[Gaffer]

A good thing....keep it up.

[Obadiah]

Great, now I want the right to purchase a suppressor!

[Busko]

Good for Walker!!!

[mlo]

"He also noted the state adopted a law that protects from prosecution homeowners who shoot people they perceive as a threat, known as the castle doctrine."

Reporters. You keep thinking they might learn something about the subjects they write about.

The Castle Doctrine doesn't just apply to homeowners, obviously. And you can't shoot people you "perceive" as a threat. That's loaded language. You "perceive" everything, real or not. The threat has to be both subjectively and objectively reasonable, not just a perception.

And the Castle Doctrine doesn't authorize you to shoot anyone. It's facing an imminent, real, deadly threat that does that. The Castle Doctrine is that you aren't required to run from your house before resorting to deadly force, as you might be anywhere else.

There are related elements of self-defense law in many states that relax standards for the use of force in your home. Things like, if someone breaks in your door you can assume they are a deadly threat. But the Castle Doctrine is only that you don't have to retreat from your home.

[vette6387]

Actually, California Gun owners have taken the lead on this issue here. A Federal Judge in Fresno ( home to FR) has struck down California’s ten-day waiting period for gun purchases, and he has given the state 180 days to comply. I believe he carved out first-time gun purchasers, but said it made no sense to restrict anyone who already owned at least one gun. The ruse here has been that the law “protected the innocent” from someone who goes out and buys a gun to murder someone with whom they’ve just had an altercation. Problem with that is that it never happens.
The other “fun lawsuit” here in CA is the four gun shops who are suing the state over an arcane law that says you can’t put a picture of a handgun ( rifles and shotguns are o.k.) in the window of your store to show the public what you’re selling.