(WV Governor) Manchin signs ‘Castle Doctrine’ bill

[Lasher]

Published: April 10, 2008

CHARLESTON — Lifetime National Rifle Association member Joe Manchin ceremoniously signed West Virginia’s version of the Castle Doctrine with a blunt warning Thursday to would-be home invaders.

“Don’t mess with us,” the governor cautioned while signing the bill backed strongly by the NRA in its national campaign to put such laws on the books in all 50 states.

For two years running, retiring Sen. Shirley Love, D-Fayette, pushed the measure, varieties of which are law in 20 other states.

“This has been a long time in coming,” he said as Manchin summoned supporters to a table where he used ceremonial pens to sign the historic measure.

“It’s a bill that could affect all West Virginians. Hunting, the right to bear arms, the Second Amendment have been a heritage of West Virginia because our motto says, ‘Mountaineers are Always Free.’ And it shows the Mountaineer with his rifle.”

http://www.register-herald.com/local/local_story_101220344.html

[iverglas]

1. and yet

“It’s a bill that could affect all West Virginians. Hunting, the right to bear arms, the Second Amendment have been a heritage of West Virginia because our motto says, ‘Mountaineers are Always Free.’ And it shows the Mountaineer with his rifle.”

The "castle doctrine" -- even the perversion of it that goes by that name in these US states -- has precisely bugger all to do with firearms ...


formatting fixed

[slackmaster]

2. Keep pretending that you don't know boo about smack

The change in the law concerns the use of deadly force which, amazingly enough, often involves firearms.

[iverglas]

3. well, I'm not just sure how "hunting" and mountainmen come into it

Except in so far as shooting and killing burglars could be regarded as a sport, which is certainly how some seem to regard it.

Gimme a break. The thing I quoted was just an obnoxious bit of demagoguery designed purely to appeal to a certain kind of people and their emotions, and had absolutely bugger all to do with this legislation.

[slackmaster]

4. You know bupkis about "certain kinds of people and their emotions"

Goose egg. Squat. Zilch.

[iverglas]

5. what I know

is that legislation that is supposedly about individuals being protected from prosecution for supposedly defending themselves in their homes is being pushed BY THE NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION as the prime mover behing every piece of such legislation.

So what I know is that it really has fuck all to do with anybody being protected from defending themselves in their homes, and everything to do with politicians worshipping at the altar of the National Rifle Association, whose aims in this regard are the usual concoction of racism and right-wingery adored by people who have no concern whatsoever for human life.

[beevul]

6. Interesting.

"So what I know is that it really has fuck all to do with anybody being protected from defending themselves in their homes, and everything to do with politicians worshipping at the altar of the National Rifle Association, whose aims in this regard are the usual concoction of racism and right-wingery adored by people who have no concern whatsoever for human life."


Can you tell us all what the legislation actually does - that fits your little diatribe above?

[iverglas]

9. oh yeaaahhhh

Can you tell us all what the legislation actually does

Yes indeed.

I'm going to play a role in that little charade. Not.

Use the search function. Find posts by me with the word Kentucky in them. (You could go for Florida, but I think Kentucky will narrow the field better.)

You'll find how I, and the author of a Harvard law review article about Florida, and a judge in Kentucky, and a prosecutor in Kentucky, and the architect of Kentucky's criminal law, have explained what the legislation actually does.

Feel free to come back with further questions once you've read that material.

The end of history. Every time another state enacts this piece of garbage, it's as if a new millennium had dawned ...



incomprehensible typo fixed

[slackmaster]

19. iverglas hasn't even bothered to read the bill

But if the NRA likes it, it has to be bad. And anything that says "Castle Doctrine" means one expanded far beyond the bounds of one's property. Typical knee-jerk anti-gun reaction.

AN ACT to amend and reenact §55-7-22 of the Code of West Virginia, 1931, as amended, relating to clarifying that reasonable and proportionate force may be used to protect one's self or another from an intruder or attacker while lawfully in one's residence or that of another; codifying the common law doctrine that a lawful occupant within a home or residence has no duty to retreat from an intruder or attacker; clarifying that the use of reasonable and proportionate force, including deadly force, may be used against an intruder or attacker by one not engaged in unlawful activity in any place other than a home or residence where the person reasonably believes the intruder or attacker intends to kill or inflict serious bodily harm; establishing that use of reasonable and proportionate force to defend oneself is a full and complete defense civilly to an action brought by an intruder or attacker based upon the use of such force; and exceptions.

Not even close to the Kentucky of Florida "Castle Doctrine" laws.

