Castle Doctrine for Oregon

[linflas]

Detailed Display: 1 records..

Click complete text for the changes to the statutes

Castle Law for Oregon, needs ~87000 signatures to get on the ballot for Nov. 2012

Need to just figure out how to add my signature to the rolls.

Read More

 

[Tactical Option]

This is great! Looks like it has yet to be certified to be circulated. I would guess we will see it circulated soon. This is for the November 2012 election.

 

[pokerace]

email Keven and see when it's going to start moving.

 

[Hawaiian]

Need to get this moving with petitions at the gun shows.

 

[plasticfood]

Simple and too the point. I like this. I hope to see this petition soon.

 

[Vaultman]

Lets get it going!!!

 

[drew]

Looks more concise than how I remember the previous attempt. Castle Doctrine measure. I'd need to look at the old one to find differences.

Seeing the name Wayne Brady in the documentation reminded me of the Chapelle Show sketch with the comedian of the same name.

 

[pokerace]

Gwt hold of Kim Tharcher and see what she is doing on this....

 

[CharonPDX]

Too severe. Sorry, but it should not be legal to kill someone who is of *ZERO* threat. This makes it so that someone who is drunk and stumbles to your front door instead of their own can be shot and killed with NO recourse.

The most telling part is "Currently, landowner may be liable to adult trespassers that landowner injures willfully or wantonly." in the summary. AKA: If this passes, you may willfully and wantonly kill someone on your property. It only applies to those who are on the property violating one of three state laws, but ORS 164.255 is very vague. "Enters or remains unlawfully in a dwelling."

So if I tell you to leave my property, and you delay at all[/i], you are "remain(ing) unlawfully" - and if this law passes, I can shoot you.

The effect of this would be that people would not take common sense into account when investigating noises - they would know that they can legally shoot someone in their house, and would do so. There have been multiple cases of people shooting family members that they thought were intruders in Castle Doctrine states.

I would be fine with it if they removed ORS 164.255 from the list. Burglary is at least one that is defined as "entering for the purpose of committing a crime."

 

[pokerace]

Too severe. Sorry, but it should not be legal to kill someone who is of *ZERO* threat. This makes it so that someone who is drunk and stumbles to your front door instead of their own can be shot and killed with NO recourse.

The most telling part is "Currently, landowner may be liable to adult trespassers that landowner injures willfully or wantonly." in the summary. AKA: If this passes, you may willfully and wantonly kill someone on your property. It only applies to those who are on the property violating one of three state laws, but ORS 164.255 is very vague. "Enters or remains unlawfully in a dwelling."

So if I tell you to leave my property, and you delay at all[/i], you are "remain(ing) unlawfully" - and if this law passes, I can shoot you.

The effect of this would be that people would not take common sense into account when investigating noises - they would know that they can legally shoot someone in their house, and would do so. There have been multiple cases of people shooting family members that they thought were intruders in Castle Doctrine states.

I would be fine with it if they removed ORS 164.255 from the list. Burglary is at least one that is defined as "entering for the purpose of committing a crime."

these statements all all BS......

 

[rumblebee1967]

So if you "chose" to get drunk or high on drugs that absolves you of all responsibility for your actions. BS. Stay in control of yourself and you won't have problems. Homeowners are not looking for a reason to kill someone only to protect themselves when they are threatened.

 

[Caleqs]

Too severe. Sorry, but it should not be legal to kill someone who is of *ZERO* threat. This makes it so that someone who is drunk and stumbles to your front door instead of their own can be shot and killed with NO recourse.

The most telling part is "Currently, landowner may be liable to adult trespassers that landowner injures willfully or wantonly." in the summary. AKA: If this passes, you may willfully and wantonly kill someone on your property. It only applies to those who are on the property violating one of three state laws, but ORS 164.255 is very vague. "Enters or remains unlawfully in a dwelling."

So if I tell you to leave my property, and you delay at all[/i], you are "remain(ing) unlawfully" - and if this law passes, I can shoot you.

