N.D. House approves 'shoot the burglar' law

[_BT_]

BISMARCK, N.D. The North Dakota House has approved a bill that would give people the right to shoot someone who breaks into their home. And they wouldn't have to worry about being prosecuted or sued.

It would also apply to incidents in a person's vehicle and workplace.

The measure says an individual threatened by an intruder may use deadly force and is not required to avoid a confrontation.

North Dakota's existing law has what is called a "duty to retreat" to avoid an armed confrontation. The proposed law eliminates the "duty to retreat."

The bill has met with a lot of opposition from law officers and prosecutors who say it isn't necessary. One House member says it promotes the concept of shooting first and asking questions later.

[Whynot]

Good on them. A person should never have to retreat from their own house.

[GT086]

Damn good law but Florida's is still better. Every state should adops the Florida law.

[LITE SPD]

This law is no good. Texas has a law like this and look what it did for them. They are all apeshit down there!

[Joe Momma]

What is Florida's Law?

I Know in NV I spoke with a Cop before buying my AR-15 for "home Defense" and he said if you shoot anyone who comes into your house regardless of the weapon make sure you empty it to prove you were in fear for your life. One thing we can't do is shoot someone who is unarmed on property outside of the residence though.

[_BT_]

I think it's a great law. If someone broke into my house I wouldnt want to he held liable for definding myself.

[GT086]

What is Florida's Law?
It includes outside in public too.

[Joe Momma]

Sweet but I can't picture a retiree walking around with a .357 in his front yard lol

[Quantim0]

What is Florida's Law?

I Know in NV I spoke with a Cop before buying my AR-15 for "home Defense" and he said if you shoot anyone who comes into your house regardless of the weapon make sure you empty it to prove you were in fear for your life. One thing we can't do is shoot someone who is unarmed on property outside of the residence though.

Um, don't do that. The only thing you want to do when using a firearm in defence is stop the threat. You want them to stop the action that could cause you to lose your life. If that takes 3 shots then stop. In my case I'm not going to unload 16 rounds from my Sig just to "make sure he's dead". I don't want to kill anyone, I just don't want them to kill me. If you actually fear for your life, the situation will prove that, not how many times you shoot the person. If you happen to have an unjustified shooting and go to court you will have a prosecutor questioning you as to why you shot the guy 15 times. They'll paint you as some sort of loon who just wanted to kill someone. Stop the threat, nothing more, nothing less.

Here in Fl if someone enters your house unlawfully you can use deadly force to counter deadly force from the intruder or to prevent a "forceable felony" without duty to retreat. You can't just blast someone for entering your house. Here's the statutes for some fun reading.

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.--

(1) 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:
(a) 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
(b) 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.

(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) 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
(b) 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
(c) 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
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), 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.

(3) 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.

(4) 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.

(5) As used in this section, the term:
(a) "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.
(b) "Residence" means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) "Vehicle" means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

[musclegto]

cool

[Joe Momma]

Fun reading lol,

And my Mag's hold 30 rounds :bootyshak

[Quantim0]

So do my AR-15 mags. But I don't have it for home defence. It has loaded mag in it at all times, I just need to chamber a round to rock someone's world with some Hornady 75gr TAP rounds.

[Joe Momma]

I wish all the mil-spec parts were available for the 15. Green laser FTW

[Grave]

BISMARCK, N.D. The North Dakota House has approved a bill that would give people the right to shoot someone who breaks into their home. And they wouldn't have to worry about being prosecuted or sued.

It would also apply to incidents in a person's vehicle and workplace.

The measure says an individual threatened by an intruder may use deadly force and is not required to avoid a confrontation.

North Dakota's existing law has what is called a "duty to retreat" to avoid an armed confrontation. The proposed law eliminates the "duty to retreat."

The bill has met with a lot of opposition from law officers and prosecutors who say it isn't necessary. One House member says it promotes the concept of shooting first and asking questions later.


What a great law. Should be a Federal one.

