county attorney and a bleeding heart judge to take away all that one holds close to their heart. I would hate to be that private person...

  10. #10
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    1,088
    Like I said, I just think this is all around bad legislation. I do see the potential to "shoot everybody and ask questions later" like you mentioned. We have numerous cases throughout the year of drunken students walking into homes that aren't theirs and passing out or getting into altercations with the homeowner. I just don't see how you can justify shooting somebody over a simple misdemeanor trespass.

    Have you read the definition of a forcible felony? We as officers will be held to a higher standard and will only be able to use deadly force: "to protect the peace officer or another from apparent death or great bodily harm". And, no it wasn't a rhetorical question...that was why I asked it.

    Under the pending legislation the definition of a "forcible felony": "Forcible felony" means any crime punishable by imprisonment exceeding one
    year the elements of which include the use or threatened use of physical force or a deadly
    weapon against the person of another.

    Just the threatended us of physical force would be considered a forcible felony. How many times have you heard "I'm going to kill you". Or, "I'm going to shoot you" and there really isn't any intent other than a hot head looking at a terroristic threats charge. So, there is your threatened use of physical force.

    I just don't like it. And, I do agree with your take on a CA looking to take a case to a grand jury. How many cops have gone through that on a clearly justifiable shooting? Too many.
    Last edited by sigcopper; 04-29-2011 at 06:52 PM.

  11. #11
    Gopher Fan!

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North
    Posts
    1,841
    Sigcopper-

    Your concerns are definitely valid, and I know that several news stories have indicated that many in the LE field share your same concerns. I know a former co-worker who was guilty of being drunk and trying to get into the wrong house. He ended up being arrested by MPD and it would have been awful if he had been killed by a homeowner in that situation. It's unfortunate that we can't simply write a section into the law requiring people to exercise common sense.

    I don't know that this law is perfect, and I also don't know what it would be like to be an officer and having to deal with this law. I suspect that, as CSaL indicated, it won't be chaos in the streets with every man woman and child shooting anyone who walked onto their property.
    Last edited by phillydog07; 04-29-2011 at 06:59 PM.


  12. #12
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    1,088
    If we all had common sense that would be a different thing. But, as we all know there are a lot of people that are just plain dumb with guns and would like to take advantage of this situation. I have run across these types time and time again and it just plain scares me. I could easily see a drunken person or person suffering from a mental illness such as Alzheimer's going into the wrong house and not coming out alive. Thinking about, we have had Alzheimer patients going into wrong homes totally confused. Under this piece of legislation all bets are off and ask questions later. I'm all for protecting ones self but common sense needs to prevail here.

  13. #13
    Gopher Fan!

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North
    Posts
    1,841
    And an update on the bill, it passed the public safety sub-committee and will now move to the house judiciary committee.


  14. #14
    STORM THE CASTLE!
    squad51's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    MN
    Posts
    4,501
    I like that you can defend your home and that it elminates threat of prosecution and liability but out and about in public? I like that people have the duty to retreat, and actually they only have to consider retreat... but any how
    Happy to be here proud to serve

    "Well it appears this lock does not accept american express."

    Never trust fire fighters to point out a suspect.

  15. #15
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    1,088
    The definition of "dwelling" is a stretch. We can't even get the same for burglary but for this bill you can? Unattached building? Crazy!

    "Dwelling" means a building defined under section 609.556, subdivision 3, an
    6.6overnight stopping accommodation of any kind, or a place of abode, that an individual
    6.7temporarily or permanently is occupying or intending to occupy as a habitation or home.
    6.8A dwelling may include, but is not limited to, a building or conveyance and that building's
    6.9or conveyance's curtilage and any attached or adjacent deck, porch, appurtenance, or
    6.10other structure, whether the building or conveyance is used temporarily or permanently
    6.11for these purposes, is mobile or immobile, or is a motor vehicle, watercraft, motor home,
    6.12tent, or the equivalent.

  16. #16
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    mn
    Posts
    69
    Quote Originally Posted by sigcopper View Post
    If we all had common sense that would be a different thing. But, as we all know there are a lot of people that are just plain dumb with guns and would like to take advantage of this situation. I have run across these types time and time again and it just plain scares me. I could easily see a drunken person or person suffering from a mental illness such as Alzheimer's going into the wrong house and not coming out alive. Thinking about, we have had Alzheimer patients going into wrong homes totally confused. Under this piece of legislation all bets are off and ask questions later. I'm all for protecting ones self but common sense needs to prevail here.
    If we all had common sense there would be no need for anyone to have guns

  17. #17
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    102
    Doesn't MD have one of the strictest gun control laws in the country? I know DC does.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hokie13 View Post
    Sounds awesome, wish MD would do the same.

  18. #18
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    102
    I don't know any stated that says its okay to shoot someone on there property...its different when you have someone forcibly trying to enter your home.

    Quote Originally Posted by sigcopper View Post
    yikes! This is some bad legislation. I work in a college town and we have numerous cases of drunken college kids that think they are home and crash in a house that isn't theirs. Killing a drunken college kid that committed a misdemeanor trespass isn't right! What is the deal with a vehilce? Do you have to be in the vehicle? If not, you shoot somebody on a misdemeanor vehicle tampering? Really? Why not make it a felony to burglarize a vehicle?