More at http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2008_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/SB145%20SUB1%20enr.htm

[iverglas]

23. then somebody's got some 'splainin to do

Would somebody be pulling the wool over the eyes of the good gun-totin, abortion-hatin voters of W.Va. by pretending to give them a "castle doctrine" law and then failing to deliver??

C'mon, slack.
You just accidentally linked to the wrong bill, right?
No intentional misleading there, certainly.
And certainly we shouldn't infer that YOU hadn't read the right bill.

http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2008_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/sb31%20intr.htm

§61-2A-2. Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.


(a) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

(1) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle; and

(2) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

(b) The presumption set forth in subsection (a) of this section does not apply if:

(1) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or

(2) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or

(3) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling,
residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

(4) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law-enforcement officer as defined in section eleven-a, article two-a, chapter twenty-nine of the code, who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law-enforcement officer.

(c) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and 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 or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

(d) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

(e) As used in this section, the term:

(1) "Dwelling" means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.

(2) "Residence" means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.

(3) "Vehicle" means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

With my emphases.

[slackmaster]

25. The Astute Reader will note that I linked to the Enrolled version (i.e. the one that got signed)

You (iverglas) linked to the Introduced version, which is outdated.

Of course accusing ME of dishonesty is a lot easier than admitting error for iverglas.

Keep on twisting, twisting in the breeze!

[iverglas]

27. good lord

They are two separate bills.

Yours:

Be it enacted by the Legislature of West Virginia:
That §55-7-22 of the Code of West Virginia, 1931, as amended, be amended and reenacted to read as follows:
ARTICLE 7. ACTIONS FOR INJURIES.
§55-7-22. Civil relief for persons resisting certain criminal activities.

The other one:

Be it enacted by the Legislature of West Virginia:
That the Code of West Virginia, 1931, as amended, be amended by adding thereto a new article, designated §61-2A-1, §61-2A-2 and §61-2A-3, all to read as follows:
ARTICLE 2A. >>>> CASTLE DOCTRINE ACT. <<<<
... §61-2A-2. Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.


The one referred to in the news item first cited:

Not only does the law provide that residents may use deadly force to repel an intruder or avert a felony crime in the making on one’s property, it allows such actions to be used as a defense in potential litigation.

is the one you cite. It is not properly referred to as a "castle doctrine" law, although the governor in question is presumably making hay by calling it that.

He's being a tad premature. As am I. The bill to which I refer, which IS a "castle doctrine" law, is apparently still in the late stages of gestation, awaiting delivery. Anybody expecting a stillbirth? Not likely, I'd say.



BILL TEXT: Bill Definitions
Introduced Version

SUMMARY:
Relating to castle doctrine generally

SPONSOR(S):
Guills, Barnes,

SUBJECT(S):
Actions and Suits
Crimes (And Related Subheadings)

CODE AFFECTED:
§61 - 2 A- 1 (New Code)
§61 - 2 A- 2 (New Code)
§61 - 2 A- 3 (New Code)

BILL HISTORY:

Date -- Action
01/09/08 To Judiciary
01/09/08 To Judiciary
01/09/08 Introduced in Senate
01/09/08 To Judiciary
01/09/08 Filed for introduction

[slackmaster]

28. I cheated by clicking the "View Completed Legislation" link on the WV legislature home page

http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Status/Bills_all_pass.cfm?year=2008&sessiontype=RS&btype=bill

Here is the history of SB 145:

04/08/08 Chapter 23, Acts, Regular Session, 2008
03/14/08 Approved by Governor 3/12/08 - House Journal
03/12/08 Approved by Governor 3/12/08
03/13/08 Approved by Governor 3/12/08 - Senate Journal 11
03/08/08 To Governor 3/7/08 - House Journal
03/07/08 To Governor 3/7/08 - Senate Journal 2
03/07/08 To Governor 3/7/08
02/29/08 House Message received 2
02/28/08 Completed legislative action
02/28/08 Communicated to Senate 957
02/28/08 Effective from passage (Roll No. 242) 957
02/28/08 Passed House (Roll No. 241) 957
02/28/08 Read 3rd time 957
02/28/08 Read 2nd time
02/28/08 Dispensed with Constitutional Rule (Roll No. 240) 957
02/28/08 Read 1st time 956
02/28/08 Immediate consideration 956
02/28/08 Do pass 956
02/20/08 To House Judiciary 641
02/20/08 To Judiciary
02/20/08 Introduced in House 641
02/19/08 Ordered to House 25
02/19/08 Effective from passage (Roll No. 1) 24
02/19/08 Passed Senate (Roll No. 1) 24
02/19/08 Read 3rd time 24
02/19/08 On 3rd reading
02/18/08 Read 2nd time 23
02/18/08 On 2nd reading
02/15/08 Read 1st time 20
02/15/08 On 1st reading
02/14/08 Committee substitute reported 3-4
01/09/08 To Judiciary 45
01/09/08 To Judiciary 45
01/09/08 Introduced in Senate 44-45
01/09/08 To Judiciary
01/09/08 Filed for introduction

[iverglas]

30. and leaving that tangent aside

How 'bout that Bill SB31, eh?