[Goataroni]

Um, don't do that. The only thing you want to do when using a firearm in defence is stop the threat. You want them to stop the action that could cause you to lose your life. If that takes 3 shots then stop. In my case I'm not going to unload 16 rounds from my Sig just to "make sure he's dead". I don't want to kill anyone, I just don't want them to kill me. If you actually fear for your life, the situation will prove that, not how many times you shoot the person. If you happen to have an unjustified shooting and go to court you will have a prosecutor questioning you as to why you shot the guy 15 times. They'll paint you as some sort of loon who just wanted to kill someone. Stop the threat, nothing more, nothing less.

I've always been told the opposite pretty much. If you "disable" the person with a shot in the shoulder or something, the prosecutor can put you on trial for unnecessary use of deadly force and attempted murder and the person you shot can sue you (unnecessary because you didn't kill him, therefore you weren't scared for your life). My concealed weapon permit class in WV pretty much verified this as well. If you shoot someone, aim for center of mass and blow him away. If you used all 16 shots, you can argue that you were indeed scared shitless for your life and wanted to make sure he was down, protecting your wife and kids, blah blah blah. Use a 10mm and shoot him from behind a wall lol.

[Joe Momma]

True remember the burgalar that broke into the home and broke his arm on a skateboard the kid left out? He sued the homeowner and won!

I am sticking with my original theory "Officer I was petrified"

[chief_spinning_tires]

I've always been told the opposite pretty much. If you "disable" the person with a shot in the shoulder or something, the prosecutor can put you on trial for unnecessary use of deadly force and attempted murder and the person you shot can sue you (unnecessary because you didn't kill him, therefore you weren't scared for your life). My concealed weapon permit class in WV pretty much verified this as well. If you shoot someone, aim for center of mass and blow him away. If you used all 16 shots, you can argue that you were indeed scared shitless for your life and wanted to make sure he was down, protecting your wife and kids, blah blah blah. Use a 10mm and shoot him from behind a wall lol.

A dead man tells no tales. Anyone who breaks in to someones house deserves what ever the homeowner has waiting for him.

[_BT_]

A dead man tells no tales. Anyone who breaks in to someones house deserves what ever the homeowner has waiting for him.

:mswerd:

[maybelooking]

I never needed permission from a fuKKIng politician to protect my family and assets. Someone breaks in my home and they are a shot sumbitch. Period. And I dont care what politician, judge, or lawyer doesnt like it.

[Quantim0]

I understand that dead men tell no tales. I certainly will not be aiming for legs or shoulders to "disable" the person. Deadly force is deadly force, you'd better make it count. COM all the way. I think that most people when shot will stop bothering you well before you finish up your magazine.

It also depends on what you are shooting. A 9mm pistol may have 15 rounds while a 1911 will have 8. It really is a touchy situation.

In Fl if it is determined that your gun use was criminal, such as assault with a deadly weapon or even if you pull your gun and the criminal surrenders, you could go to jail for 10+ years just for pulling the gun. This is where the gov. of Fl made a major mistake. I am a big fan of manditory minimums for things like child molestation, but if someone defends themselves slightly inappropriately the judge has no wiggle room.

You shoot someone in your house and they live. They didn't threaten you with deadly force, so legally you weren't allowed to counter with deadly force. You go to trial for assault with a deadly weapon. You get a non-sympathetic jury. You're convicted of a gun crime. Congraduations, you are now going to jail for 20 years. The judge can't say "Oh he was scared and just trying to defend his family, I'll just give him some probation". Game over, you will spend the next 20 years in jail.

Gun laws, like all other laws, are stupidly complicated. I certainly don't know everything and would never claim so. I do understand the shoot to kill philosopy and that's the one I will be using. However, I do not want to get in trouble for unnecessary use of force. I will stop the threat with a few COM hollowpoints. If they live, fine. If they don't that's fine too. They threatened my life and I had no choice but to defend myself.

[hardball75006]

This law is no good. Texas has a law like this and look what it did for them. They are all apeshit down there!

???:huh: In Texas we have always had the right to use deadly force to protect our personal property after dark. I don't know what your "apeshit" reference is pertaining to, but dosen't sound like you know much about Texas.

[DABLACK1]

YES this just made my day now we just need the other states
to adopt this bill

[DABLACK1]

The bill has met with a lot of opposition from law officers and prosecutors who say it isn't necessary. One House member says it promotes the concept of shooting first and asking questions later.


IT'S necessary when it take police 30 mins to respond to a call...i dont know what there bitchin about it's less work
for them