|
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:
ID: 'Stand your ground' bill shot down
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
It also would have specified there is no duty to retreat before using deadly force to defend one’s self or another, while in any location. This is similar to the “stand your ground” laws that some states have passed, and it contrasts with other states that impose a duty to retreat before using deadly force.
Some gun-rights supporters thought the bill didn’t go far enough, and some lawmakers on the Senate State Affairs Committee thought it might go too far, or that it didn’t take enough of existing case law into account. |
Comment by:
PHORTO
(3/18/2017)
|
Too much meddling. Too much government.
Given identical circumstances but for location, one has no duty to retreat. That makes no sense at all.
What are they always caterwauling about? "Common Sense Gun Laws"?
Differentiating between the inside of one's home or walking out of the local bodega as the determination of whether or not one has a duty to retreat isn't common sense. It's asinine. |
|
|
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) |
|
|