|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
IA: House committee approves Stand Your Ground law
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
UPDATE: The Iowa House Judiciary Committee approved a gun bill Wednesday night. Lawmakers tell us the vote split along party lines. The bill now heads to the full House for debate.
ORIGINAL STORY:
Big changes might be coming to Iowa law regarding guns, and how people can use them for self-defense.
A law called stand your ground is currently being debated in the Iowa Legislature. Stand your ground means if someone feels their safety or life is at risk, he or she can use deadly force. In other words, the person can fire a gun in self-defense. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(3/2/2017)
|
"The state of Florida has the stand your ground law; it received national attention when George Zimmerman used the law in his defense for shooting and killing Trayvon Martin."
It is disgusting that the media keep repeating this lie.
Zimmerman did NOT use SYG in his defense. The judge's instructions to the jury laid out the requirements of justifiable homicide, which the media then equated with SYG. While the requirements of justifiable homicide are central to SYG, he never petitioned for an SYG hearing, hence HE DID NOT USE THAT LAW IN HIS DEFENSE. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
