According to the federal court that gave the decision that Illinois 'will' have CC, upon an agreement by the states legislature, there has to be a training and application in force by 160 days later. BUT!!! we know how be ask and are granted an extension waiver. The ISP site states to check back when trained and approve instructors are available and who. BUT!!! we know how extensions happen too....yes, I will agree, 9-12 months is about right.
We've had the Castle Law for some time now and we've had also, that we could carry open on one's property only, especially if you live in a rural county. If anyone that does not come to my front door and ring or knock on my door to see or enter my home, then they are entering illegally...IMO
Each state differs in the way it incorporates the castle doctrine into its laws, what premises are covered (abode only, or other places too), what degree of retreat or non-deadly resistance is required before deadly force can be used, etc.
Typical conditions that apply to some Castle Doctrine laws include:[citation needed]
An intruder must be making (or have made) an attempt to unlawfully or forcibly enter an occupied residence, business, or vehicle.
The intruder must be acting unlawfully (the Castle Doctrine does not allow a right to use force against officers of the law, acting in the course of their legal duties).
The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon an occupant of the home. Some states apply the Castle Doctrine if the occupant(s) of the home reasonably believe the intruder intends to commit a lesser felony such as arson or burglary.
The occupant(s) of the home must not have provoked or instigated an intrusion; or, provoked/instigated an intruder's threat or use of deadly force.
In all cases, the occupant(s) of the home: must be there legally; must not be fugitives from the law, themselves, or, aiding/abetting other fugitives; and, must not use force upon an officer of the law performing a legal duty[citation needed].
Immunity from civil lawsuit[edit]
In addition to providing a valid defense in criminal law, many laws implementing the Castle Doctrine, particularly those with a "Stand-Your-Ground clause," also have a clause which provides immunity from any civil lawsuits filed on behalf of the assailant (for damages/injuries resulting from the force used to stop them). Without this clause, an assailant could sue for medical bills, property damage, disability, and pain & suffering as a result of the injuries inflicted by the defender; or, if the force results in the assailant's death, his/her next-of-kin or estate could launch a wrongful death suit. Even if successfully rebutted, the defendant (the homeowner/defender) may still have to pay high legal costs leading up to the suit's dismissal. Without criminal/civil immunity, such civil action could be used as revenge against a lawfully-acting defender (who was, originally, the assailant's victim).
Use of force in self-defense which causes damage or injuries to other, non-criminally-acting parties, may not be shielded from criminal or civil prosecution, however.
Duty-to-retreat[edit]
"Castle laws" remove the duty to retreat before using deadly force when one is in their home or in some U.S. states just simply where one can legally be.[6]
Stand-your-ground[edit]
Main article: Stand-your-ground law
In some states in the United States, one can use deadly force in any location one is legally allowed to be without first attempting to retreat. Such laws remove the requirement that the threat must occur on one's own property.
Origins[edit]
According to 18th-century Presbyterian minister and biblical commentator Matthew Henry, the prohibition of murder found in the Torah contains an exception for legitimate self-defense. A home defender who struck and killed a thief caught in the act of breaking in at night was not guilty of bloodshed. “If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the thief owes no blood-debt to the home-defender; but if the thief lives, he owes a blood-debt to the home-defender and must make restitution.”[7][8]
The American interpretation of this doctrine is largely derived from the English Common Law as it stood in the 18th century. In Book 4, Chapter 16[9] of William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, he states that the laws "leave him (the inhabitant) the natural right of killing the aggressor (the burglar)" and goes on to generalize in the following words:
And the law of England has so particular and tender a regard to the immunity of a man's house, that it stiles it his castle, and will never suffer it to be violated with immunity: agreeing herein with the sentiments of ancient Rome, as expressed in the works of Tully;[10] quid enim sanctius, quid omni religione munitius, quam domus unusquisque civium?[11] For this reason no doors can in general be broken open to execute any civil process; though, in criminal causes, the public safety supersedes the private. Hence also in part arises the animadversion of the law upon eaves-droppers, nusancers, and incendiaries: and to this principle it must be assigned, that a man may assemble people together lawfully without danger of raising a riot, rout, or unlawful assembly, in order to protect and defend his house; which he is not permitted to do in any other case.
—William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England
Not only was the doctrine considered to justify defense against neighbors and criminals, but any of the crown's agents who attempted to enter without a proper warrant as well. It should be noted that prohibitions of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution share a common background with current castle doctrine laws.[citation needed]
State-by-state positions[edit]
For the states with a Castle Doctrine, an external link is provided to the text of the specific statute, if available. If a direct link is unavailable, for example if the destination website uses JavaScript, the statute name and/or number is listed.
States with a Stand-your-ground Law[edit]
No duty to retreat, regardless of where attack takes place.
Main article: Stand-your-ground law
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
California (Stand-your-ground exists in case law. Criminal jury instructions affirm no duty to retreat both in the home (CALCRIM 506) and elsewhere (CALCRIM 3470 and 505).[12] Castle Doctrine appears in California Penal Code § 198.5, which creates a presumption of reasonable fear of imminent peril when force is used against an unlawful intruder in one's residence.[13])
Florida
Georgia
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky [14]
Louisiana
Michigan [15]
Mississippi
Montana[dead link]
Nevada
New Hampshire (A proposed law was vetoed in 2011,[16] but the veto was overridden and the new law took effect November 2011.[17])
North Carolina
North Dakota
Oklahoma Title 21§1290.1 et seq
Pennsylvania (Recent legislation extends Castle Doctrine to occupied vehicles and the work place. Stand-your-ground rights extended to any place the defender has a right to be with specified exceptions; notably, the attacker must brandish a lethal weapon.)
