In principle I have no problem with this. The devil, however, is in the definition of "illegally". Freedom haters have spent decades erecting a scaffolding of illogical, conflicting (mostly in geographical terms, but sometimes also law vs. law), and picayune laws which render possession at a given time in a given location "illegal" for reasons that wouldn't stand up if they had to be debated on a case-by-case basis. So....NO. Besides, since SYG is ALREADY restricted to cases in which the shooter is in a place they have the legal right to be and causing no harm till the conflict erupts, why is he obsessing about illegal possession?
2. If the suspect has a history of violence or a felony conviction, he/she loses the preponderance clause. In other words, a judge can’t dismiss the case; it must go before a jury.
This is another one that sounds good in principle, but I bet the terms get to be applied as defined by attorneys and liberals, in other words, incorrectly. So, as you must do with any proposal that could be abused to abuse freedom, you must err on the safe side; BRRRRRRRAP!
3. If the shooter left the scene to arm himself/herself, and then returned to confront the victim, then SYG does not apply.
I believe that's already the case.
“I believe that’s already the case.”
Yes, it would seem that would apply directly to the reasonable fear for imminent death or bodily harm part. If you left and came back later the prosecution should be able to argue your reaonable fear left with you.