Georgia Castle Doctrine Bill Update

Georgia Castle Doctrine Bill Update

This is a discussion on Georgia Castle Doctrine Bill Update within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; From the NRA Website: Friday, March 03, 2006 This week, Senate Bill 396, the “Castle Doctrine” bill, sponsored by Senator Greg Goggans (R-7), was overwhelmingly ...

Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Georgia Castle Doctrine Bill Update

  1. #1
    Moderator
    Array Rock and Glock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Colorado at 11,650'
    Posts
    13,053

    Georgia Castle Doctrine Bill Update

    From the NRA Website:

    Friday, March 03, 2006

    This week, Senate Bill 396, the “Castle Doctrine” bill, sponsored by Senator Greg Goggans (R-7), was overwhelmingly approved by the full Senate. This bill would remove a citizen’s duty to retreat when faced with attack. The bill now goes to the House for its consideration.
    Per the NRA: Please be sure to call your Representative and respectfully urge him or her to support SB 396 when it comes before the House for consideration. You can reach your Representative at (404) 656-5000.
    Last edited by Rock and Glock; March 4th, 2006 at 09:37 AM.


    The tyrant dies and his rule is over, the martyr dies and his rule begins. ― The Journals of Kierkegaard


  2. #2
    Assistant Administrator
    Array P95Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    South West PA
    Posts
    25,484
    Sounding good R&G - how I dearly want to see this spread all over the nation - it is logical and necessary.
    Chris - P95
    NRA Certified Instructor & NRA Life Member.

    "To own a gun and assume that you are armed
    is like owning a piano and assuming that you are a musician!."


    http://www.rkba-2a.com/ - a portal for 2A links, articles and some videos.

  3. #3
    Member
    Array craig45's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    crestview fl
    Posts
    473
    we were first . seriously though, i can't understand what's so difficult about getting these laws passed.
    oh, wait a minute. yes i can.
    the criminals have "rights". the poor victim has none.
    everytime i hear somebody say these laws will lead to widespread murder i get a headache.
    hopefully common sense will prevail and the bill gets passed.
    at least these bills are showing up more and more.

  4. #4
    Member Array rwmorrisonjr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Broomfield, CO
    Posts
    90
    They're debating it in VA, no update on it. They're also debating similar changes here in CO, including adding your vehicle and "temporary lodging" wording to the law in addition to your residence. This would extend your "residence: to include your car and hotel room, much as it does in NM. That would make things so much easier when you travel around the state and would throw Denver's anti-gun stance up in their face since they can't challenge the domicile aspect of the law as it's not covered in their "home-rule" status!

  5. #5
    Senior Member Array CombatEffective's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    998
    Actually, Georgia law does not have a requirement to retreat as it currently stands. The GA law covering deadly force allows for the use of of such force when a person reasonably believes there is danger of death or great bodily injury to themself or a third person, or to stop a forcible felony.
    Shooters' Legacy

    Special sections for S&W and Ruger

  6. #6
    Moderator
    Array Rock and Glock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Colorado at 11,650'
    Posts
    13,053
    Quote Originally Posted by CombatEffective
    Actually, Georgia law does not have a requirement to retreat as it currently stands. The GA law covering deadly force allows for the use of of such force when a person reasonably believes there is danger of death or great bodily injury to themself or a third person, or to stop a forcible felony.
    I reviewed the GA statutes and agree that they could be construed to not require retreat, however, there is no affirmative statute that states retreat is not required. Have I interpreted the statutes incorrectly?

    I did try your link, and couldn't find "New Articles", and the "Articles" link did not have a specific link for a Georgia update. Can you post it over here? I'd love to read an analysis from someone more familiar with GA law.

    Thank you!


    The tyrant dies and his rule is over, the martyr dies and his rule begins. ― The Journals of Kierkegaard

  7. #7
    Senior Member Array CombatEffective's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    998
    The link should take you to our homepage. There is an "articles" button on the left that should take you to the articles that we currently have posted.

    Your understanding of the GA law is correct. There is no specific requirement to retreat.
    Shooters' Legacy

    Special sections for S&W and Ruger

  8. #8
    Senior Member Array CombatEffective's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    998
    The link should take you to our homepage. There is an "articles" button on the left that should take you to the articles that we currently have posted.

    Your understanding of the GA law is correct. There is no specific requirement to retreat.
    Shooters' Legacy

    Special sections for S&W and Ruger

  9. #9
    Moderator
    Array Rock and Glock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Colorado at 11,650'
    Posts
    13,053
    Combat Effective: Not trying to beat a deadhorse - we posted at the same time I think....

    What I was expecting to not find (which I did not) was a positive statutory statement that retreat is NOT required, such as that contained in the Texas Penal Code.