    What is a forcible felony? A guy gets into a fight, gets his nose broken and shoots somebody? What if the bad guy started the felony and gets his a ss handed to him and now he is a victim of a forcible felony and pulls his gun and shoots the victim? Really?

    So, if I'm a victim of a forcible felony while I'm working, do I get to shoot? I've been assaulted numerous times over the years.....there would be some dead folks.

    Judge, jury and executioner. Not good law.

  19. #19
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    102
    Yea, unfortunately there may not be a possibility to retreat in some circumstances...especially if your an older person or someone that has limitations...there was an article about a college girl that got raped while on campus...was held at gun point...any areas that don't allow firearms on ones person is an invitation for criminals...sad, but true.

    Quote Originally Posted by squad51 View Post
    I like that you can defend your home and that it elminates threat of prosecution and liability but out and about in public? I like that people have the duty to retreat, and actually they only have to consider retreat... but any how

  20. #20
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    1,088
    I posted the definition of "dwelling" above. Here it is again: building or conveyance and that building's
    or conveyance's curtilage and any attached or adjacent deck, porch, appurtenance, or
    other structure, whether the building or conveyance is used temporarily or permanently
    for these purposes, is mobile or immobile, or is a motor vehicle, watercraft, motor home,
    tent, or the equivalent.

    Try and arrest somebody for trespassing if they are in the curtilage of your house. You woudn't even get a trespass charge. In this "legislation" you can shoot somebody for just that. It wouldn't even be crime but now you can use deadly force? An unattached garage, according to statute, isn't even a building. Catch somebody in there stealing your bike or whatever, and that is a theft. With this legislation you catch somebody in your garage stealing a $10 bike and you can use deadly force. Not good! Catch somebody on your deck or your porch and just shoot them? If anything, they should have used the definition of burglary as it pertains to a dwelling. All a stretch.

  21. #21
    DAL
    DAL is offline
    "Official Non-Person"
    DAL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    California - Nevada
    Posts
    9,792
    Both of these have been in effect in California for many years. (No duty to retreat dates back to the original code adopted in 1872.) I would not characterize them as pro- or anti- gun.
    Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley
    Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. -- Albert Einstein

  22. #22
    Peanut Gallery Sniper
    CSaL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Twin Cities, MN
    Posts
    59
    I agree, common sense isn't common at all. However, would I want the rights of my family compromised based on what someone who lacks common sense might do? It's a real slippery slope to legislate the behavior of all persons based on the lowest common denominator.

    I'm certainly not advocating using deadly force against trespassers and I don't think anyone here is. I imagine that what keeps all those 'drunk college kids', 'alzheimers sufferers' et. al, alive is the fact that most people have basic human morals and values. It isn't current law keeping them safe. Read Col. Grossman and his opinion that we are instinctually adverse to kill our own kind.

    I submit to you that it's unlikely for there to be armed mayhem in the streets if the duty to retreat is removed. It's unlikely that there will be bloodshed of mistaken trespassers. Homeowners are not seething with a blood lust held in check only be current law. Regular people are still going to retreat when faced with a deadly force situation, we are unlikely to kill our own kind. Look at the recent officer involved shootings around the country for examples of the reluctance to use deadly force, even by those trained to use deadly force.

    I want the law to establish in indisputable language that if you are justified in using said force, you are not liable criminally nor civilly.

    Imagine this scenario; your spouse, friend or family member is out for an evening and while getting into their vehicle your spouse, family member or friend becomes the target of a career 'd-bag' with, ahem, forcible felony purposes in mind. Your people shoot this 'd-bag' and are now subject to criminal AND civil liability because, of course, the d-bag survives.

    I don't want my spouse, friends or family members subject to capricious whims of the court system. I don't want my people to to risk their freedom, their home, possessions to to the decision of 12 ignorant jurors, who based on their 2 community college psychology courses (they took the course twice) KNOW that if a witness looks up and left, it is a clear sign of deception and therefore they are the infallible discerners of truth. Do you?

    This legislation is a step in the right direction. Is it perfect? No way. I'll take what we can get.

  23. #23
    STORM THE CASTLE!
    squad51's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    MN
    Posts
    4,501
    Before I start I want to say that I am a card carrying member of the NRA and support gun owners rights. But with that said, I dislike this law as written. I do not agree with the "where ever you are' clause, becuase there is bledshed on the streets downtown MPLS every weekend. taking away the duty to retreat is only going to make things all that much murkier downtown during bar close. That said I agrre with parts of this law but some changes I think could be made.
    Happy to be here proud to serve

    "Well it appears this lock does not accept american express."

    Never trust fire fighters to point out a suspect.

  24. #24
    DAL
    DAL is offline
    "Official Non-Person"
    DAL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    California - Nevada
    Posts
    9,792
    Quote Originally Posted by squad51 View Post
    Before I start I want to say that I am a card carrying member of the NRA and support gun owners rights. But with that said, I dislike this law as written. I do not agree with the "where ever you are' clause, becuase there is bledshed on the streets downtown MPLS every weekend. taking away the duty to retreat is only going to make things all that much murkier downtown during bar close. That said I agrre with parts of this law but some changes I think could be made.
    I would look to the experiences of states like Texas and Colorado before jumping to any conclusions. I also doubt that the law would not be written so as to confer a right to use deadly force just because there is no duty to retreat. In states that have no duty to retreat, the force used still must be reasonable.
    Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley
    Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. -- Albert Einstein

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Log in

Click here to log in or register