[sbg2340]

Well as of monday , i have learned something new while riding the public trainsportation here in town, it seems that due to the castle doctrine law which was pasted here a few years ago , the city has taken the " no firearms allowed " on the bus out of all public infomation that you would find on the bus , this is the same info. that tells you what you can and cann't carry on the bus.


It seems that the city and the transportion company has seen the light due to the new law , and now allow the carring of a firearm ( concealed no doubt ) on the bus. Remember we have a right to defend ourselfs even in public place's and on public bus systems.

 

[stugots]

Well as of monday , i have learned something new while riding the public trainsportation here in town, it seems that due to the castle doctrine law which was pasted here a few years ago , the city has taken the " no firearms allowed " on the bus out of all public infomation that you would find on the bus , this is the same info. that tells you what you can and cann't carry on the bus.

It seems that the city and the transportion company has seen the light due to the new law , and now allow the carring of a firearm ( concealed no doubt ) on the bus. Remember we have a right to defend ourselfs even in public place's and on public bus systems.

Let's not forget, I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by six. Other than the gov buildings, I will always carry concealed. Better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it.

 

[Happysniper1]

Moved to 2nd Amendment & Legal.

 

[PUNISHER]

Missouri is working on it.

http://www.kmov.com/news/local/New-...arry-on-Metro-trains-and-buses-146784655.html

 

[jonm61]

There was a big outcry here when they started allowing carry on buses and trains. No surprise, nothing happened.

Initially, the MARTA police were harrassing anyone that they found out or who was reported to be carrying. Then someone sued them and they stopped. Bear in mind, open carry is legal here and the freaked out anti gun people would report people who were printing or who's gun they got a glimpse of.

 

[SHOOTER13]

Makes sense...you may need a gun when using public transportation.

 

[iGlock]

You may need a gun when using public transportation.

I can second that from experince. My father drives the city buses. He drives right now in phx but back in LA where i grew up, he drove down there. Ive seen some pretty crazy stuff happen. Fights, stabings, muggings, and also shootings but thankfully i wasnt there when guns came flying out.

 

[RockoutwithmyGlockout]

Castle doctrine is great to have. Anyone that needs it will be protected from being prosecuted for exercising their right to defending themselves or others.

 

[dslmac2]

When you are attacked you don nott have to run away and can stand your ground and defend yourself.

Imagine that: you don't have to flee your home or car to defend yourself, and people who break into your home at 3:00 a.m. are presumed to intend you harm. Who could possibly object to that? As it turns out, a great many people do, as Castle Doctrine laws are not yet universal. One of the primary objections is that they give carte blanche to murder and later claim self-defense.

 

[brannon67]

Yeah, dont fear the crazy, convicted criminals out there riding public transportation that get their guns illegally, but fear the law abiding citizens, that spend time at the range, take classes, fill out the paperwork, wait, and have no criminal record and have a legal concealed carry permit. That makes alot of sense doesnt it. Fools....No common sense at all, They will never get it. Never.

 

[brannon67]

– When you are attacked you don’t have to run away and can “stand your ground” and defend yourself.

Imagine that: you don’t have to flee your home or car to defend yourself, and people who break into your home at 3:00 a.m. are presumed to intend you harm. Who could possibly object to that? As it turns out, a great many people do, as Castle Doctrine laws are not yet universal. One of the primary objections is that they give carte blanche to murder and later claim self-defense.

Well, you are not allowed to defend your property. Its all about the criminal. Who cares that you have a family you have to protect, and a home and property you have to defend against some scum trying to take it. Its all about the criminal, not you, us the law abiding citizens.

 

[Support Gunner]

Illinois don't have a castle doctrine law. Why? Cause even tho Illinois isn't the most gun friendly state, we still have a no duty to retreat. We don't need a castle dotrine cause our laws on this subject are good IMO.


(720 ILCS 5/7-1) Sec. 7-1. Use of force in defense of person.
A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another, or the commission of a forcible felony.

(720 ILCS 5/7-2) Sec. 7-2. Use of force in defense of dwelling.
A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's unlawful entry into or attack upon a dwelling. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if:
(a) The entry is made or attempted in a violent, riotous, or tumultuous manner, and he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent an assault upon, or offer of personal violence to, him or another then in the dwelling, or
(B ) He reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a felony in the dwelling.

(720 ILCS 5/7-3) Sec. 7-3. Use of force in defense of other property.
A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with either real property (other than a dwelling) or personal property, lawfully in his possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his immediate family or household or of a person whose property he has a legal duty to protect. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

(720 ILCS 5/7-8) Sec. 7-8. Force likely to cause death or great bodily harm.
(a) Force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm, within the meaning of Sections 7-5 and 7-6 includes:
(1) The firing of a firearm in the direction of the person to be arrested, even though no intent exists to kill or inflict great bodily harm; and
(2) The firing of a firearm at a vehicle in which the person to be arrested is riding.
(B ) A peace officer's discharge of a firearm using ammunition designed to disable or control an individual without creating the likelihood of death or great bodily harm shall not be considered force likely to cause death or great bodily harm within the meaning of Sections 7-5 and 7-6.