    I have added the emphasis therein below:

    § 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person
    is justified in using deadly force against another:
    (1) if he would be justified in using force against the
    other under Section 9.31;
    (2) if a reasonable person in the actor's situation
    would not have retreated;
    and
    (3) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
    deadly force is immediately necessary:
    (A) to protect himself against the other's use or
    attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
    (B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
    aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual
    assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
    (b) The requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not
    apply to an actor who uses force against a person who is at the time
    of the use of force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the
    habitation of the actor.


    Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
    Amended by Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 5316, ch. 977, § 5, eff.
    Sept. 1, 1983; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept.
    1, 1994; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 235, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

    Please help me understand the GA statutes - I'm kind of an newbie at these sections of law, so I could be misinterpreting. Thanks.


    The tyrant dies and his rule is over, the martyr dies and his rule begins. ― The Journals of Kierkegaard

  10. #10
    Senior Member Array CombatEffective's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    998
    http://www.legis.state.ga.us/cgi-bin...l?code=16-3-21


    16-3-21.
    (a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person against such other´s imminent use of unlawful force; however, except as provided in Code Section 16-3-23, a person is justified in using force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
    (b) A person is not justified in using force under the circumstances specified in subsection (a) of this Code section if he:
    (1) Initially provokes the use of force against himself with the intent to use such force as an excuse to inflict bodily harm upon the assailant;
    (2) Is attempting to commit, committing, or fleeing after the commission or attempted commission of a felony; or
    (3) Was the aggressor or was engaged in a combat by agreement unless he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to such other person his intent to do so and the other, notwithstanding, continues or threatens to continue the use of unlawful force.
    (c) Any rule, regulation, or policy of any agency of the state or any ordinance, resolution, rule, regulation, or policy of any county, municipality, or other political subdivision of the state which is in conflict with this Code section shall be null, void, and of no force and effect.
    (d) In a prosecution for murder or manslaughter, if a defendant raises as a defense a justification provided by subsection (a) of this Code section, the defendant, in order to establish the defendant´s reasonable belief that the use of force or deadly force was immediately necessary, may be permitted to offer:
    (1) Relevant evidence that the defendant had been the victim of acts of family violence or child abuse committed by the deceased, as such acts are described in Code Sections 19-13-1 and 19-15-1, respectively; and
    (2) Relevant expert testimony regarding the condition of the mind of the defendant at the time of the offense, including those relevant facts and circumstances relating to the family violence or child abuse that are the bases of the expert´s opinion.
    Shooters' Legacy

    Special sections for S&W and Ruger

  11. #11
    Moderator
    Array Rock and Glock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Colorado at 11,650'
    Posts
    13,053
    I agree, Sir.

    The point I was trying to make (poorly done, obviously), is that the statutes are SILENT with respect to retreat, which is much different than either REQUIRING retreat OR stating that RETREAT IS NOT NECESSARY in some circumstances.

    I do believe we agree.


    The tyrant dies and his rule is over, the martyr dies and his rule begins. ― The Journals of Kierkegaard

  12. #12
    Senior Member Array CombatEffective's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    998
    While it doesn't specifically require a duty to retreat, the GA state doesn't imply that there is one. It simply gives three circumstances in which deadly force can be used, two of which allow for intervention; so, I contend that a duty to retreat is not even implied.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm all for strengthening the law and providing civil protections.
    Shooters' Legacy

    Special sections for S&W and Ruger

  13. #13
    Moderator
    Array Rock and Glock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Colorado at 11,650'
    Posts
    13,053
    Yes, Sir. It's just not implied in GA, one way or another. I just always like those guys in suits at the state house to affirmatively state the position. I think an affirmative statute is much stronger, in litigation, than an unspoken inference or implication. If we're at the well, asking for a drink, let's drink deeply.


    The tyrant dies and his rule is over, the martyr dies and his rule begins. ― The Journals of Kierkegaard

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

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

Similar Threads

  1. Kansas Governor Signs Castle Doctrine Clean Up Bill
    By kccad in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: April 20th, 2010, 09:59 PM
  2. Virginia Castle Doctrine Bill
    By DaveH in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: February 3rd, 2010, 09:45 PM
  3. The NRA says MO House of Representatives Pass Castle Doctrine Expansion Bill
    By BrianGarms in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: April 16th, 2009, 10:28 PM
  4. Castle Doctrine Bill In Wisconsin
    By toytek065 in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: May 4th, 2006, 07:24 PM
  5. Alabama Legislature Passes Castle Doctrine Bill
    By dr_cmg in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: March 29th, 2006, 10:49 PM

Search tags for this page

castle doctrine georgia
,

castle law georgia

,

castle law in georgia

,

does georgia have a castle doctrine

,

does georgia have a castle law

,

does georgia have castle doctrine

,

does georgia have the castle doctrine

,

ga castle law

,

georgia castle doctrine

,
georgia castle doctrine law
,

georgia castle law

,
georgia castle laws
Click on a term to search for related topics.