After the stark and recent evidence from New Orleans of what too many LEOs will do to law-abiding citizens in a crisis situation, anyone who says this is either a fool or a liar. Or both.
Posted on 03/08/2008 5:53:26 AM PST by SLB
CHEYENNE -- Gov. Dave Freudenthal on Friday signed into law a bill that prohibits government officials from confiscating guns from law-abiding citizens.
Sponsor Allen Jaggi, R-Lyman, has said House Bill 57 was prompted by the confiscation of guns by police in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina.
Freudenthal said afterward that he was pleased to sign the bill, although he didn't think it addressed any real problem.
But Freudenthal, an avid hunter who was endorsed by the National Rifle Association in his re-election campaign in 2006, said he can understand why supporters want the bill enacted here.
"It's not understandable on the basis that anybody around here is going to be confiscating anybody's firearms, because first of all we ain't going to allow anybody to do it," Freudenthal said.
Freudenthal said he intends to scrutinize a separate self-defense bill, HB 137, that has cleared the Legislature and is awaiting his action.
The so-called "castle doctrine" bill would specify that citizens are legally entitled to assume that any people who break into their homes mean to do them harm. It would also give people who kill others in self-defense immunity from lawsuits.
Supporters say the bill would offer citizens legal protection if they use deadly force against intruders. They say the bill is named after the English common-law concept that a man's home is his castle, and that he's not obligated to try to retreat before using deadly force to defend it.
The NRA has made passing such "castle doctrine" legislation a priority nationwide.
Freudenthal said he has asked Attorney General Bruce Salzburg to review the "castle doctrine" bill.
"It's so nuanced, depending on where the words are, and how it's structured and what it says, it may or may not have a problem," Freudenthal said.
Critics of the "castle doctrine" proposal include prosecutors who say that enacting it in Wyoming could have unintended consequences. They have said the state has a strong body of case law on self-defense that protects citizens' rights. They have said that codifying it could result in weakening the law.
Freudenthal said he's not surprised to see the NRA push such gun legislation in Wyoming.
"This is a pro-gun environment; we like firearms," Freudenthal said. "So it's not surprising that they would come to these kind of states to push that kind of agenda early. My guess is that it's a lot more responsive here than it would be in California. But in terms of, 'Are there real problems that have to be addressed?' Probably not."
Freudenthal is a democrat. Does it show?
Ping
The Second Amendment was not written FOR hunters, but hunters probably played a part in its ratification. Hamilton and Washington said the Bill of Rights could be dangerous down the line. How right the federal judiciary has proved those two once again.
WY has elected Democrats for governor longer since statehood than it has Republicans. So have many states. The state could be ripe for Obamamania, but I think WY will be spared that aberration.
Except for Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.
Misleading title, “Governor signs gun NON-confiscation bill” would be closer to the truth.
They're not there to cook me breakfast?
All anti-gun legislation has been a dismal failure.
Because citizens cannot defend themselves, thousands of lives have been lost. It’s about time our elected officials recognized this fact and corrected the problem.
Three cheers for Gov. Dave Freudenthal
Are you discriminating against the Great Pumpkin?
Wyoming Democrats are typically more conservative than a large portion of the GOP. It may be one of the few places where Democrat does not equal Socialist.
I don't think fruits or vegetables count.
After the stark and recent evidence from New Orleans of what too many LEOs will do to law-abiding citizens in a crisis situation, anyone who says this is either a fool or a liar. Or both.
Geeez, I thought the governor had signed a bill to confiscate guns!
The dhimmiRat’s version of a RINO? A DINO, maybe?
Either way...good on him for this one. It’s the right thing to do.
I'll go with an elitist fool playing finger-to-the-wind politics in order to keep his job and political capital, slipping up and saying what he REALLY thinks about the gun-ban vs. Second Amendment debate.
catchy title; it implies the opposite of the story and sure got my attention.
He's a Democrat.
“...enacting it in Wyoming could have unintended consequences...”
Does the speaker have the courage to provide examples?
Since none of them pass the laugh test, likely not.
“Governor signs gun confiscation bill”
That headline is really deceptive. Better might be:
“Liberal Voting Bloc Threatened”
Shows quite clearly. Pandering to the party and ignorance of the issue in the single quote. If she signs it, Wyoming will be the 27th or 28th state to pass such a castle doctrine law, nowhere near the first. Ditto on the law she just signed.
In any case, good news on the non-confinscation law.
Aptly named.
I hope everyone who reads this signs up for membership in the NRA or is already a member.
You’re the one that brought up the tooth FAIRY!
That’s pretty fruity in my book!
Lol!
I see some potential for problems here, down the road. This comes in the difference between confiscation of the weapons of armed individuals, and armed mobs.
