The response from the Shoreview Rep. Paul Gardner

Hi, Thomas. I don't think the Castle Doctrine bill will get out of committee but we'll see. I will not be supporting it if it is written the way it is now. Thanks for the e-mail.

Rep. Paul Gardner
Minnesota House of Representatives District 53A
(651) 296-2907
rep.paul.gardner@house.mn
http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/member ... strict=53A
blog: www.paulgardner53a.blogspot.com
Home phone constituent line: (651) 797-4317

Dear Representative,

I consider this an important bill that I support, let me know your position
on voting yes or no. I can then make my decision to financially support your next election.

My Plymouth State rep responded she will support the bill and vote yes. Where is yours?

Hi, Thomas. I am not an expert on gun law, but I understand that responsible gun owners would like to be immune from prosecution if they are legitimately defending themselves, especially at home. I guess I don't have a comfort level yet with how this would work--obviously if a guy breaks in your house and you shoot him when kids are around he should not be able to sue you. But how one interprets what is defensive vs. offensive gets kind of fuzzy especially when one is away from home. I am sure you are comfortable around firearms so this issue may seem like a no-brainer, but for most people in our district the feedback I am getting is apprehension about people being more aggressive with guns. One of my supporters is a firearms instructor and he's taken me out to a shooting range so I can better understand the issue, but I'd like to have some of my legislative colleagues who are attorneys or specialists on the issue to explain all the legalities to me in more detail.

Perhaps you could share with me your thoughts behind your position to support the bill. I would appreciate hearing your perspective. (Although I gotta turn off the computer right now for the night.)

Rep. Paul Gardner
Minnesota House of Representatives District 53A
(651) 296-2907
rep.paul.gardner@house.mn
http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/member ... strict=53A
blog: www.paulgardner53a.blogspot.com
Home phone constituent line: (651) 797-4317

Does this bill provide protection from civil suits as well as prosecution?

It sounds like your representative is at least interested in learning. He is really, really mistaken on the issues, though, and it's discouraging that he's equally interested in ignaorant feelings as informed facts.

Thomas,

While I have not heard the debate on SF 498, I do not see a reason to
support this bill. This "castle doctrine" seems to be a solution in
search of a problem. I feel that the current law regarding this issue is
adequate, and if it is expanded, it will not prevent crime, it will only
lead to more violence.

Current law states that someone cannot justifiably kill someone else
unless they believe they are under the threat of great bodily harm or
death or preventing someone from committing a felony within their home.


The original theory behind the castle doctrine is that one has the
right to protect them self in their own home; I agree with this theory,
but I feel that the proposed legislation goes too far. The bill would
greatly broaden the circumstances when deadly force can be used by
allowing the use of deadly force against an attacker anywhere citizens
have a legal right to be, if they felt that they were being threatened
by an attacker. In addition, the bill would create an assumption that
anyone entering or attempting to enter a home, business or vehicle by
force or stealth is there to do deadly harm, so use of deadly force
against them is justified and, therefore, cannot be prosecuted.

Proponents of the bill claim that this legislation is needed to give
law-abiding citizens more rights than their attackers and violent
criminals, but the fact of the matter is that deadly force and the use
of firearms should be a last resort. This legislation would allow
deadly force to be someone’s first option even if they simply felt
intimidated by someone.

Again, thank you for contacting me. Feel free to contact my office on
this or any other issues you may be interested in.

Terri

Terri Bonoff
State Senator District 43
75 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.
325 State Capitol Building
St Paul, MN 55155-1606
Phone: 651-296-4314
Fax: 651-767-0924

I just got a letter in the mail from my representative Kathy Tingelstad, in response to my urging of her support for HF498.
I have to say I am quite pleased. She is very informed, and knows the bill very well. She supports it and will vote in favor of it. She even explained it in two pages of text. Leaving out her explanation of the bill, she wrote;

" Dear Jeffrey,
Thank you for contacting me about the Castle Doctrine. I appreciate hearing from you.
Yes I agree with you; I am supportive of this legislation." And then goes on to explaine the bill in detail.
A+ in my book.

Jeff

Yup; that's the right answer. This stuff doesn't get done by unfrocked body armor salesmen trying to steer from the side of the road; it gets done by citizens getting involved and staying involved.

I would be very interested in getting this legislation passed here in Minnesota. It is up to us to be vocal and active in getting everyone we can to do the same.

