The proposed Castle Doctrine law being considered in the Texas legislature is getting the typical Brady Campaign treatment. An examination of their tactics is a good study for any state considering the law.
Does Brady Care More About Criminals Than Law-Abiding Victims?
Brady came out against Castle Doctrine because of its impact on criminals:
“The law only changes things for the bad guy,” Mr. Ragbourn said. “The good guys already had the law on their side.”1
If Castle Doctrine “only changes things for the bad guy,” a reasonable person would support it, so why is Brady complaining? They continue with misleading partial-truths in an attempt to convince us this law is unnecessary, when Mr. Ragbourn states: “case law already allows people to defend themselves.”2
Under current law, citizens usually have the “right” to defend themselves, but that does not preclude overly-aggressive prosecution or being robbed a second time via civil suit.
After ordering a home invader–on probation from a prior offense–to leave, Michael Rainiero shot him once, wounding him. The district attorney ruled it justified self-defense, but the criminal sued him in civil court for “severe and permanent injuries, relentless pain, and loss of earning capacity.”3
When a criminal entered their place of business and threatened them with a gun, Eli Crespo and Jerry Vega attacked and disarmed him. The aggressor “pleaded guilty to first-degree robbery and was sentenced to 18 years in prison as a repeat violent felon.” That didn’t stop him from suing the store and employees, accusing them of “intentionally inflicted emotional distress.”4
The best-case scenario in the above stories is that the defender pays a large legal bill. Castle Doctrine law would protect defenders from such frivolous law suits, forcing the consequences of such action back upon the criminal:
It is an affirmative defense to a civil action for damages for personal injury or death that the defendant, at the time the cause of action arose, was justified in using force or deadly force…
A defendant who prevails in asserting the affirmative defense…may recover from the plaintiff all court costs, reasonable attorney’s fees, earned income that was lost as a result of the suit, and other reasonable expenses.5
But since Castle Doctrine changes the legal environment “for the bad guy,” Mr. Ragbourn dislikes it.
The Big Lie About Castle DoctrineContradicting his previous statement, Brady’s Ragbourn continues:
All that’s changed is there is now an extra defense for somebody who shoots somebody.
The castle doctrine laws are so broad…that they allow people to kill someone and then tell law enforcement they were afraid for their safety at the time.6
Not ignoring an opportunity to talk to the press, Brady’s Peter Hamm chimes in as well:
It’s not Castle Doctrine. That’s in the home and you have a right to defend the home…This is the Kingdom Doctrine and you can kill someone anywhere in public. That’s a far cry from the home.”7
The Texas legislation specifies precise criteria for justifying deadly force:
[W]hen and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.8
Furthermore, such force is justified only if the aggressor :
(1) unlawfully entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully, the actor ’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(2) unlawfully removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment of the actor; or
(3) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described [above].9
Being “afraid for [one’s] safety” is a very vague reason for justifying deadly force, likely to entangle somebody in the criminal justice system.
Hamm states: “you have a right to defend the home.” Richard Dixon had no such right. This Navy veteran shot and wounded a “career burglar” with a “14-page rap sheet” who broke into his family’s New York City home that he worked seven days a week to pay the mortgage for. Dixon used a handgun he had legally purchased before moving to NYC, and was in the process of registering it as per NYC law. Because the gun was unlicensed, he was charged with a crime.10
Counter to our legal system’s presumption of innocence, NYC’s 1911 Sullivan Act assumes anybody with a handgun is a criminal or intends to commit a crime. As judges noted in the New York State Appeals Court in 1913:
…Legislature has now picked out one particular kind of arm, the handy, the usual, and the favorite weapon of the turbulent criminal class, and has said that in our organized communities, our cities, towns, and villages where the public peace is protected by the officers of organized government, the citizen may not have that particular kind of weapon without a permit… If he has it in his possession, he can readily stick it in his pocket when he goes abroad.11
Despite judges’ admission that the law against concealed carry “did not seem effective in preventing crimes of violence,” the court restricted civilian ownership anyway, ignoring the fact that the very features which made handguns the “favorite weapon of the turbulent criminal class” also made it the tool of choice for the law-abiding citizen seeking to protect their lives and livelihoods from this same criminal class. Instead, the court sought to reassure us (or them?) that the “public peace is protected by the officers of organized government.” This is a very curious statement, because United States higher court rulings consistently conclude the police are under no legal obligation to provide protection to any particular citizen.12
Brady gave New York a B+ in their 2005 report card, indicating support for the state’s restrictive gun laws.13 Yes, Peter, it’s not about Castle Doctrine: It’s about gun confiscation.
“Hammies”
Mr. Hamm is long on bombast and short on scholasticism: an internet search of “Kingdom Doctrine” brought zero results.
“[Y]ou can kill someone anywhere in public.” This sounds remarkably blood-thirsty for somebody whose organization claims to promote civility. One should understand law-abiding citizens before condemning them.
