Most Americans think the Castle Doctrine is a pretty good idea. If you break into an occupied house, most Americans agree that you should get shot. North Carolina and Pennsylvania have passed a Castle bill this year. Now it looks like at least one of the political leaders in New Zealand wants in on the action.
The Crimes Act should be amended to include a presumption – not a guarantee, but a presumption – of immunity from prosecution for anyone who uses reasonable force to defend his person and/or property.
“Everyone in peaceable possession of any land or building, and everyone lawfully assisting him or acting by his authority, is justified in using reasonable force to prevent any person from trespassing on the land or building or to remove him therefrom, if he does not strike or do bodily harm to that person.”
I would delete the words “if he does not strike or do bodily harm to that person.” If a trespasser turns violent, it’s entirely possible that any reasonable force used to evict him will involve striking him or causing him bodily harm. The law should allow for that.
Hey, it’s New Zealand, not the USA, but it’s a start.
Sometimes we in the USA forget that when we have a loud argument for a long time about the limits of self defense in general and firearms use specifically, people in other countries will hear. What sounds logical and sensible here in America is likely to sound logical and sensible in other places. In the same way we in freer States stand as examples to those stuck in California, Illinois, and New Jersey, the USA stands as an example to other countries. When they see that we allow regular normal citizens to exercise their right to keep and bear arms and violence goes down, or at least remains the same, they will start to wonder why they must be disarmed.
As George W. Bush said,
He wasn’t just talking about Iraq.
Do you RSS? Don’t know what an RSS Feed is?
Save time and read all the latest blog news first.