“Duty to retreat”. What kind of ridiculous nonsense! So you should give up your property rights because someone wants to steal your shit? And you need to rely on the police to enforce your right to your own private propety? Screw the police union.
>>One reason for the opposition, according to leadership, is that the bill could make gun owners more apt to shoot law enforcement officers who enter homes without permission.
If you enter my home without permission, I’ll shoot whether you are a cop or not.
If you are serving a legitimate warrant, then the occupant must be a criminal and will stand his ground, regardless of what the law “allows”.
Criminals don’t care about laws. That’s what makes them criminals!
Hasn't happened anywhere else with the Castle Doctrine.
If they are really that concerned, they could restrict SWAT teams to doing things that aren't illegal.
“...the bill could make gun owners more apt to shoot law enforcement officers who enter homes without permission.”
Wow! I’m kind of surprised they came out and admitted this. That was what I figured the real reason was when I read that they opposed it - but figured they would SAY something about accidents, the children, etc.
“...changes in the bill in the hopes of making many law enforcement officers more comfortable.”
Jeez - I guess I should have read farther into the article before posting. How about she adds something into the bill about prohibiting “no knock” military style raids?
Duty To Retreat ? LOL .. The Constitution backs my “ Duty To Reload “ !!
Snoot ;o)
“is that the bill could make gun owners more apt to shoot law enforcement officers who enter homes without permission. “
I see a tremendous opportunity here.
“There is no authority under the bill to shoot at a peace officer, especially when they’re carrying out their duty,” she said, noting Minnesota Supreme Court precedent about police officers’ *duty to announce themselves.*
“...including language that definitively prohibits the use of deadly force against police officers *who are engaged in law enforcement activity*.”
HERE’S THE IDEA: What about a state law that prohibits the use of deadly force against police officers *executing a legal warrant*, or in active pursuit.
So police officers would *NOT* be protected if they were conducting a *warrant-less*, “home invasion”-style search!
I think it could be further tailored so that police officers would only have protection on those *rare* instances when a SWAT operation *had* to be conducted. No more “non-violent” or misdemeanor SWAT raids. No more “the SWAT team had nothing to do, so they decided to tag along” raids.
And if the police raided the wrong house, failed to ID themselves, and were shot, the shooter could not be prosecuted, because they were lawfully defending their home at the time.
Lots of possibilities, here.