Now while some may defend the rights of an armed group, even those such as the KKK or a vigilante group until they break the law, I would be far more concerned by something like an armed union mob, hoping to attack strike-breaking scabs.
Or even worse, an out-of-state group of political creeps, crime gangs, or anarchist thugs who are very careful not to break any particular law until the moment when they break a whole bunch of laws.
There are examples of this all over US history, from “Bloody Kansas”, armed robbery gangs from the old West through Prohibition, union strikebreakers and strikers, to today, with organizations like MS-13, motorcycle gangs, and unionists again.
Add to that the possibility of an armed mosque, perhaps with its own paramilitary training camp.
Does any of this sound realistic?
The RKBA is number one in my book. I don’t care if they’re republican or democrat, as long as they’re sincere about it. In Pennsylvania John Morganelli is running for Attorney General on the democrat ticket, there was an article in March 08 American Rifleman, Armed Citizen where he said: “We don’t expect our citizens to wait and get shot. As long as I’m district attorney here, I’m probably going to err on the side of the citizen.” I switched parties to take out the witch in the primaries. I will fortunately also get to vote for him. Wake up republicans before you go the way of the Whigs.
Great title !!!
JK.
I know it was the original title, and not you ;)
Very, very bad title.
That’s good, but the “liberals” will find a way to come and get them. Private ownership of firearms is the thing that prevents this country from going completely, totally dictatorial.
...or a neighborhood watch group protecting their homes?
Would you preempt these citizens their right to defend themselves from an illegal gang with guns? Sure sounds like a Brady tilt to me.
"If someone is so fearful that they are going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very nervous that these people have weapons at all."
— Rep. Henry Waxman
waxman; This guy is very disturbing
No, that’s just my point. Individual citizens having guns is great. But what if you have a “nefarious” mob?
20-30 armed men can intimidate the heck out of a small town, yet not break any laws. It *does* matter if they are MS-13 gangsters, Hell’s Angels, union thugs, etc.
Individuals protecting their rights and property are one thing, but will this law protect the criminals?
A group of law-abiding citizens protecting their neighborhood are not individuals. They have become an armed group.
Disarming “a group,” whether they’re the bad guys or the good guys is just that - disarmament.
Any claim that reducing armament across the board reduces crime is the folly of the Bradys, because is only disarms the lawful.
You forgot the FBI, IRS, BATF, Homeland Security goons and Michael Chertoff, all of whom have come there to “help you.”
Everytime ya see bad things happening....there is always a glimmer of promise for tomorrow.......good deal !
Saty safe & warm !!!
Cool beans !!!
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Wow...every once in awhile a politician does something GOOD.
Thank you for breaking in, NOW COOK ME BREAKFAST!
Good...nervousness was put there by God in order to warn us. Waxman is well advised to stay nervous!
After the stark and recent evidence from New Orleans of what too many LEOs will do to law-abiding citizens in a crisis situation, anyone who says this is either a fool or a liar. Or both.
What real problem does the bill address? Katrina demonstrated that there are cops who will try to disarm citizens without legal basis for doing so. How does this bill address that?
If the bill were to state that people in police uniforms who tried to unlawfully disarm citizens should be regarded as robbers and treated as such, that would go a long way toward addressing the issue.
The founding fathers must be spinning in their graves that such legislation is necessary.
The rabid tort lawyers, the leftist judges that enable the tort lawyers and the ACLU idiots that attack the Constitution should all be disbarred.
Yep..........awesome stuff !!!......LOL !
Did ya’ll get any of that east coast snow that ran through Wardaddy’s AO last night ?
Yep, staying warm and by the fire. We had about 12 inches of white fluffy this morning when I woke up. Got the drive shoveled, spread some seed for the feathered folk who are having a rough time and then just stayed in the house.
OK governor, tell that to the thousands of people who have been sued into bankruptcy by criminals who they wounded, or families of criminals they killed, and lost everything they owned. A family in one of the mid western states, I think it was IA, was forced to sell the family farm a few years ago to pay off a burglar who was shot and crippled by the homeowner/farmer while committing the crime of breaking and entering the farmer's home.
The castle doctrine law puts a stop to those outrageous lawsuits, and the money-grubbing trial lawyers hate it. They hate the castle doctrine law because they get 1/3 of every dollar that a misguided jury, or in some cases a vindictive, racially motivated jury, awards to the injured criminal or his survivors.
Or in this case a Democrat. Same thing by another name.
Glad ya’ll are safe !
No.
It's called the "Castle Doctrine Law for a reason, it protects the right of innocent crime victims to use deadly force to defend themselves, their families, and their property from criminals without having to worry about being prosecuted or sued into bankruptcy. The only way it would protect a criminal is if he shoots or otherwise injures another criminal who is illegally entering his home to commit a crime.
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.