For all the locals:
Assemblyman Harry Mortenson (D-42) has introduced the long anticipated "Castle Doctrine" self-defense measure in Nevada. Assembly Bill 288 would allow a person to use deadly force against an aggressor so long as the person using deadly force "(a) is not the aggressor; (b) has a right to be present at the location where deadly force is used; and (c) is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used."
Chalk one up for the good guys.
If this bill is passed, it will allow citizens to defend their property with deadly force if "the circumstances [are] sufficient to excite the fears of a reasonable person and that the party killing really acted under the influence of those fears and not in the a spirit of revenge." If this bill is passed, it will allow the self-sufficiency of the citizenry and no longer require that someone first try to run for help from the state before trying to kill his killer. If this bill is passed, it will allow for a strong defense in the protection of private property, which is, simply, a defense of people. If this bill is passed, it will be one crucial win for everybody and one crucial loss for criminals.
This bill effectively allows people to defend themselves without fear of retribution from the government, it is an outstanding heralding of property rights, and gives people the strength to stand on their own two feet. The law should always be in favor of the law-abiding citizens. It is unfortunate that so many people have made careers out of the semantical issues involved in the tricky word play of the legislature. But for all the gloomy rulings and poor laws handed down everyday from the government, it is exalting to feel that one ray of hope and behold that one moment of clarity when something so simple and pure and true is upheld.
Assemblyman Harry Mortenson (D-42) has introduced the long anticipated "Castle Doctrine" self-defense measure in Nevada. Assembly Bill 288 would allow a person to use deadly force against an aggressor so long as the person using deadly force "(a) is not the aggressor; (b) has a right to be present at the location where deadly force is used; and (c) is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used."
Chalk one up for the good guys.
If this bill is passed, it will allow citizens to defend their property with deadly force if "the circumstances [are] sufficient to excite the fears of a reasonable person and that the party killing really acted under the influence of those fears and not in the a spirit of revenge." If this bill is passed, it will allow the self-sufficiency of the citizenry and no longer require that someone first try to run for help from the state before trying to kill his killer. If this bill is passed, it will allow for a strong defense in the protection of private property, which is, simply, a defense of people. If this bill is passed, it will be one crucial win for everybody and one crucial loss for criminals.
This bill effectively allows people to defend themselves without fear of retribution from the government, it is an outstanding heralding of property rights, and gives people the strength to stand on their own two feet. The law should always be in favor of the law-abiding citizens. It is unfortunate that so many people have made careers out of the semantical issues involved in the tricky word play of the legislature. But for all the gloomy rulings and poor laws handed down everyday from the government, it is exalting to feel that one ray of hope and behold that one moment of clarity when something so simple and pure and true is upheld.
