Index  •  FAQ  •  Search  

It is currently Wed Oct 16, 2019 8:47 am

This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 9 posts ] 
 Received from CSM today 
Author Message
 Post subject: Received from CSM today
PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2008 5:50 pm 
Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2006 8:05 am
Posts: 43
Location: Mendota Heights, MN
Posted verbatim:


I apologize in advance for those who have gotten this message more than once, but please take action if you have not already! Sue Fust

IMPORTANT!!! PLEASE TAKE ACTION NOW AND SPREAD THE WORD ABOUT.....

A BILL (HF498/SF446) THAT WOULD ALLOW PEOPLE TO KILL TRESPASSERS OUTSIDE THEIR HOMES
AND TO SHOOT ANYONE IN A PUBLIC PLACE WHO MAKES THEM FEEL 'REASONABLY THREATENED' -
EVEN IF A SAFE ESCAPE IS EASILY AVAILABLE. WE CALL THIS BILL 'SHOOT FIRST - ASK QUESTIONS NEVER.'

SHOOT FIRST IS A BAD BILL, IT IS NOT SELF-DEFENSE, AND WE DO NOT WANT IT TO PASS.

Please contact your legislator now by clicking here. Then forward this message to a friend.
(or cut and paste the following url http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/22 ... _KEY=22756 )

The bill is expected to come up on the House floor and to be heard in
the public safety committee as early as next week! It is not clear which way the vote
in the committee or on the floor will go. Read more about the bill by going to www.endgunviolence.com
(Also see below.)

Also

PLEASE COME TO THE CAPITOL FROM 9 TO 12 ON THURSDAY, FEB. 28 to
lobby against Shoot First and to support background checks for firearm purchases.
We will be a part of the "One Voice for the Northside" event, with the
North Side Lobbying Coalition, which is speaking out on several issues including gun violence.
We will tell legislators that what is good for North Minneapolis is good for the state.
Come Lobby Together for Change!

RSVP to csm@endgunviolence.com with your name, address and phone number. We will set up
an appointment with your legislator that morning. If you can't come that morning, but
want to talk to your legislator with our assistance, please let us know and we will work with
you to arrange that.

Sue Fust
Executive Director
Citizens for a Safer Minnesota


MORE ABOUT THE SHOOT FIRST BILL
The "Shoot First - Ask Questions Never" bill would eliminate the long-standing
individual duty to walk away from a confrontation in a public place if it is safe
to do so. The bill would instead permit the taking of a life as a first option
whenever someone feels threatened. The bill would also allow people to sit in
the safety of their homes and shoot anyone who comes into the yard. Yet it is
being misrepresented as a "self-defense" bill, and because of that, it has a
real chance of passing.

Why are people supporting the Shoot First bill?
Although the Minnesota County Attorneys' Association and the
Minnesota Police and Peace Officers' Association oppose the
bill, legislators feel pressured to vote for it. There are deceptive
action alerts going out from the gun lobby. We've heard people say they
think that if someone breaks into their house and is raping their wives or
daughters, that there's nothing they can do about it. That is patently false.

Calling this bill "Castle Doctrine" or "self-defense" is deceptive.
Minnesota already has Castle Doctrine. There is nobody in jail for
self-defense. In Texas, where Shoot First has passed, a man named Joe
Horn cited the law as he spoke to a 911 dispatcher in December about
burglars in a neighbor's yard. Horn was in no danger, but he went
outside and shot two men in the back. Hear the 911 tape at
http://www.gunguys.com/?p=2706.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2008 6:10 pm 
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 8:51 pm
Posts: 199
Location: Maple Grove, MN
I'd like to read the bill. How can I do that?

_________________
Joe Houser
Liberty Firearm Training

Skin that smokewagon and see what happens.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2008 7:29 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 10:53 pm
Posts: 1421
Location: South Minneapolis (East of Lake Nokomis)
JoeH wrote:
I'd like to read the bill. How can I do that?

You can go to the Legislature's web site.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 8:42 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 8:37 am
Posts: 935
Location: Victoria
From NRA-ILA

Minnesota “Castle Doctrine” to be Heard in House Committee!

Friday, February 15, 2008

Please Contact Your State Representative and Urge Him or Her to Support HF 498!

Any day, the House Public Safety and Civil Justice Committee will hear House File 498, introduced by State Representative Tony Cornish (R-24B). HF 498 would greatly strengthen the right to self-defense in Minnesota. HF 498, “Castle Doctrine” legislation, restores the right to self-defense in Minnesota by removing the duty to retreat when outside the home. HF 498 would allow a person to use force, including deadly force, against a violent attacker, and provides that a person who uses force against an attacker shall be immune from criminal prosecution.

Please contact your State Representative at (651) 296-2146 or (800) 657-3550 and respectfully urge him or her to support your right to self-defense. To find your State Representative, please click here.

From Paul Kohls

Thanks ("JDR"). I'm a coauthor on the bill and certainly plan to continue to support it.