[slackmaster]

31. Looks like it hasn't moved since January 9 when it went to the Senate Judiciary committee

It would extend the Castle Doctrine to vehicles. I know very little about the legislative process in WV, but I'd say there is a good chance SB 31 is effectively dead since they passed 145.

:shrug:

[slackmaster]

7. It's funny how the far left can sound just like a parody of the far right

"Your commie has no regard for human life, not even his own."

[iverglas]

10. another failed analogy

I would say that racist right-wingers have a great deal of regard for their own lives.

I, not being a racist right-winger, would of course share it.

[friendly_iconoclast]

15. It appears we have an Left version of the John Birch Society here

in which the "National Rifle Association" takes the place
of the "international Communist conspiracy"
with minions everywhere doing their satanic bidding.

I'm waiting for the "US OUT OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT"
billboards to start appearing.

[Turbo Teg]

11. HMM,

The NRA has backed pro-gun democrats. It just so happens that more pro-gun representives are Republican. If we can get more Democrats to be pro-gun, then I guess what, they'd probably back more dems. Do you ever wonder why the NRA is such a powerful force? If there weren't many pro-gun people in the united states, do you think they would be funded so well? Also, since a lawmaker happens to endorse a bill that the NRA supports, that constitutes "Worshipping at the alter"? I'm not buying that.

[iverglas]

13. "It just so happens that more pro-gun representives are Republican."

That's it! You've nailed it!

It's

a

great

big

COINCIDENCE!!!!


Do you ever wonder why the NRA is such a powerful force?

Uh, not really.

[gatts]

14. You know very little, and what you know you know wrong.

Is that legislation that is supposedly about individuals being protected from prosecution for supposedly defending themselves in their homes is being pushed BY THE NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION as the prime mover behing every piece of such legislation.

Excuse me while I channel Kevin Spacey's Lex Luthor, but can we all get together now with a WRONG!

No single version of the Castle Doctrine laws 'protect' from prosecution. By the nature of the court system, there is no way to protect from prosecution without removing every law in the entire book, something Castle Doctrine laws rather obviously do not do. Castle Doctrine laws generally (there's no exact definition, but it varies) only provide extra affirmative defenses, or remove some of the requirements on already existing affirmative defenses. The most common would be not requiring people to prove that fleeing from an assailant within their home was non-viable, an old common law requirement. Other cases provide immunity in a civil lawsuit, if the defendant can demonstrate to prosecutors, judges, and juries that they followed the letter of the law.

Given that the modern "no duty to retreat" doctrine originated in the courts (Minnesota's 1905 State v. Gardner) involving a case where a man was attacked with a gun and fired back, I think it's rather relevant for this forum, and a bit far removed from the NRA's influence -- they didn't get into the political lobbying business until 1934, and didn't do much active lobbying, only informative mailer distribution, until 1975.

[iverglas]

17. post 9

Read it, follow instructions, and rethink the decision to try to teach me to suck eggs.

Given that the modern "no duty to retreat" doctrine originated in the courts (Minnesota's 1905 State v. Gardner) ...

Given the fixation in some quarters on the "duty to retreat" and whatever has been said about it by courts in some backwaters of the USofA ... so what?

"Self-defence" had a meaning long before the USofA was a glint in the eye of that African-American friend of Thomas Jefferson.

If you are a quarter as learnèd as you seem to be portraying yourself, you know that "the duty to retreat" or absence thereof is really tangential to what I have to say about these crapezoid laws.

I've stated the case against these laws comprehensively, with more authoritative supporting opinion, repeatedly. If you want to address that case, inform yourself about what it is.

[slackmaster]

16. Let's connect the dots in iverglas' posts

politicians worshipping at the altar of the National Rifle Association, whose aims in this regard are the usual concoction of racism and right-wingery adored by people who have no concern whatsoever for human life....

