Good news. :smilez:
They want to check out FL - where no rivers of blood have occurred as a consequence!
Michigan passes "Castle Doctorine"
Self Defense bills 5142-43,5153 and 5548; and Senate Bills 1046 and 1185 have all been passed by the Senate as of today June 7,2006
Michigan Senate approves self-defense bills
6/6/2006, 5:28 p.m. ET
By DAVID EGGERT
The Associated Press
LANSING, Mich. (AP) — The state Senate approved legislation Tuesday aimed at fortifying and clarifying self-defense rights in Michigan.
The bills would allow people to use deadly force, with no duty to retreat, if they reasonably think they face imminent death, great bodily harm or sexual assault. They could use deadly force on their property or anywhere they have a legal right to be.
The legislation also would protect people from civil lawsuits if they have used force in self-defense.
The six-bill package is backed by the National Rifle Association but opposed by anti-gun groups. The Senate voted 28-10 and 30-8 to pass two bills, and plans to send the other bills in the package to the House Wednesday.
Critics said the legislation is dangerous and not needed because prosecutors already don't charge a person who has justifiably used deadly force to protect themselves.
"We're creating a wild west mentality in this state and I oppose it," said Sen. Liz Brater, an Ann Arbor Democrat who voted against the bills.
But Sen. Alan Cropsey, a DeWitt Republican and sponsor of one bill, cited a case where an Eaton County woman was sued after defending her husband during an attack. She won the suit but incurred legal expenses.
"This type of nonsense needs to end," said Cropsey, adding that much of the legislation codifies existing judge-made law.
One bill would require judges to award attorney fees to those who are sued when it's determined they had reasonably used force to act in self-defense.
Another bill would create a "rebuttable presumption" — a legal advantage that assumes, unless there's strong proof to the contrary, that people honestly and reasonably believe they face death, rape or great bodily harm when someone breaks into their home.
The presumption, however, would not apply in certain domestic violence situations, disputes involving family members or the police, and if the person using force is breaking the law.
The House already has approved earlier versions of some bills.
Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm has expressed concerns that the scope of the House legislation is too broad. But spokeswoman Liz Boyd said Tuesday the governor is leaning toward supporting the legislation after Senate changes.
Supporters say the legislation is needed partly because current law requires people to first retreat, which supporters say puts them at a disadvantage.
Critics worry the legislation could spark a shoot-first, ask-questions-later mentality that winds up with innocent people getting shot.
One Republican — Shirley Johnson of Troy — and nine Democrats voted against a bill allowing deadly force to be used in self-defense: Brater, Irma Clark-Coleman of Detroit, Gilda Jacobs of Huntington Woods, Burton Leland of Detroit, Bob Emerson of Flint, Hansen Clarke of Detroit, Martha Scott of Highland Park, Buzz Thomas of Detroit and Gretchen Whitmer of East Lansing.
Eight of them — not including Whitmer and Jacobs — voted against the bill creating a rebuttable presumption.
Michigan Senate approves self-defense bills
6/6/2006, 5:28 p.m. ET
By DAVID EGGERT
The Associated Press
LANSING, Mich. (AP) — The state Senate approved legislation Tuesday aimed at fortifying and clarifying self-defense rights in Michigan.
The bills would allow people to use deadly force, with no duty to retreat, if they reasonably think they face imminent death, great bodily harm or sexual assault. They could use deadly force on their property or anywhere they have a legal right to be.
The legislation also would protect people from civil lawsuits if they have used force in self-defense.
The six-bill package is backed by the National Rifle Association but opposed by anti-gun groups. The Senate voted 28-10 and 30-8 to pass two bills, and plans to send the other bills in the package to the House Wednesday.
Critics said the legislation is dangerous and not needed because prosecutors already don't charge a person who has justifiably used deadly force to protect themselves.
"We're creating a wild west mentality in this state and I oppose it," said Sen. Liz Brater, an Ann Arbor Democrat who voted against the bills.
