There was some good news on the legislative front recently when it was announced that Nebraska legislator Mark Christensen was looking into the possibility of a so called castle bill for the state. That would put a lot of us gun toters at ease knowing we would no longer face criminal charges or civil actions for simply standing our ground to defend ourselves, our families, our property, or other innocent civilians being attacked by criminals or vicious animals.
I honestly don't know for sure what would happen here in Lincoln if one were to use a firearm to defend against an attacker of some kind. I'm pretty sure they would avoid prosecution on criminal charges as long as they legally owned/carried the gun. Still, I'd be surprised if they didn't need to hire a lawyer to keep from going to court over it, or to get an innocent verdict if they were prosecuted. At the very least, they would be violating the ordinance prohibiting the firing of guns in the city limits.
I hope someday that Nebraskans will realize that our state constitution gives us the right to bear arms and defend ourselves, family, and property without "infringements" of these rights by any state or local authority.
2 comments:
Very much agree with you sir, but I have one question, does the proposed "castle doctrine" involve only situations where you are in your private residence and when walking down the street or does it have a much larger scope?
Trevor:
According to what I was able to find out, the proposal is simply to look into the situation regarding a person's right to use deadly force for self-defense in their own home, to also look at the laws of similar states to possibly use as a model for expanding this right in Nebraska, and to develop policy changes that would strengthen that right in Nebraska.
I feel people should be allowed to defend themselves, family, property, or other innocent people from any kind of assualt or theft. That being said, deadly force is not always necessary, and should be used only when the threat warrants it. Unfortunately, that is subject to the "reasonable person" clause that we rely on in so many cases, and that comes down to the judgement of those on a jury who may have differing ideas and not fully understand the situation that faced someone accused of using deadly force without sufficient cause.
Post a Comment