The effect of this would be that people would not take common sense into account when investigating noises - they would know that they can legally shoot someone in their house, and would do so. There have been multiple cases of people shooting family members that they thought were intruders in Castle Doctrine states.

I would be fine with it if they removed ORS 164.255 from the list. Burglary is at least one that is defined as "entering for the purpose of committing a crime."

Understand your comments, but the "what if" here as you describe it hasn't happened anywhere this type of law has been passed. People haven't just wholesale-ly started shooting people in their homes for no reason.

 

[CharonPDX]

Elderly man shoots two suspected burglars at neighbor's home | Texas District & County Attorneys Association

He shot *SUSPECTED* burglars, as they were *LEAVING*.

Dramatic 911 Call: Man Shoots Fiance Day Before Wedding - ABC News

Shot his fiancee, thinking she was a burglar. Lack of castle doctrine may have dissuaded him from firing first.

Woman shoots husband, says she thought he was an intruder - TheFiringLine Forums

Woman shot her husband, thinking HE was a burglar. Again, people are probably more likely to "shoot first", with castle doctrine.

Yes, the 'tragic accident' ones will still happen without castle, but the first one was pure "I'm going to go shoot these people that I *THINK* are breaking the law." That one is insane. Now, if he had caught them in his house, stealing his property *OR* armed, sure. But at the point he fired, all he knows is that they are leaving his neighbor's property. Yes, they likely were there for bad reasons, but "likely" and "suspected" aren't worth death.

 

[Caleqs]

The examples do not show any causal relationship between an increase in accidental/inappropriate shootings and the passing of castle doctrine laws. There is no proof that what you cite will happen is indeed the case in any state.

The elderly man was breaking the law. Period. Has nothing to do with castle doctrine. The accidental shootings you list are just stupid. They break every rule of common sense. You cannot state with any reasonableness that the existence of the Castle Doctrine made them more likely to pull the trigger. You just can't. Accidental shootings are going to happen no matter what. People do stupid things some times. Castle Doctrine has nothing to do with it.

You're welcome to your opinion, of course, but it is still opinion unsupported by fact.

 

[pokerace]

So if you "chose" to get drunk or high on drugs that absolves you of all responsibility for your actions. BS. Stay in control of yourself and you won't have problems. Homeowners are not looking for a reason to kill someone only to protect themselves when they are threatened.

Agree totaly.

 

[pokerace]

The examples do not show any causal relationship between an increase in accidental/inappropriate shootings and the passing of castle doctrine laws. There is no proof that what you cite will happen is indeed the case in any state.

The elderly man was breaking the law. Period. Has nothing to do with castle doctrine. The accidental shootings you list are just stupid. They break every rule of common sense. You cannot state with any reasonableness that the existence of the Castle Doctrine made them more likely to pull the trigger. You just can't. Accidental shootings are going to happen no matter what. People do stupid things some times. Castle Doctrine has nothing to do with it.

You're welcome to your opinion, of course, but it is still opinion unsupported by fact.

I agree with all of this statement!!!!!

 

[osterr1999]

One of the first gun safety rules I learned was to know what you are shooting at BEFORE you shoot. That means I am not going to start shooting at noises until I see that it is someone in my house that should not be there. I don't think a criminal is entitled to any rights once he has entered my home without invitation. As for the examples provided, as Ron White says, "You can't fix stupid." These people were acting like idiots, no law will make them smart.

 

[Gunner3456]

Stay the h3ll out of my house and you won't have a problem. How simple is that?

 

[Gunner3456]

Years ago I was sitting in a courtroom waiting for a hearing on eviction (FED) on a rental I owned.

Ahead of me was a guy charged with trespassing. He was making all kinds of blathering excuses to the judge. Finally the judge got tired of it, interrupted the perp, looked him in the eye and said this:

"Look. There are two kinds of property. There's YOUR property, and there's NOT your property. Learn to know the difference. I pronounce you guilty."

How simple is that?

 

[civilian75]

I just want to know how can i sing up!
87,000+ signatures won't be collected in a day or in a week!!!