But Sen. Alan Cropsey, a DeWitt Republican and sponsor of one bill, cited a case where an Eaton County woman was sued after defending her husband during an attack. She won the suit but incurred legal expenses.
"This type of nonsense needs to end," said Cropsey, adding that much of the legislation codifies existing judge-made law.
One bill would require judges to award attorney fees to those who are sued when it's determined they had reasonably used force to act in self-defense.
Another bill would create a "rebuttable presumption" — a legal advantage that assumes, unless there's strong proof to the contrary, that people honestly and reasonably believe they face death, rape or great bodily harm when someone breaks into their home.
The presumption, however, would not apply in certain domestic violence situations, disputes involving family members or the police, and if the person using force is breaking the law.
The House already has approved earlier versions of some bills.
Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm has expressed concerns that the scope of the House legislation is too broad. But spokeswoman Liz Boyd said Tuesday the governor is leaning toward supporting the legislation after Senate changes.
Supporters say the legislation is needed partly because current law requires people to first retreat, which supporters say puts them at a disadvantage.
Critics worry the legislation could spark a shoot-first, ask-questions-later mentality that winds up with innocent people getting shot.
One Republican — Shirley Johnson of Troy — and nine Democrats voted against a bill allowing deadly force to be used in self-defense: Brater, Irma Clark-Coleman of Detroit, Gilda Jacobs of Huntington Woods, Burton Leland of Detroit, Bob Emerson of Flint, Hansen Clarke of Detroit, Martha Scott of Highland Park, Buzz Thomas of Detroit and Gretchen Whitmer of East Lansing.
Eight of them — not including Whitmer and Jacobs — voted against the bill creating a rebuttable presumption.
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Ours (Alabama) just recently passed - very similiar to yours. Hey, Florida hasn't had any problems with theirs & have had it long enough now that if it were gonna be a problem it'd already be a problem by now.
Hey Michigan, good on ya. Another state added to the list of, "if your a GG,....then your a GG,that simple".
No blood flowin' in the streets down here in Flah-Dah or Al-Bama. Not a single ok corral type shootout either. Imagine that !!
Congrats Michigan. Hard work pays off. ------
No blood flowin' in the streets down here in Flah-Dah or Al-Bama. Not a single ok corral type shootout either. Imagine that !!
Congrats Michigan. Hard work pays off. ------
Hooray Michigan! And echoing RSSZ's comment, no OK corrals anywhere down here in SoFla..... Suddenly lots of polite people though...:wave:
Just Got A Letter From My Wisconsin State Rep Concerning All The Calls Me And My Wife Made To His Office When Our Castle Doctrine Bill Was Being Cosidered. He Regreted To Inform Me It Did Not Even Make It To The Discussion Stage And That It Would Have To Wait Till The Next Session. Not Even Discussed, Can You Beleive How Unimportant This Issue Seems To Be To Some People? Till It Changes, I'm Supposed To Run And Try To Hide First. I Guess We'll Take Our Chances With The System Till They Get It Right.
Little hard to read when the first letter of every word is capitalized.
In WI, there is common law no duty to retreat, same as MI. They are now just trying to take that common law and make it into statutory law and add immunity for civil liability, which the common law doesn't.
Right now, in WI, I personally think getting concealed carry passed is the number one priority. This has been a 14 year struggle and trust me, the "castle doctrine" can wait. CCW is #1.
In WI, there is common law no duty to retreat, same as MI. They are now just trying to take that common law and make it into statutory law and add immunity for civil liability, which the common law doesn't.
Right now, in WI, I personally think getting concealed carry passed is the number one priority. This has been a 14 year struggle and trust me, the "castle doctrine" can wait. CCW is #1.
Alright. Glad to see my state coming around to common sense thinking. Seems WI is where MI was about 7-10 years ago
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Defensive Carry
A forum community dedicated to defensive firearm owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about everyday carry, optics, holsters, gunsmithing, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