As for civil immunity:

(B ) In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7-4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.
(Source: P.A. 93-832, eff. 7-28-04.)

you can read it all here:http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilc...&ChapterID=53&SeqStart=8200000&SeqEnd=9700000

 

[dslmac2]

Florida's Castle Doctrine - Points, Read more using link at bottom:

Q. What if I am in my vehicle?
A. A person has no duty to retreat in his lawfully occupied vehicle against a person who was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering or had unlawfully and forcefully entered an occupied vehicle or had unlawfully and forcefully removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the occupied vehicle.

Q. What if someone is attacking me in my own home?
A. The courts have created an exception to the duty to retreat called the “castle doctrine.” Under the castle doctrine, you need not retreat from your own home to avoid using deadly force against an assailant. The castle doctrine applies if you are attacked in your own home by an intruder.


Q. What if I am in my place of business and someone comes in to rob me? Do I have to retreat before using deadly force?
A. The castle doctrine also applies when you are in your place of business. If you are in danger of death or great bodily harm or you are trying to prevent a forcible felony, you do not have to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense.


Q. When can I use deadly force in the defense of another person?
A. If you see someone who is being attacked, you can use deadly force to defend him/her if the circumstances would justify that person's use of deadly force in his/her own defense. In other words, you "stand in the shoes" of the person being attacked.


Q. What if I see a crime being committed?
A. A license to carry a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman. But, as stated earlier, deadly force is justified if you are trying to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. The use of deadly force must be absolutely necessary to prevent the crime. Also, if the criminal runs away, you cannot use deadly force to stop him, because you would no longer be "preventing" a crime. If use of deadly force is not necessary, or you use deadly force after the crime has stopped, you could be convicted of manslaughter.



Florida Self-Defense: http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/self_defense.html


Florida Statutes: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes...ng=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html

 

[glock19desertranger]

Does anyone know if the castle doctrine applies in California?

 

[Levelcross]

The argument here is that this will make people feel safer and, in turn, more people will use Metro transportation.

"Anytime you possess firearms I believe that is going to be the greatest deterrent to crime and we are trying to make it safer for law abiding citizens," Representative Delus Johnson (R), a co-sponsor of the bill, said.

I almost fell out when I read this, someone is finally seeing the light or is willing to go on record for having said it.

The Castle Doctrine should have never been needed, why would anyone expect you to run from anything in your own home? If you break in to a house you should expect to find a home owner well armed.

 

[sturedman]

I live in West Virginia. Ohio is 3 miles to my west. In West Virginia, we are under the Castle Doctrine. In Ohio, they aren't. If someone is breaking into your front door in Ohio, you are required to flee out the back door. Which is one of the reasons, I won't live across the river

 

[dutchs]

I live in West Virginia. Ohio is 3 miles to my west. In West Virginia, we are under the Castle Doctrine. In Ohio, they aren't. If someone is breaking into your front door in Ohio, you are required to flee out the back door. Which is one of the reasons, I won't live across the river

I was raised in Ohio, Sorry, IMHO, that is a stupid law! How about protecting the law abiding public instead of the moron that just broke in my house??

 

[jonm61]

I live in West Virginia. Ohio is 3 miles to my west. In West Virginia, we are under the Castle Doctrine. In Ohio, they aren't. If someone is breaking into your front door in Ohio, you are required to flee out the back door. Which is one of the reasons, I won't live across the river

Generally, even in states without a "castle doctrine" you are not required to flee from your own residence. Even if that is stated in the law, there are always circumstances that can override that as standard defense of self and others.

For instance, if the intruder is armed, you are defending yourself. If you have children who are on the opposite end of the house, you are defending them, whether the intruder is armed or not.

When someone breaks into your home, violence has already occurred. There are any number of things in your home that they could acquire and use as a weapon. You have to believe that if they have broken into an occupied home, they intend violence.

 

[Glock22Gen3]

I live in a state with no castle doctrine law and if I shoot someone for b&e my ass is in a jam!!! I too am suppose to run. If he draws on me and I fire back I can only go as far as it takes to stop the threat. Then there better be a round fired from his weapon too.

 

[Levelcross]

I live in a state with no castle doctrine law and if I shoot someone for b&e my ass is in a jam!!! I too am suppose to run. If he draws on me and I fire back I can only go as far as it takes to stop the threat. Then there better be a round fired from his weapon too.

Sorry to hear these type of gun laws. Fortunately here in NC if they are trying to break in I have the right to shoot, I do not have to flee. The Castle Doctrine should be a common sense law, "If you do not want to DIE...do NOT break into my house". Yeah I said that.


"Run the gun until it is empty or broken" Clint Smith