JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
As one commenter on the article pointed out it appears the author is more concerned with the number of shootings than the number of break ins.

More concerned with the effect than the cause. Backwards reporting?
Nope, number of break ins has nothing to do with the anti-gun agenda. It's the constant beating of the drum...

Cross my threshold uninvited, especially if you force you way into my domicile, I'll consider you an aggressor and intent on doing me and my family bodily harm...

And I will deal with the threat in the most appropriate manner...

Until our society can resume its genteel veneer, I feel the need to protect myself and mine in such a strong and decisive manner.
 
Can't protect them after they are already dead either
Or you are cause you hesitated
I couldn't live with myself in that situation

What I mean is, stay wary as the laws change. As an example, if the law would require an assailant in a home breakin to be wielding a blue colored 2x4 with sparkles for the use of deadly force to be justified, then that's what he was wielding...
 
It is called the 'Castle Doctrine'. It is Federal case law therefore it doesn't matter what state law says. Just like Miranda which is Federal case law the state has no jurisdiction limit or alter it.
kind of like how marijuana is still illegal on the federal level but legal on the state level. The State can enact a marijuana law protecting you from being prosecuted on the state level, but you can still be prosecuted on the federal level.
Until a state enacts a true castle law specifically saying you have no duty to retreat, you can be prosecuted for using force in your home, until then the castle doctrine is not a defined law that can be invoked, but a set of principles which may be incorporated in some form in the law of many jurisdictions. I don't know of any federal case law covering castle doctrine, if you have a source I would like to read it.

I think some states have enacted actual Castle laws saying lethal force is justified in your home without a duty to retreat. Currently in Oregon lethal force is only justified under certain conditions such as self defense, regardless of where you are including inside your home.

ORS 161.219 - Limitations on use of deadly physical force in defense of a person - 2015 Oregon Revised Statutes
 
No use of force and self defense is a federal civil right. For example if a state passed a law that said women couldn't vote it has no power since the right to vote is federally protected.

Case law is law decided by the courts not the legislator. States which have enacted stand your ground laws are simply restating an already federally protected right. All the state stand your ground laws are simply a redundant declaration of already established federal standards and have no real affect. We could pass a state law stating that African Americans can vote however that right has already been federally established.
What I have read is that self defense is a political right, (but "safety" is a civil right)... but that's another subject. Stand your ground laws and Castle laws are different only in that castle laws is specific to your home. I enjoy legal conversations from time to time but that said, I'm exhausting my tiny brains knowledge on this subject like many laws regulating guns its long and confusing and difficult to understand. Back to the books.. :)
 
FYI- A few years ago the Oregon Suprem Court ruled that people have "no duty to retreat" from a threat.
this is true, but they had to overturn a previouse case ruling to set that new precidence.

because like a castle law, Oregon does not have a stand your ground law.
 
That was in the Oregonian ??

I quit reading that rag a long time ago, because you cannot believe a damn thing those liberal morons like Les Zatiz write in there any way.

If you depend on any information that you read in that shi* paper to make a decision on anything then you deserve the results you will likely get.
 
The thing is, The current legislative branch has chosen not to enforce laws enacted and funded by congress that don't fall in line with its specific agenda. Various states, like Oregon, have also run forward with the same philosophy.

backed by legislative cronyism and activist prosecutors, the potential for abuse is high.

The cherry was popped en mass by response to the occupy movement. So far there have been few consequences for going down this path. the blm movement is also exploiting this trend.

It's going to be interesting to see if resect for our laws will be restored. I'm not hopeful, but in some of these places, what have they got to lose?
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top