Paul Kohls
State Representative
District 34A
313 State Office Building
100 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard Saint Paul, MN 55155
651-296-4282 (w)
952-443-0048 (h)
651-296-5807 FAX

To sign up for session e-mail updates: www.house.mn/34A

From Me

>>> "JDR" <"JDR.com> 02/16/08 1:35 PM >>>
Please consider supporting House File 498.



House File 498 removes the ridicules requirement that innocent persons, under the threat of death or great bodily harm MUST run away from such danger (which is impossible in most cases). This bill would protect law-abiding citizen's rights (who, under threat of death or great bodily
harm) attempt to (lawfully) protect themselves and others.

The proposed bill would also give protection of "standing your ground" when others try to second-guess a defenders actions, without the benefit of the decision making process in a situation of extreme danger to your self or others. As well, as protect the innocent citizen defending themselves from frivolous lawsuits filed by the very criminal that threatened death or great bodily harm to them or others.

Thank you for your consideration of this very important legislation.

_________________
"To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." George Mason


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 9:36 am 
Journeyman Member

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 10:54 pm
Posts: 86
I can't find anything in the law that would "protect the innocent citizen defending themselves from frivolous lawsuits filed by the very criminal that threatened death or great bodily harm to them or others. "

Does anybody else see it?


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 11:02 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 9:55 pm
Posts: 742
Location: Twin Cities
If the link that Pat provided is the whole bill, then I don't see it either. It looks like immunity from criminal prosecution but nothing about civil suits.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 11:33 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 11:02 am
Posts: 1684
Location: St Louis Park
ree wrote:
If the link that Pat provided is the whole bill, then I don't see it either. It looks like immunity from criminal prosecution but nothing about civil suits.


We already have it. The short version, as I understand it, is that a criminal cannot sue if you are justified in shooting them. However, if they die, their family can hit you with a wrongful death suit.

https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/sta ... id=611A.08

Quote:
611A.08 BARRING PERPETRATORS OF CRIMES FROM RECOVERING FOR
INJURIES SUSTAINED DURING CRIMINAL CONDUCT.

Subdivision 1. Definitions. As used in this section:
(1) "perpetrator" means a person who has engaged in criminal conduct and includes a person
convicted of a crime;
(2) "victim" means a person who was the object of another's criminal conduct and includes a
person at the scene of an emergency who gives reasonable assistance to another person who is
exposed to or has suffered grave physical harm;
(3) "course of criminal conduct" includes the acts or omissions of a victim in resisting
criminal conduct; and
(4) "convicted" includes a finding of guilt, whether or not the adjudication of guilt is stayed
or executed, an unwithdrawn judicial admission of guilt or guilty plea, a no contest plea, a
judgment of conviction, an adjudication as a delinquent child, an admission to a juvenile
delinquency petition, or a disposition as an extended jurisdiction juvenile.
Subd. 2. Perpetrator's assumption of the risk. A perpetrator assumes the risk of loss,
injury, or death resulting from or arising out of a course of criminal conduct involving a violent
crime, as defined in this section, engaged in by the perpetrator or an accomplice, as defined in
section 609.05, and the crime victim is immune from and not liable for any civil damages as a
result of acts or omissions of the victim if the victim used reasonable force as authorized in
section 609.06 or 609.065.
Subd. 3. Evidence. Notwithstanding other evidence which the victim may adduce relating
to the perpetrator's conviction of the violent crime involving the parties to the civil action, a
certified copy of: a guilty plea; a court judgment of guilt; a court record of conviction as specified
in section 599.24, 599.25, or 609.041; an adjudication as a delinquent child; or a disposition
as an extended jurisdiction juvenile pursuant to section 260B.130 is conclusive proof of the
perpetrator's assumption of the risk.
Subd. 4. Attorney's fees to victim. If the perpetrator does not prevail in a civil action that
is subject to this section, the court may award reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees
and disbursements, to the victim.

_________________
Of the people, By the People, For the People. The government exists to serve us, not the reverse.

--------------------
Next MN carry permit class: TBD.

Permit to Carry MN
--------------------

jason <at> metrodefense <dot> com


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 11:35 am 
Longtime Regular

Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 4:00 pm
Posts: 1064
Location: Minneapolis, MN
I would like to see "great bodily harm" changed to "bodily harm". Regardless, I like 498.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 11:48 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 9:55 pm
Posts: 742
Location: Twin Cities
princewally wrote:
ree wrote:
If the link that Pat provided is the whole bill, then I don't see it either. It looks like immunity from criminal prosecution but nothing about civil suits.


We already have it. The short version, as I understand it, is that a criminal cannot sue if you are justified in shooting them. However, if they die, their family can hit you with a wrongful death suit.

Well, I already knew that....reminders are still good. But it still doesn't explain the claim (by JDR?) that this bill protects from frivolous lawsuits.


Offline
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 9 posts ] 

This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.

All times are UTC - 6 hours


 Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron


 
Index  |  FAQ  |  Search

phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group