PDA

View Full Version : Closing "loopholes" in CA's Castle Doctrine law


Paladin
07-16-2011, 6:53 AM
Nothing new in this thread. I just got the idea on how we should use the language the antis do ("closing the gun show loophole"), but to use it against them.

As many know, in CA, we've already got several "parts" of the NRA's Model Castle Doctrine law in place. IIRC, we're just missing the civil immunity if no criminal conviction part and the part about making your car equivalent to your home re. if someone breaks into it while you're there, you get the benefit of a presumption that they did that to commit a violent crime. (http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=188) IMHO, getting all aspects of that model law in place is essential to minimize possible bad consequences from a good shoot (after we get Shall Issue).

I just wanted to share this idea of how to use language to frame the debate to our advantage -- closing "loopholes" in the Castle Doctrine.

uyoga
07-16-2011, 7:34 AM
You're right. Getting all aspects of that model law in place IS essential.

It is bad enough to have to think (I'm sure this goes through everyone's mind at the worst possible time) about the civil ramifications resulting from a self-defense action in addition to the criminal effects of such an action, would, in my opinion, necessarily have a tendency to slow the response time - "muscle memory or not" - in the face of that "uplifted blade".

swilson
07-16-2011, 8:51 AM
I like the idea of using their terms against them. I'd even go one step further and say "closing the Second Amendment loophole" for anything that infringes the right to keep and bear arms. Maybe also call anti-constitutional language "assault language." Maybe not.

I'd feel a lot better if we had a full castle doctrine.

Pixs
07-16-2011, 10:48 AM
Maybe also call anti-constitutional language "assault language."

I like this! :rockon:

SanPedroShooter
07-16-2011, 11:02 AM
The Second Amendment "loophole" allows state and federal governments to use "assault language" to infringe on the creator derived rights of American Citizens.

We need to make sure that any state or federal legislature, police department, professional jurist, appointed or otherwise or NGO does not use these loopholes curtail the God given rights of a free people.

Only un-elected American Civilians are responsible enough to maintain the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment.

Its just commonsensethinkofthechildren.

vantec08
07-16-2011, 3:10 PM
Wow. You got my attention with this post.

Anchors
07-16-2011, 3:48 PM
Nothing new in this thread. I just got the idea on how we should use the language the antis do ("closing the gun show loophole"), but to use it against them.

As many know, in CA, we've already got several "parts" of the NRA's Model Castle Doctrine law in place. IIRC, we're just missing the civil immunity if no criminal conviction part and the part about making your car equivalent to your home re. if someone breaks into it while you're there, you get the benefit of a presumption that they did that to commit a violent crime. (http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=188) IMHO, getting all aspects of that model law in place is essential to minimize possible bad consequences from a good shoot (after we get Shall Issue).

I just wanted to share this idea of how to use language to frame the debate to our advantage -- closing "loopholes" in the Castle Doctrine.

I like the way you're thinking! Damn Castle Doctrine loophole.
I also wish we could at least get unprohibited car-carry here. Like in Florida, open-carry is illegal and CCW without a permit is illegal, but you can CCW in your car without a permit. It is like an extension of your home.
I figure "truck/car-gun" is better than no gun...

The Second Amendment "loophole" allows state and federal governments to use "assault language" to infringe on the creator derived rights of American Citizens.

We need to make sure that any state or federal legislature, police department, professional jurist, appointed or otherwise or NGO does not use these loopholes curtail the God given rights of a free people.

Only un-elected American Civilians are responsible enough to maintain the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment.

Its just commonsensethinkofthechildren.

That made me laugh.
It would be nice if there was a citizens' review board to oversee most organizations. In theory, GOVERNMENT ITSELF is supposed to be the citizens' review board, but elected officials and law-enforcement higher ups are hardly "just civilians" at this point....
A civilian is a person who is subject to civil law and not military law...but,

Some of these politicians are above the law. (I agree that they shouldn't be, but face the reality, they are for all practical purposes above the law.)

oni.dori
07-16-2011, 4:45 PM
Nothing new in this thread. I just got the idea on how we should use the language the antis do ("closing the gun show loophole"), but to use it against them.

As many know, in CA, we've already got several "parts" of the NRA's Model Castle Doctrine law in place. IIRC, we're just missing the civil immunity if no criminal conviction part and the part about making your car equivalent to your home re. if someone breaks into it while you're there, you get the benefit of a presumption that they did that to commit a violent crime. (http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=188) IMHO, getting all aspects of that model law in place is essential to minimize possible bad consequences from a good shoot (after we get Shall Issue).

I just wanted to share this idea of how to use language to frame the debate to our advantage -- closing "loopholes" in the Castle Doctrine.

I absolutely agree with this. Turn about is fair play. It's time to use their own tactics against them (like we have discussed many, many times before on CG). One advantage that we will have in this is name/phrase recognition. People who may not know what this is about will be more inclined to just support it, because it is sounds similar to something they supported before. Kind of like how someone with a name similar to a famous and well liked politicial gets voted in to office becasue they automatically associate them with that well liked politician. I think it is something we should take much more advantage of.

SanPedroShooter
07-17-2011, 9:08 AM
I like the way you're thinking! Damn Castle Doctrine loophole.
I also wish we could at least get unprohibited car-carry here. Like in Florida, open-carry is illegal and CCW without a permit is illegal, but you can CCW in your car without a permit. It is like an extension of your home.
I figure "truck/car-gun" is better than no gun...



