Knimrod
02-25-2006, 10:42 AM
'Deadly force' legislation under heavy fire from gun control groups
Opponents of the bill that would broaden limits of self-defense say it is dangerously vague.
February 24, 2006
http://www.migunowners.org/images/ap.gif
LANSING -- The debate over Michigan's gun laws has intensified as a legislative committee heard testimony this week on a bill supporters say would give law-abiding people more self-defense rights in certain situations.
Gun control groups say the bills are reckless and could create a public safety hazard by fostering a shoot-first, ask-questions-later mentality.
The bills would establish a presumption of reasonable fear of death or injury when a law-abiding person uses force in certain circumstances. A threatened person would have no duty to retreat and would be able to meet force with force in situations such as a home invasion or, in certain situations, a carjacking.
While some self-defense rights already exist in the home, the legislation would extend them to other places if the person was not breaking the law and had a permit to carry a concealed weapon, supporters told the Senate Judiciary Committee. The protections could be invoked under certain circumstances if the person using defensive force was attacked in a place he or she had the right to be.
"What we want to do is see violence decrease," said Sen. Alan Cropsey, a DeWitt Republican who chairs the judiciary committee and sponsors the legislation. "We want to see people be able to protect themselves."
A person would be able to use deadly force if he or she believed it was needed to prevent death, serious injury or what are called "forcible felonies." A person would be able to use force -- but not deadly force -- if they felt force was necessary to stop a person from trespassing, to stop a theft, or to stop certain other property crimes.
A person who uses force as permitted in the legislation would get criminal and civil immunity, which could protect them against costly legal defenses.
Opponents say the legislation is vague and potentially could apply to all sorts of situations -- including disputes on the street or as a way to escape prosecution in gang-related violence. They say Michigan law already allows justifiable self-defense.
"We thought our Legislature was here to prevent crimes -- not allow them," Shikha Hamilton, a Michigan leader of the Million Mom March antigun violence group, said before Tuesday's hearing. "This is an outrageous bill."
Florida has passed a similar law, with a few other states -- including Michigan -- determining whether to follow suit.
Similar bills have been introduced in the state House.
No votes were taken on the legislation Tuesday, in part because some clarification is needed in the language. Cropsey said Michigan law does not define a "forcible felony."
Link to story (http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060224/POLITICS/602240375/1022)
Opponents of the bill that would broaden limits of self-defense say it is dangerously vague.
February 24, 2006
http://www.migunowners.org/images/ap.gif
LANSING -- The debate over Michigan's gun laws has intensified as a legislative committee heard testimony this week on a bill supporters say would give law-abiding people more self-defense rights in certain situations.
Gun control groups say the bills are reckless and could create a public safety hazard by fostering a shoot-first, ask-questions-later mentality.
The bills would establish a presumption of reasonable fear of death or injury when a law-abiding person uses force in certain circumstances. A threatened person would have no duty to retreat and would be able to meet force with force in situations such as a home invasion or, in certain situations, a carjacking.
While some self-defense rights already exist in the home, the legislation would extend them to other places if the person was not breaking the law and had a permit to carry a concealed weapon, supporters told the Senate Judiciary Committee. The protections could be invoked under certain circumstances if the person using defensive force was attacked in a place he or she had the right to be.
"What we want to do is see violence decrease," said Sen. Alan Cropsey, a DeWitt Republican who chairs the judiciary committee and sponsors the legislation. "We want to see people be able to protect themselves."
A person would be able to use deadly force if he or she believed it was needed to prevent death, serious injury or what are called "forcible felonies." A person would be able to use force -- but not deadly force -- if they felt force was necessary to stop a person from trespassing, to stop a theft, or to stop certain other property crimes.
A person who uses force as permitted in the legislation would get criminal and civil immunity, which could protect them against costly legal defenses.
Opponents say the legislation is vague and potentially could apply to all sorts of situations -- including disputes on the street or as a way to escape prosecution in gang-related violence. They say Michigan law already allows justifiable self-defense.
"We thought our Legislature was here to prevent crimes -- not allow them," Shikha Hamilton, a Michigan leader of the Million Mom March antigun violence group, said before Tuesday's hearing. "This is an outrageous bill."
Florida has passed a similar law, with a few other states -- including Michigan -- determining whether to follow suit.
Similar bills have been introduced in the state House.
No votes were taken on the legislation Tuesday, in part because some clarification is needed in the language. Cropsey said Michigan law does not define a "forcible felony."
Link to story (http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060224/POLITICS/602240375/1022)