Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 03/17/2026 6:54:01 PM PDT by Engraved-on-His-hands
OTTAWA (LifeSiteNews) — The Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) introduced a “Stand Your Ground” private members’ bill that would protect Canadians from being prosecuted if they use lethal force to defend their home against invaders.
CPC MP Sandra Cobena late last week introduced Bill C-270, or the Stand on Guard Act, which modifies Section 34 of the Criminal Code dealing with personal defense.
The bill would allow homeowners to use force, including lethal force, if necessary, against intruders.
(Excerpt) Read more at lifesitenews.com ...
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
The crazy Liberals are like democrats and love criminals not citizens so it will go no where
does this include when the Canadian government invades your home for using the wrong pronoun?
“...so it will go no where”
And it shouldn’t. Under sec 34:
“Section 34 would be amended by adding a subsection stating the fact that, knowingly and without being entitled by law to do so, the person against whom the act was committed had entered the dwelling-house is proof, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that they had entered with intent to use force against a person lawfully present in the dwelling-house,” the bill continues.”
That’s an assumption and could easily be wrong. They could be there to steal your television or stereo. And that does not do you bodily harm. Theft it is. But theft by itself is not a capital crime. And the bill gives he dweller the chance to open fire before the evidence to the contrary.
Now if the person breaking in was pointing a gun, threatening with a knife, or rushing a dweller with an obvious intent to do harm, that’s one thing. But just the fact that he/she entered the home, illegally or not, does not prove intent to commit bodily harm. And the way the bill is written, it affords the opportunity for the dweller to even shoot the intruder in the back when they are retreating. That is not attempting bodily harm. So the bill is just saying that for any reason the intruder entered the home, he can become a free shoot dummy.
wy69
As long as you do it with something other than a firearm or a knife or a tool….
“But just the fact that he/she entered the home, illegally or not, does not prove intent to commit bodily harm.”
That is ridiculous. If I catch someone breaking into my home, I will not make any effort to discern his motives. I will make holes as fast as I can, and the intruder will have a very, very bad day. There are some things you simply don’t do except at your own peril.
“If I catch someone breaking into my home, I will not make any effort to discern his motives.”
Then in the US, you will go to jail for at least 2nd degree, or manslaughter.
The castle doctrine in the US is there to offer the dweller the chance to protect themselves in a physical threat situation when the burglar becomes an attacker. Burglary is not a capital offense and does not require capital punishment delved out by the dweller until it becomes a bodily harm situation. This law is being passed in Canada and I don’t know the laws concerning this from them. In the US, it’s too strong.
From AI:
No US state has a “blanket license” law allowing deadly force against any intruder regardless of their actions. USCCA and attorneysonretainer.us state that while Castle Doctrine removes the duty to retreat in your home, the force used must generally be reasonable, typically based on a fear of imminent death, great bodily harm, or in some states, to stop a violent felony.
wy69
Hope it Passes...
Blah, blah, blah. None of that matters when you become aware that a stranger has entered your locked home in the middle of the night. You are going to take the time to determine his motives? Unless it’s the neighbor’s drunk kid thinking he is sneaking back in to his house by mistake, he’s toast. “You can’t shoot someone just for trying to steal your TV.” Yes, I can, if it is in my home along with me and mine. No court, at least here in GA would convict me. If someone breaks into and enters my home while I am there, and moves after I say “freeze”, he will have problems. He FAFO’d. Knock and ask? No problem. If someone breaks in and enters while I am home, I can only determine he has ill intent. It is my right to protect me and mine in my home.
But you go ahead. You let someone break into your home and then you give him the edge to kill you and yours because you hesitated.
If the defendant is in his or her home or vehicle, the law will presume that the defendant had a reasonable fear of imminent death or bodily harm if the alleged perpetrator unlawfully entered or remained or attempted to remove another person against their will.
So one does not have to ascertain intent when an intruder enters (not breaks in) your home.
“So one does not have to ascertain intent when an intruder enters (not breaks in) your home.”
You selected Florida so here is the actual statute:
776.013 Home protection;
Use or threatened use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person who is in a dwelling or residence in which the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and use or threaten to use:
(a) Nondeadly force against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force; or
(b) Deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.
Section (a) or (b) breaks down the occasion where deadly force can and cannot be used to protect from the burglar’s unlawful force. To use deadly force it requires a danger of imminent death or great bodily harm.
Shooting a person in the dwelling just standing there or retreating is not going fly in court as there was no imminent danger involved.
wy69
“You are going to take the time to determine his motives? “
Didn’t you just do that with the next sentence?
Unless it’s the neighbor’s drunk kid thinking he is sneaking back in to his house by mistake, he’s toast.
You had to assess who it was and determine he was no threat so you don’t shoot him. You took the time there because if you didn’t and just opened fire because he was there you both would have been toast.
wy69
“If a person breaks into someone’s home, the homeowner must assume the criminal is intent on hurting the resident.”
Assumptions don’t hold up in court unless there’s proof. If you find someone in your home, and you just open fire, you have no proof that imminent bodily harm was going to be attempted. You’re guessing.
wy69
Um, no. You’re not a lawyer, are you?
Post the rest of it:
(2) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using or threatening to use defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used or threatened was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses or threatens to use defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
And it even gets worse for you. Florida has such a broad Stand Your Ground that it includes your vehicle:
(5) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.