Criminal firearm murders increased 13.6% between 2001 and 2005, while civilian justifiable homicides using firearms decreased 21.9%.14,15 Between 2001 and 2005, the number of states with shall-issue concealed carry laws increased from 32 to 38 while justifiable homicides using a handgun decreased 16.8%. This indicates responsible use and highlights the psychological difference between criminals and peaceable citizens.16 Who is focusing on killing here?
Mr. Hamm couldn’t resist gloating when the New York State Rifle Association campaigned for right-to-carry:
“Oh yeah, that’s going to happen when hell freezes over…”17
Considering that New York state is in the midst of record snow fall, could he be getting his wish?18
About the Author
Howard Nemerov is a frequent guest on NRA News. He can be reached at HNemerov [at sign] Netvista.net.
Endnotes[1] Brandon Formby, Bill to seek ‘castle doctrine’ crime protection, The Dallas Morning News, October 13, 2006. http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-castle_13wes.ART0.North.Edition1.3e193c8.html
2 Ibid.
3 Accused Burglar Sues Homeowner Who Shot Him, Yahoo! News, September 28, 2006. http://news.yahoo.com/s/wisn/20060928/lo_wisn/9950016
4 Associated Press, Foiled burglar sues for emotional distress, Star Tribune, June 10, 2006. http://www.startribune.com/484/story/485319.html
5 H.B. 284 A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT relating to the use of force or deadly force in defense of a person, Texas Legislature, section 4, page 4. http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/billtext/pdf/HB00284I.pdf
6 Brandon Formby, Bill to seek ‘castle doctrine’ crime protection, The Dallas Morning News, October 13, 2006.
7 Jim Vertuno, Bills filed in Austin to shoot first, retreat later in self-defense, Houston Chronicle, February 12, 2007. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/metro/4547130.html
8 H.B. 284 A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT relating to the use of force or deadly force in defense of a person, Texas Legislature. http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/billtext/pdf/HB00284I.pdf
9 Ibid.
10 Patrice O’Shaughnessy, Hero dad under the gun, New York Daily News, January 19, 2003. http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/52803p-49473c.html
11 Darling v. Warden, 154 App. Div. 413, 139 N.Y.S. 277 (1913)http://www.guncite.com/court/state/139nys277.html
12 See examples:
DESHANEY v. WINNEBAGO CTY. SOC. SERVS. DEPT., 489 U.S. 189 (1989) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=489&invol=189
Warren et al v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C.App. 1981)http://www.healylaw.com/cases/warren2.htm
Riss v. City of New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579 (1968) http://www.healylaw.com/cases/riss.htm
John D. Brophy, Public Safety: Fact or Fiction? August 14, 2003. http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Crime/Articles/PublicSafetyFactOrFiction.htm
13 Brady Campaign State Report Cards Show State Legislatures Are Failing to Protect Kids from the Dangers of Illegal Guns, The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, April 2006. http://www.bradycampaign.org/bradyreport/2006/april/reportcards/ (Use drop-down list to select each state’s 2005 grade.)
14 Expanded Homicide Data Table 7: Murder Victims by Weapon, 2001-2005, Federal Bureau of Investigation. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_07.html
15 Expanded Homicide Data Table 14: Justifiable Homicide by Weapon, Private Citizen, 2001-2005, Federal Bureau of Investigation. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_14.html
16 Right-to-Carry 2007, National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action. http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=18
17 Matthew Chayes, N.Y. Gun Enthusiasts Call for Automatic Issuing of Permits, New York Sun, September 7, 2006. http://www.nysun.com/article/39238 Page 2. http://www.nysun.com/article/39238?page_no=2
18 William Kates, More Snow Expected in Midwest, N.Y., My Way, February 13, 2007. http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070213/D8N8PUTG1.html
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Most pro gun control folks ar
February 14, 2007 - 15:30 ET by bassndudeMost pro gun control folks are like the rest of the liberals. They make a habit of misrepresentation, (lies), to get people to oppose such laws. For my money, every state should require every law abiding citizen to carry a gun. Not to carry should be a crime.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Not to carry should be a crim
February 14, 2007 - 16:16 ET by bigtimerI love that line bass!
You should run for office....
Not Carrying a Crime?
February 14, 2007 - 17:46 ET by Howard NemerovI can see that. If you don't carry, it means you are unwilling to support your fellow citizens in time of desperate need, and this could be interpreted as incivility. My one concern: how do we square this with the Bill of Rights? Is there not a certain peremptory demand being placed upon people who may not want to own a gun? Would this therefore become the flip side of those who want to push their confiscation scheme on us? Greenleaf Idaho, which recently enacted a law requiring a gun in each house, exempted those who have conscientious objections to doing so. Granted, the Quakers could only get away with their religious objections during the Revolution because they were a small minority, while the majority fought to protect their religious freedom. See how complicated things get when we consider a new law? Unintended consequences!
Greenleaf, Idaho may have hit
February 14, 2007 - 20:21 ET by BufordGreenleaf, Idaho may have hit upon an idea to thwart gun crimes in its communnity. Even if not every citizen decides to abide by the law, the thug has to ask himself, is this a safe house for me to attack?