...I would say that racist right-wingers have a great deal of regard for their own lives.

iverglas believes that "racist right-wingers" (by whom it is clear that she means anyone including the Democratic legislators who sponsored and supported the WV bill) are not even human.

Argumentum ad hominem, anyone?

[iverglas]

18. hey, that's kinda cute

Can I borrow it sometime?

[slackmaster]

20. I hope you'll take this friendly advice

Don't drink and drill.

[iverglas]

21. here's one for you

Margarine is better than nothing.
Nothing is better than butter.
Margarine is better than butter.

[slackmaster]

22. Keep dancing

[iverglas]

24. backwards

and in high heels, and still doing it better.

Tip of that top had to Ginger and Charlotte.

[friendly_iconoclast]

26. Are the following "worshipping at the altar of the National Rifle Association"?

Howard Dean
Russ Feingold
Jon Tester
Brian Schweitzer
Jim Webb

in your opinion? Do tell.

[iverglas]

29. gimme something to work with here

Which of the listed individuals has introduced, voted for, signed or otherwise been responsible for the enactment of legislation that permits an individual to commit homicide with impunity?

You might want to check the subject of the thread we're in.

And then you probably wouldn't go far wrong if you assumed that that was the subject I was addressing.

Hell, you wouldn't even have to assume anything. I *SAID*:

... legislation that is supposedly about individuals being protected from prosecution for supposedly defending themselves in their homes is being pushed BY THE NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION as the prime mover behing every piece of such legislation.

So what I know is that it<*> really has fuck all to do with anybody being protected from defending themselves in their homes, and everything to do with politicians worshipping at the altar of the National Rifle Association, whose aims in this regard are the usual concoction of racism and right-wingery adored by people who have no concern whatsoever for human life.

<*> where you will note that the referent for the pronoun "it" is legislation that is supposedly about individuals being protected from prosecution for supposedly defending themselves in their homes, i.e legislation that is in fact enacted in order to allow individuals to commit homicide with impunity in the circumstances set out in the bill I have quoted.

[virginia mountainman]

8. Those "DEMOCRATS"..are showing how it is done..

:toast: Now if only our Obama, and Hillary would follow their gleaming example.

[iverglas]

12. George whatsisname was a Democrat, wasn't he?

You know who I mean. That nasty little racist right-winger from parts deeply south.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Manchin

Manchin is considered a moderate by Democratic standards and received national attention for his opposition to abortion as a Roman Catholic

Or, as we say when we're speaking more clearly, for his desire to deny women the exercise of fundamental human rights without justification, as a misogynist asshole.

"Moderate by Democratic standards", right-wing jerk by normal people's standards.

On April 15, 2006, during an Easter visit to U.S. soldiers stationed in Iraq, the governor caused a controversy by posing for photographers while signing two missiles at Balad Air Force Base. One of the messages read "Sending you to hell, from Almost Heaven, West Virginia." He explained his intentions to the media stating, "I just thought, 'Hey, these are people doing tremendous harm to our people.' I wanted to send them a little message." After receiving several complaints, Manchin issued an apology.

Wot a charmer.

Huh. I'm not alone.

http://www.changewv.com/2008/manchin-approval-rating-down-to-57-among-democrats

Manchin’s popularity has waned within the Democratic party to the lowest numbers I’ve seen during his time in office.

Only 57% of West Virginia Democrats approved of the way Manchin did his job.

... My hope is that this is a good sign for Republicans. After all, my guess is Joe is more popular among Republicans than Democrats right now. And, my guess is his approval rating is even higher among independents.

With the House already down the road of Stalinism, and the Senate getting ready to turn over 7 or 8 or 9 new members, moderates and conservatives have to hope that Joe doesn’t get pulled down the road of the House’s brand of liberalism.

Do Democrats compete for endorsements like this? --

http://www.conservatives.org/prolife/2004prolife.htm

President: Please vote for President George W. Bush who is pro-life and against abortion on demand. He signed a bill banning partial-birth abortions and signed Laci and Conner’s Law - the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.

Please do not vote for John Kerry who supports abortion for any reason - all nine months of pregnancy. John Kerry voted against the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban six times. He voted against the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. Kerry even voted to use taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions. Kerry has pledged that he will only appoint pro-abortion justices to the Supreme Court.

Governor: Please vote for Joe Manchin. Manchin has a 100% pro-life voting record and a 22 year public record of standing up for the rights of unborn children.

I'm no fan of Obama, but sometimes he gets things right.


Heh. Summing it up:
http://www.slate.com/id/2102496/entry/2102497/
"How Kerry can win W. Va.'s abortion-hating gun-toting voters."