In spite of my advanced age (late 30's) I am an obsessive reader of
Fark.com I
LOVE Fark.com, especially the comment section which reeks of unwashed bodies, excessive testosterone and introduces me to a segment of young, tormented masculine geekery that I would otherwise not come across.
One recent hotbed of contention was derived from a report of a homeowner who surprised a masked burglar in his home and proceeded to beat the -ahem- crap out of him. He managed to hogtie the burglar and slammed the knife-wielding perpetrator into his floor a few times. When our heroic homeowner removed the burglar's mask, he was aghast to discover that
the burglar was a seventeen year old GIRL. She was bored so she decided to rob her neighbors (she'd already scored over $1,000 from other neighbors who weren't home). Bored. When I was seventeen, I was working two jobs and going to college full time. Bored did not enter into the equation. But who cares about me? One avid reader pointed out that since Florida's castle doctrine law was enacted in 2005, the burglar would have to take her licks and her newly broken nose would not be fixed at a cost to the homeowner.
Huh? In my little world, it is cheaper just to let the burglar ransack my home than to smack him on the head with my handy dandy ACME meat tenderizer/burglar unconscionator OR HE COULD SUE MY ASSETS OFF.
The
Florida "Castle Doctrine" law basically does three things:
It establishes, in law, the presumption that a criminal who forcibly enters or intrudes into your home or occupied vehicle is there to cause death or great bodily harm, therefore a person may use any manner of force, including deadly force, against that person.
It removes the "duty to retreat" if you are attacked in any place you have a right to be. You no longer have to turn your back on a criminal and try to run when attacked. Instead, you may stand your ground and fight back, meeting force with force, including deadly force, if you reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to yourself or others.
It provides that persons using force authorized by law shall not be prosecuted for using such force.
It also prohibits criminals and their families from suing victims for injuring or killing the criminals who have attacked them.
I have been trying to research if we have an analogous law here, but I would hesitate to interpret NJ Supreme Court findings since I am not an attorney. Quite frankly, I am not sure if stowing a revolver in my nightstand is all that fabulous either - especially given the strong curiosity of my imaginary children, Kayleigh and Rocco. I've voted for both Democrats and Republicans and fall more into the libertarian mold, politically, but I am not sure if a federal "License to Kill" is a good thing.
H.R.73 -
Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 2007 is cheerily subtitled "To protect the right to obtain firearms for security, and to use firearms in defense of self, family, or home, and to provide for the enforcement of such right." That's lovely, M., you may be thinking, but what do I get out of it? Well, lets just say that if this bill is passed, and a burglar manages to get into your home in spite of your overly-vigilant neighbors, state of the art home security system, evil twin Rottweilers, machete-wielding children, Kubaton brandishing husband and psychotic mother-in-law whom you keep locked in the attic, you have the RIGHT, nay the prehensile DUTY to shoot the burglar's assets off!
SEC. 3. RIGHT TO OBTAIN FIREARMS FOR SECURITY, AND TO USE FIREARMS IN DEFENSE OF SELF, FAMILY, OR HOME; ENFORCEMENT.
(a) Reaffirmation of Right- A person not prohibited from receiving a firearm by Section 922(g) of title 18, United States Code, shall have the right to obtain firearms for security, and to use firearms--
(1) in defense of self or family against a reasonably perceived threat of imminent and unlawful infliction of serious bodily injury;
(2) in defense of self or family in the course of the commission by another person of a violent felony against the person or a member of the person's family; and
(3) in defense of the person's home in the course of the commission of a
felony by another person.
Now, this bill, sponsored by a Republican Congressman - no doubt as payback for a generous NRA campaign contribution, will never be enacted into law under a Democratic Congress. I can't say I am overly disappointed, but I can tell you that if I could change this bill, I'd wipe out "felony" under Sec. 3(a)(3) and replace it with "misdemeanor, robbery or other untoward perhaps nasty spiteful thing since the bastard is in your house anyway, you know it can't be good, ."
If you're going to write a bill like this, that you know doesn't have a snowball's chance in heck, at least go whole hog for the humor quotient inherent in the legal system. A tax deduction for the Georgia gun fair purchase of an AK-47 would be helpful. If some freaky deaky burglar-poo is going to be smeared across my living room in non-living technicolor, I want it done with as much firepower as possible. Since this bill is sponsored by a Republican, I think we could also ask for a tax break (deduction) for the hazardous waste removal of any blood spatter or internal organs that find their way into the sanctity of my castle domicile post robber-deflectionary procedure.
