Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Christensenís Castle Doctrine legislation gets attention during interim study hearing (NE)
waunetanebraska.com ^ | 28 November, 2010 | Russ Pankonin

Posted on 11/29/2010 4:11:43 AM PST by marktwain

Senator Mark Christensen’s bill to address self defense issues at home and work, LB 889, got killed in this year’s session of the Unicameral but that doesn’t mean he’s giving up.

Prior to adjournment, Christensen got a legislative resolution passed to conduct an interim study on a key element of the bill, commonly know as the Castle Doctrine.

Christensen has built a reputation as a big advocate of Second Amendment gun rights. As a result, he wants to make sure people have the right to protect themselves in their homes, workplaces and vehicles without the threat of a civil lawsuit.

The Castle Doctrine gets its name from the basis that a person’s home is their “castle.” As such, one has the right to protection from illegal trespassing and violent attack.

Castle laws give people the legal right to use deadly force to defend their “castle” and other people in the home from violent attack or an intrusion which may lead to violent attack.

Christensen said many Nebraskans can’t understand why Nebraska has the law it does right now. “You have a duty to retreat, if the opportunity presents itself, even from your own home, if it appears safe to do so,” he said.

A person has a split second to make the decision whether or not to retreat. If a person doesn’t decide to retreat, and uses a gun or other weapon to defend themselves, then the justification for use of force will likely be decided in a civil lawsuit, Christensen said.

“That’s putting the innocent in a very difficult position because once someone breaks into your home, to me that’s a threat,” he said.

(Excerpt) Read more at waunetanebraska.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; US: Nebraska
KEYWORDS: banglist; castledoctrine; defense; ne
Castle doctrine laws are popular.
1 posted on 11/29/2010 4:11:51 AM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Sounds like the current situation is pretty bad. You can be sued for defending yourself?

Home invader or his next of kin ends up owning your home?


2 posted on 11/29/2010 4:20:23 AM PST by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

We have a saying here in Texas. if they’re in the door, drop them on the floor.


3 posted on 11/29/2010 4:34:47 AM PST by BigCinBigD (Northern flags in South winds flutter...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

The “duty to retreat” should be removed. Any place you have lawful business to be, whether its your home, car or place of business, you should be able to defend yourself without have to vacate the premises. The person attacking you is not the one who has the right to be there.


4 posted on 11/29/2010 4:49:36 AM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson