HB1027: "Stand your ground" bill (Updated)

This will be a showdown between prosecutors and the NRA. I'm up to 27 e-mails this morning supporting this bill since 7:00a.m. It will be presented on a special order of business in House Judiciary next Tuesday.

It modifies the self-defense doctrine and has been made law in other states, specifically Florida, where it has received the most attention.

It has basically four components:

(1) It establishes that law-abiding residents and visitors may legally presume the threat of bodily harm or death from anyone who breaks into a residence or occupied structure and may use defensive force, including deadly force, against the intruder.

(2) In any other place where a person “has a right to be,” that person has “no duty to retreat” if attacked and may “meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”

(3)In either case, a person using any force permitted by the law is immune from criminal prosecution or civil action and cannot be arrested unless a law enforcement agency determines there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful.

(4) If a civil action is brought and the court finds the defendant to be immune based on the parameters of the law, the defendant will be awarded all costs of defense.

Here's the bill (click).

Update: Lori tells me that we've gotten 2 calls at home so far this morning in support of this bill. They're working it.

2nd Update: I've received another 25 e-mails since lunch and Lori called saying she's received another half-dozen phone calls at home (one from Minnesota). There comes a time when their efforts become counterproductive.

I met with the Prosecutor Coordinator's office this morning on this bill, and I have yet to meet with the NRA or any other interest groups, so I'll withhold judgment, but here's where I am as of right now:

1. Current law says that deadly force may not be used in self-defense if it can be avoided with complete safety by retreating or surrenduring the property if a few conditions are met. In other words, if complete safety does not exist in those situations, you're free to blow their head off. I don't see why this current law is bad law, and I'm a gun owner with a wife and daughter in the house with me. The proposal seems to give you free reign in the event someone comes in the house without permission. It might be different if there were an existing problem in the state with overreaching prosecutions from the use of deadly force in self-defense, but I have heard of no such Arkansas case.

2. My other problem with the proposal is the phrase "place where a person has the right to be." The interpretation of this phrase will be impossible, especially when considering customs of gangs, etc. If I intrude on turf where a person has the right to be, he'll basically have a presumption that I'm there to cause deadly force, thereby giving him authority to take some target practice on me.

3. The proposal also gives the shooter criminal and civil immunity, which could cause some evidentiary roadblocks for law enforcement investigations in alleged murders.

I'm continuing to keep an open mind and will meet with NRA representatives if asked.