NRA backs expansion of right to shoot attackers

Minneapolis Star Tribune via Duluth News Tribune ^ | May 5, 2006 | CONRAD DEFIEBRE

[neverdem]

MINNEAPOLIS - Having secured the right of most Minnesotans to carry firearms in public, gun-rights advocates began moving Thursday to expand the legal freedom to shoot in self-defense.

A bill introduced in the Legislature by Republicans and backed by the National Rifle Association would allow the use of deadly force against an attacker anywhere citizens have a legal right to be, if they reasonably believe they face imminent danger of death or substantial bodily harm.

[billybudd]

- a gun against an unarmed assailant, for example -

You have to be really careful how you structure this law. How could you prove that an assailant was really an assailant if he was unarmed (maybe he was the victim)? Look at this from the point of view of being attacked and the attacker claiming he was defending himself.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Dear criminals and assorted scumbags: Say hello to my little friend. Sincerely, EEE.

[AngelesCrestHighway]

Sounds good to me!...If we have to go back to the wild west where it's an eye for an eye...so be it.

[Lurker]

I nominate this article for the most nonsensical headline ever.

Whatever editor came up with this headline deserves a special award for being able to string together a series of words which on its face seems to convey a coherent thought, yet once one tries to understand what is actually being said leaves one virtually without a clue. I mean it's beautiful in its absolute lack of any real substance or trace of logical thought at all.

Let's all look at it closely, shall we?

Here it is:

NRA backs expansion of right to shoot attackers

Here we have a headline in a major metropolitan newspaper which seems to tell us that the NRA is backing the 'expansion' of a Constitutional right of some kind. When you couple that with the last three words of the headline, one learns that this 'right' which is being 'expanded' is the right to defend your own life!

If one continues with the train of thought laid down by this gem of an Editor, one must assume that at some point the right to defend ones life against an attacker had been restricted by Law. Yet, we all know that's not possible.

Everyone has an inherent right to defend themselves against an attacker. Every State legislature in the land has passed laws saying that folks are perfectly justified in using force to defend themselves from an attacker.

One actually has to read the article to find out that what the legislature is trying to do is codify something that the State courts have already said is perfectly legal.

The NRA isn't trying to 'expand' anything. It's backing a bill to codify what, apparently anyway, numerous State courts have already found.

Awww crap. I just flipped back and saw it's the Red Star Tribune. I should have known. Oh well, I still say this one gets nominated for most insipid headline ever.

L

[mithglin]

Works for us in Florida

[NonValueAdded]

Like all that crap that was printed about Florida turning into the wild west with gunfights in the street? Hmmm ... we have the castle doctrine extended to any place you are legally at and gun violence seems to be down; meanwhile, greater Chicago with its restrictive gun laws IS the wild west, at least based on last night's WGN news. Pass another law, Chicago, I'm sure the gangs will choose to obey that one.

[Roccus]

This country needs a good, healthy dose of .44 Law.

[tcostell]

The way I see it, if he's lying on his face in my living room with three (or more) 7.62mm holes in him, then he's an assailant.

[Thermalseeker]

Works for us in Florida

Tennessee too....

[billybudd]

The way I see it, if he's lying on his face in my living room with three (or more) 7.62mm holes in him, then he's an assailant.

Dude, the whole point of this law is to expand self-defense *beyond the home*. You missed what I said completely.

would allow the use of deadly force against an attacker anywhere citizens have a legal right to be

[tcostell]

My apologies, you do have a point. But I think there would still be an element of proof involved right? Police will still be investigating shootings, and the standard elements like 'motive' will no doubt be considered.

In you own home it's definitely a little more clearcut.

[billybudd]

Yes, I hope they have some clear protocol for establishing who was in the right. It's difficult to do if one person's alive and the other is dead. Could be that your attacker kills you and claims it was self-defense. That's why the "unarmed" part gave me the willies.

In the home, the presumption is always with the homeowner.