The nearest thing to eternal life we will ever see on this earth is a government program. Ronald Reagan
Kennesaw, Georgia has this la
February 14, 2007 - 21:50 ET by MikeBKennesaw, Georgia has this law on their books. Last I checked, they also had the lowest crime rate of any city of comparable size in the U.S. Coincidence? I don't think so.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
MikeB Kennesaw GA
February 15, 2007 - 01:01 ET by misterbillMikeB Kennesaw GA. I moved out of Kennesaw last June (2005) . People were discharging their weapons day and night. Dead bodies lined the streets.
NOT NOT NOT !!
People have less crime when the bad guys wonder if they are going to get their a$$es shot off if they break into a house. Also, in Acworth Ga, the next town from Kennesaw, two years ago, a carjacker with a gun jumped a car with a young housewife in it. He crashed and killed her. In the melee, a local Acworth man shot the carjacker dead. The carjacker had his gun out and was prepared to shoot anyone in his way. The good citizen was exonerated.
What an excellent article.
February 14, 2007 - 21:26 ET by DesperadoWhat an excellent article. You know if you look at the places where legal gun ownership is prohibited (or ridiculously cumbersome) like Chicago and DC, you will see higher crime rates. As a criminal, it's safe to assume law abiding citizens will be defenseless, and if by chance you get hurt, you can always fall back to the civic courts and sue.
The liberals have aligned themselves with these criminal interests because one of the first rules of Socialism is to take away the people's right to defend themselves so that the government can take over all aspects of society without confrontation. Heck, they can simply vote themselves the power!
This is the first I have heard of this new bill, which is a shame. You know that if it was gun control restrictions we would be hearing about it like it was global warming.
We've had a great Castle law
February 15, 2007 - 11:13 ET by BruzillaWe've had a great Castle law here in Florida for over a year now, and shockingly there has been no rush of Floridians to run out and shoot each other for no reason. There have been two shootings during this time that invoked the law. One was a man who confronted three armed teens who were breaking into cars in his apartment complex, who hit him in the head when he confronted them, and when he saw one of them had a gun he opened fire killing one. He was found to be 100% justified. The second case involved one roommate shooting another, but police found that the shooter had been doing some extensive checking into the Castle Law on his computer before the shooting and he was arrested and charged. I think that the facet of discussion that the Brady-types miss is that these laws effect the use of deadly force by law-abiding citizens, and law-abiding citizens just don't go killing for no reason.
Do Castle laws help? I don't think there's any empiracal evidence yet, but I think that a similar law does show that they work. When carjacking started becoming an issue in the early 1980s, Florida passed a law making it legal to keep a loaded handgun in your car - provided it took two steps to fire it, meaning the gun had to be in a holster, under a set, in the glove compartment, etc. So you would have to unholster the weapon, or remove it from under the seat, before firing it. Shortly after the law went into effect, there was a rash of attacks on tourists as they left the airport in Miami that had the police baffled until they finally caught some of the offenders. What they learned was the reason tourists were targeted was at the time rental car license plates had the letter Z at the end, and the criminals were pretty sure that anyone leaving the airport with a Z tag was from out of state. Since Floridians were allowed to keep guns in there car, the criminals knew that they only way to carjack someone and not risk getting shot was to hit someone from out of state who wouldn't have a gun. Once this was discovered, the rental cars got the same tags as everyone else and the attacks immediately stopped.
What's important in all of this is that it didn't matter that only about 1 in 10,000 Florida drivers actually had a gun in their car, the criminals were unwilling to risk their lives even the relative risk was extremely low. So what we learned is that you don't need to arm everyone to deter criminals, you only need to make the possibility of encountering an armed citizen more likely and that has the same effect.
What really amazes me is that the same Liberals who have no problem with trusting someone who's known to be a torturer and kidnapper, and who's vowed to wipe out an entire population, with nuclear weapons; yet they are terrified of a law-abiding citizen carrying a pistol to protect themselves.
"...yet they are terrifi
February 15, 2007 - 11:23 ET by MikeB"...yet they are terrified of a law-abiding citizen carrying a pistol to protect themselves." This is so true. And, for a moment I thought I had The answer for that terror: if a law-abiding citizen shot and killed a felon, that would eliminate one more voter for the Democrat(ic) Party. Then I realized that was not a valid viewpoint. After all, dead people vote Democrat(ic), too.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
Are you just stupid?
February 15, 2007 - 18:45 ET by saurusThis is hilarious:)
Last summer I was in Arkansas (a Must Approve state) visiting an old Marine Corps buddy who currently teaches a concealed carry course in Hot Springs. We stopped by his favorite donut shop before heading to the range to burn a few hundreds rounds.
Sitting at a table with our "coffee and" and enjoying conversation with maybe a dozen other folks known to my buddy ... we were imterupted by some lunatic barging in with a gun announcing a stickup. My buddy says "watch this", and before you could blink this moron was staring down the barrel of 5 or 6 handguns of various calibre.
Shortly thereafter the local gendarmes arrived and the first comment out of one of their mouths was ... "Idiot - don't you know where you are?"
I guess you had to be there:)