South Carolina
Tennessee 2007 Tenn. Pub. Acts Ch. 210 (Amends Tenn. Code. Ann. § 39-11-611)
Texas (Established for individual's habitation in 1995 by House Bill 94 and extended to vehicle or workplace effective September 1, 2007 by Senate Bill 378.[18] Senate Bill 378 also "abolishes the duty to retreat if the defendant can show he: (1) had a right to be present at the location where deadly force was used; (2) did not provoke the person against whom deadly force was used; and (3) was not engaged in criminal activity at the time deadly force was used."[19])
Utah
Virginia (Case law, no statute)
Washington (Homicide justifiable in the lawful defense of self or other persons present; and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished ...or in the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony... or upon or in a dwelling, or other place...)
West Virginia
States with a Castle Law[edit]
No duty to retreat if in the home.
Colorado "...any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant." 18-1-704.5 Use of deadly physical force against an intruder.[dead link]
Connecticut
Hawaii (Retreat required outside the home if it can be done in "complete safety.")
Idaho
Illinois (Use of deadly force justified. Specific legislation prevents filing claim against defender of dwelling. Illinois has no requirement of retreat.)
Iowa (No duty to retreat from home or place of business in defense of self or a "third party".)
Maine (Deadly force justified to terminate criminal trespass AND another crime within home, or to stop unlawful and imminent use of deadly force, or to effect a citizen's arrest against deadly force; duty to retreat not specifically removed)[20]
Maryland See Maryland self-defense (Case-law, not statute, incorporates the common law castle-doctrine into Maryland self-defense law. Invitees or guests may have duty to retreat based on mixed case law.)
Massachusetts
Minnesota No duty to retreat before using deadly force to prevent a felony in one's place of abode; no duty to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense in one's place of abode [21]) This isn't as clear as it appears, however. There are four cases in Minnesota where duty of retreat was upheld.[22]
Missouri (Extends to any building, inhabitable structure, or conveyance of any kind, whether the building, inhabitable structure, or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile (e.g., a camper, RV or mobile home), which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night, whether the person is residing there temporarily, permanently or visiting (e.g., a hotel or motel), and any vehicle. The defense against civil suits is absolute and includes the award of attorney's fees, court costs, and all reasonable expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff.)
New Jersey (Retreat required if actor knows he can avoid necessity of deadly force in complete safety, etc. EXCEPT not obliged to retreat from dwelling, unless the initial aggressor)
North Carolina§ 14‑51.3. Use of force in defense of person; relief from criminal or civil liability.(a) A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that the conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat in any place he or she has the lawful right to be if either of the following applies
1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another.(2) Under the circumstances permitted pursuant to G.S. 14‑51.2.(b) A person who uses force as permitted by this section is justified in using such force and is immune from civil or criminal liability for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer or bail bondsman who was lawfully acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer or bail bondsman identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer or bail bondsman in the lawful performance of his or her official duties. (2011‑268, s. 1.)
Ohio (Extends to vehicles of self and immediate family; effective September 9, 2008.[23] Section 2901.09)
Oregon. (ORS 161.209-229. Use of force justifiable in a range of scenarios without a duty to retreat specified. Oregon Supreme Court affirmed in State of Oregon v. Sandoval that the law "sets out a specific set of circumstances that justify a person's use of deadly force (that the person reasonably believes that another person is using or about to use deadly force against him or her) and does not interpose any additional requirement (including a requirement that there be no means of escape).")
Rhode Island
Wisconsin (Assembly Bill 69, signed December 7, 2011) The civil immunity became Sec. 895.62, Wis.Stats. and the criminal immunity became Sec. 939.48, Wis.Stats.
Wyoming[dead link]
States with weak or no specific Castle Law[edit]
These states uphold castle doctrine in general, but may rely on case law instead of specific legislation, may enforce a duty to retreat, and may impose specific restrictions on the use of deadly force.
District of Columbia
Nebraska - a bill was introduced in January 2012 that allowed deadly force against a person who broke into a house or occupied vehicle or who tried to kidnap someone from a house or vehicle, however the bill was revised to include only an affirmative defense from lawsuits pertaining to justifiable use of force.[24]
New Mexico
New York - Allows for the use of "reasonable force" in self-defense against Home Invasion.[citation needed]
South Dakota "Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person while resisting any attempt to murder such person, or to commit any felony upon him or her, or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person is." SD Codified Laws 22-16-34 (2005).
Vermont
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeP
1st time I heard of a stand your ground law in Illinois, but I'm only 66.
I do know if you shoot somebody he just about has to be in your bed and better have an ax or a gun in his cold dead hand.
We are just now getting a CCW law which might start in actual use in about a year.
We must be aware that though there have been some firearm law successes lately, that the antis will never let up.
They will continue to come from every angle and crack they can find.
Facts and statistics mean nothing to them.
We just saw what some fool wannabee has caused and that will be ringing a long time.
I just read another thread where another idiot thought a badge for CCW would be a good idea.
2nd time I have seen that. Both got roundly pummelled.
|