That made me laugh.
It would be nice if there was a citizens' review board to oversee most organizations. In theory, GOVERNMENT ITSELF is supposed to be the citizens' review board, but elected officials and law-enforcement higher ups are hardly "just civilians" at this point....
A civilian is a person who is subject to civil law and not military law...but,

Some of these politicians are above the law. (I agree that they shouldn't be, but face the reality, they are for all practical purposes above the law.)

Right, the Gov. itself, though our elected leaders, is supposed to be our voice. I personally think the Constitution speaks just fine on its own behalf, but our masters seem to be deaf...

"...What in the world is a moderate interpretation of a constitutional text? Halfway between what it says and what we'd like it to say?"
-A. Scalia 2005

I also like FL idea of car=home for castle doctrine. I dont think that would fly in CA.

I can already hear the high pitched wailing and collective hand wringing, "youdontneedaguntobuyacheesburgerdriveacaretc..." plus much weeping and gnashing of teeth from various police unions, "officer safteeeeeeeeeeyyyyyyyyy..."

Of course criminals already carry in there car, or any other place they feel like, any damn way.

El Toro
07-17-2011, 9:36 AM
Call it "the Pursuit of Life" loophole :clap:

Paladin
07-17-2011, 10:18 AM
You've got to be very careful in how you word things. At first I used "Castle Doctrine loophole," but then I realized it made it sound like the Castle Doctrine itself was the loophole, and, acc to the MSM, ALL loopholes are bad things. That is why I rephrased the title & OP to closing loopholes in the Castle Doctrine.

Similarly, I'm sure the antis think of the 2nd A as a "loophole" in their right and duty to disarm us. They think of it as a loophole that we exploit which goes against their utopian dream of a beneficent totalitarian state.

So, don't refer to "closing the 2nd A loophole", but rather to "closing loopholes in the 2nd A."

oni.dori
07-17-2011, 4:47 PM
Its just commonsensethinkofthechildren.

Maybe we could say "Preserving Liberty, it's common sense. Think of your children".

...but you can CCW in your car without a permit. It is like an extension of your home.
I figure "truck/car-gun" is better than no gun...

I was in Florida right after they passed the law, and from what I was told by a local is that they had a "3 step reuirement". Meaning, you had to keep it in your glove box, which required you to have to open the glove box (step 1). It was required to be in some sort of a holster, requiring you to remove it (step 2). Lastly, it couldn't have a round chambered if it was a semi-auto, requiring you to rack the action to make it "usable" (step 3). That is at least the way it was explained to me, not sure how accurate that is though. But even THAT would be better than what we have now.

"...What in the world is a moderate interpretation of a constitutional text? Halfway between what it says and what we'd like it to say?"
-A. Scalia 2005

That is an AMAZING quote...

I can already hear the high pitched wailing and collective hand wringing, "youdontneedaguntobuyacheesburgerdriveacaretc..." plus much weeping and gnashing of teeth from various police unions, "officer safteeeeeeeeeeyyyyyyyyy..."

To whiners: "Ya well, deal with it. OUR Second Amendment outweighs YOUR paranoia."

Call it "the Pursuit of Life" loophole :clap:

Nice, I like that.

You've got to be very careful in how you word things. At first I used "Castle Doctrine loophole," but then I realized it made it sound like the Castle Doctrine itself was the loophole, and, acc to the MSM, ALL loopholes are bad things. That is why I rephrased the title & OP to closing loopholes in the Castle Doctrine.

Similarly, I'm sure the antis think of the 2nd A as a "loophole" in their right and duty to disarm us. They think of it as a loophole that we exploit which goes against their utopian dream of a beneficent totalitarian state.

So, don't refer to "closing the 2nd A loophole", but rather to "closing loopholes in the 2nd A."

But that is exactly what I was saying. Making them think it's something its not, getting them to mindlessly give them our support without fully understanding it (like they already do to with the antis) helps bolster votes in our direction, and has the added benefit of beginning their exposure to, and subsequent education on the truth.

Burbur
07-17-2011, 7:01 PM
Call it "the Pursuit of Life" loophole :clap:

So the pursuit of life is a loophole that needs to be closed??? Who's side are you on?:p

hornswaggled
07-17-2011, 9:08 PM
Dang, I didn't even know about the loophole. I've always read that if it's ruled a justifiable homicide in criminal court, it is regarded as a "privileged act" and renders you immune to civil lawsuits.

vantec08
07-18-2011, 5:59 AM
Dang, I didn't even know about the loophole. I've always read that if it's ruled a justifiable homicide in criminal court, it is regarded as a "privileged act" and renders you immune to civil lawsuits.

CA has a HUGE hole in what some posters to this forum will tell you is a Castle Doctrine. Being that the state legislature is made up of and influenced by lawyers, it isnt likely to change.

oni.dori
07-18-2011, 3:39 PM
Dang, I didn't even know about the loophole. I've always read that if it's ruled a justifiable homicide in criminal court, it is regarded as a "privileged act" and renders you immune to civil lawsuits.

That's the problem, the loophole is that the language and law is ALREADY THERE, it just isn't recognized, nor enforced.

CA has a HUGE hole in what some posters to this forum will tell you is a Castle Doctrine. Being that the state legislature is made up of and influenced by lawyers, it isnt likely to change.

That's why CGN has taken up the tactic of taking our battle to the courts, instead of trying to change the wording of the law. A court ruling is much more difficult and arduous to overturn than a legislation.