We will need to keep an eye on this one. Not sure how much opposition this bill will get. It’s a good law that will bring Minnesota in line with 15 other states.
AP story followed up by a story printed in todays Pioneer Press.
ST. PAUL (AP) – A bill introduced at the Legislature would give citizens the right to defend themselves with deadly force against intruders — even when they have the option of retreating.
Two Republican lawmakers introduced the bill today. Representative Tony Cornish calls the measure the “Stand Your Ground” legislation and says it’s about protecting homeowners and property owners.
Foes call it a “shoot first, ask questions later” proposal that would bring a cowboy attitude to Minnesota.
Under current law, it’s justifiable to kill someone in your house if you fear the person will cause you great bodily harm or death — or to prevent a felony.
The proposal would allow people to use deadly force if there is a fear of substantial bodily harm.
(Copyright 2007 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)
Pioneeer Press:
Is gun bill for safety or license to shoot?
Measure would extend spaces for justified use of deadly force
BY RACHEL E. STASSEN-BERGER
Pioneer Press
Gun-rights advocates say the measure grants law-abiding citizens the right to defend themselves against attackers without being forced to retreat.
Opponents say it grants people the right to “shoot first, ask questions later” and could turn Minnesota into the Wild West.
Welcome to the latest debate about guns. The debate will land in Minnesota today as lawmakers introduce the measure known as the “Castle Doctrine.”
The proposal gets its name from the adage that your home is your castle, and it stems from the idea that you should be able to protect your castle with force if necessary. According to the National Rifle Association, which is backing the measure, similar laws have passed in 15 states since 2005.
“This is a homeowner, property-owner defense bill. It’s not radical,” said Rep. Tony Cornish, R-Good Thunder, the proposal’s sponsor in the House.
Cornish, a former police officer, calls the measure the “Stand Your Ground” legislation.
“I think it’s easily defensible,” he said.
Sen. Pat Pariseau, R-Farmington, is the measure’s Senate sponsor.
If the measure becomes law, the state would replace the current law that defines justifiable homicide. Current law says it’s justifiable to kill someone in your house if you fear the person will cause you “great bodily harm or death,” or to prevent a felony.
The new law would extend the justification for the use of deadly force beyond the walls of your home to include your car and any other place you are legally allowed to be. It would allow you to “meet force with superior force” in your defense if you fear substantial bodily harm. Substantial bodily harm is a lesser, more temporary degree of force than great bodily harm.
Cornish says that’s only right.
“When I was a cop, if someone would have threatened me and we were in a struggle and he or she broke my finger in the struggle, don’t you think I would have pulled out the hardware? Why in the world wouldn’t we afford a common citizen the same level of self-defense?” he said.
Opponents say the measure has nothing to do with self-defense.
“The law is about posturing. It was written by people who want to make it look like they are tough on criminals,” said Zach Ragbourn, spokesman for the Washington, D.C.-based Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
The Brady campaign has worked against similar laws in other states. According to Ragbourn’s count, which is different from the NRA’s, 10 states have passed the measures, which he calls fake self-defense laws.
“The system isn’t broken,” he said. “Good people aren’t going to jail for defending their families, for fending off carjackers or muggers. They are not going to jail when someone breaks into their homes.”
Ramsey County Attorney Susan Gaertner says the proposal is a “solution in search of a problem.”
“We’ve had no complaints about the law unfairly penalizing people who are simply protecting themselves,” she said. “If we had, then I might understand why this is cropping up. But the fact that it is being raised now is just, to me, is a train of thought that let’s bring the Wild, Wild West to the Midwest.”
An Anoka County shooting from late last year might influence the debate at the Capitol.
In November, Gerald Whaley, of Coon Rapids, shot and killed 17-year-old Tony Parks after Parks broke into his house at 11 p.m. Bryan Lindberg, of the Anoka County attorney’s office, said prosecutors haven’t decided whether to charge Whaley with a crime.
Those who say the new law isn’t needed might see their argument bolstered if Whaley isn’t charged. If he is, the proposal’s backers could pick up support.
Right now, the legislative landscape might not be welcoming to the measure.
“It is a lead duck,” said Bill Gillespie, executive director of the Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association. The organization’s board opposes the measure. “I don’t even expect one hearing.”
Sen. Linda Higgins, DFL-Minneapolis, who calls the proposal the “shoot-to-kill legislation,” believes it wouldn’t have the support to survive a Senate committee vote if it did get a hearing.
But Cornish said he’s ready for the fight.
“It’s going to be a real effort,” he said. “We know we are in for a real battle here.”
And, he said, he’s ready to prove detractors wrong.
“It’s not an encouragement to turn it into the Wild West or to give them an excuse to shoot people,” he said. “It enables them to protect themselves legally and it puts the onus on the criminal and the state to prove they were wrong.”
Rachel E. Stassen-Berger can be reached at [email protected].
.