Here is an example of a letter that may help to sell your position on this issue. I am not a professional writer, so any input/rewrite is welcome. Let's give everyone a simple means of getting in touch with the people who are deciding our fate and help them vote yes to this legislation:


--------------- -------------------- ----------------- ---------------------
Dear (representative),


ENTER A PERSONAL STORY OF VIOLENCE IN YOUR LIFE HERE IF YOU HAVE ONE

The April 2007 strangulation murder of a middle aged former school teacher (see photo below) in my neighborhood out here in farm country by a couple of meth amphetamine addicts who migrated here on a murderous crime spree from southern states has reminded me that even in “your safe zones” there are those who have no conscience about taking the life of a helpless victim. She was attacked and beaten in her rural home about a mile from mine to give up her ATM card and it’s PIN code, then was choked to death by a 27 year old former boxer with the assistance of his girlfriend - her body left in a closet at her home.


USE A PHOTO OF THE VICTIM IF YOU HAVE ONE:

Ruth Ouverson – 58 year old homicide victim



” (a) A State's failure to protect an individual against private violence generally does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause, because the Clause imposes no duty on the State to provide members of the general public with adequate protective services.” http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/g ... &invol=189


With the recent mass killings at shopping centers, colleges, and the murderous rampage by a police officer in Wisconsin (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/10/07/wiscon ... index.html), we need to take a common sense approach to violence in our society. It happens. Banning guns doesn’t solve the problem, as has been proven by each society and establishment that has done so. Law abiding citizens should be allowed to protect themselves with lethal force if necessary, and should further be protected by legislation such as the Castle Doctrine should the unfortunate event occur. It is said that when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. We are each responsible for our own safety.


I want to inform you that my family and I support the Castle Doctrine Bill – http://wdoc.house.leg.state.mn.us/leg/LS85/HF0498.0.pdf and we urge you to support it as well. Rather than be prosecuted for using lethal force in response to a threat on one’s life, we as law abiding citizens believe we have a right to defend ourselves. We believe that you, as our representatives in government, have a responsibility to support this legislation so that we are not victimized again by prosecution or lawsuits should the evidence show we were forced to use lethal force to defend ourselves.


Please vote to support this legislation, and know that I am available to do whatever I can to assist



Thank you for your support!

The purpose of Castle Doctrine is to remove any ambiguous interpretations that prosecutors can make with regard to the actions taken by the victim in protecting himself from a criminal. It also gives notice to would-be burglars, rapists and other criminals that it is the resident or homeowner who has the support of the law.

"Castle Doctrine" law basically does three things:



One: It establishes, in law, the presumption that a criminal who forcibly enters or intrudes into your home or occupied vehicle is there to cause death or great bodily harm, therefore a person may use any manner of force, including deadly force, against that person.



Two: It removes the "duty to retreat" if you are attacked in any place you have a right to be. You no longer have to turn your back on a criminal and try to run when attacked. Instead, you may stand your ground and fight back, meeting force with force, including deadly force, if you reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to yourself or others.

Three: It provides that persons using force authorized by law shall not be prosecuted for using such force.

This bill also prohibits criminals and their families from suing victims for injuring or killing the criminals who have attacked them.

I have attached the Tennessee and Florida "Castle Law" for you to read and compare with the SF 498.

And unless I am mistaken, this legislation will loosen the noose around our necks when we reach for our pistol in response to a perceived attack - something that is currently defined as "use of deadly force". As it stands, in order to justify use of lethal force, you will need to be bleeding from an attacker's weapon and sufficiently certain that your life is in jeopardy. Just having someone force their way into your home or vehicle wouldn't qualify.

Is this accurate?

And if you can believe this her husband is in the carpenters union. Likes guns and unions My kind of people.

I'm a Teamster, and here's my letter to my Rep:

(I cribbed a bit from this thread)



As a Metrocrat, no doubt Frank will send me a weasel response, if any. I'll post it here when it comes. But it pays to let him know that someone is watching.

A similar one was sent to Sen. Scott Dibble. I expect similar results.

excellent Chunkstyle. I am sending all my friends, clients and contacts a notice (with justifications) that they should notify the legislators that we wish to have them PASS this!

I can't say I am real pleased with Senator Sparks reply.

Thank you for contacting my office regarding Senate File 446, the Castle Doctrine Bill. This is an important issue for me and I thank you for sharing your concerns with me.

Current law states that someone cannot justifiably kill someone else unless they believe they are under the threat of great bodily harm or death or preventing someone from committing a felony within their home.

The original theory behind the castle doctrine is that one has the right to protect them self in their own home. The bill would greatly broaden the circumstances when deadly force can be used by allowing the use of deadly force against an attacker anywhere citizens have a legal right to be, if they felt that they were being threatened by an attacker. In addition, the bill would create an assumption that anyone entering or attempting to enter a home, business or vehicle by force or stealth is there to do deadly harm, so use of deadly force against them is justified and, therefore, cannot be prosecuted.

Your opinion will be remembered if this legislations becomes active in the Minnesota Senate. Again, thanks for the email and please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions or concerns that you may have.

Sincerely,

Dan Sparks
State Senator, District 27