‘Castle’ Keepers
State Lawmakers Looking Again At Self-Defense Bill
Posted: January 19, 2013
HARRISONBURG — As the General Assembly tackles a plethora of gun-related bills in response to the Newtown, Conn., shooting, a recurring piece of firearms legislation is back on the table: the so-called “castle doctrine.”
Under the belief that “a man’s home is his castle,” the bill would allow homeowners to use physical force, including deadly force, on any intruder who commits an “overt act” against them, without facing criminal charges or civil liability.
The bill has broad support: Versions of it passed the House of Delegates and Senate last year, but neither chamber agreed to the other’s changes.
Still, some legislators caution that if the bill became law, it could actually weaken self-defense claims people already use in court.
This year’s bill sits in a House Courts of Justice subcommittee in which Del. Rob Bell, R-Albemarle, serves as chair. Del. Anne Crockett-Stark, R-Wytheville, is the bill sponsor.
“A clear majority of us want to make it crystal clear [in statute] that you have a right to defend yourself,” said Bell, whose district includes the Elkton area of Rockingham County. “We haven’t found anything. … When case law is bad, it’s easy to make things better. When case law is good, you don’t want to make it worse.”
In this instance, case, or common, law — precedents set by what judges have ruled in court, using their own discretion — has recognized the self-defense argument. A castle doctrine statute could lead judges to rule differently as they determine what an “overt act” against a homeowner means.
Del. Todd Gilbert, R-Woodstock, said the bill is “effectively dead” in the House this year. He is deputy majority leader of the chamber.
“The law already recognizes the ability to use deadly force to repel an intruder to your home,” he said. “This attempted codification … would actually cause a number of problems rather than codify the common law. We have always been for this in principle, but the bill will make existing protections worse.”
Sen. Emmett Hanger, R-Mount Solon, said common sense tells the layperson such legislation should be approved.
But, as a commercial real estate broker, he says he looks at the bill differently than lawyers, such as Gilbert and Bell.
“In my opinion, it’s simply a codification of what has historically been decided in the courts,” Hanger said. “It’s something the lawyers tend to quibble over, perfecting the law. They support the common sense of it, but oppose when you delineate language that may hurt it.”
The bill is not on the agenda for the next meeting of Bell’s subcommittee on Monday.
Contact Preston Knight at 574-6272 or pknight@dnronline.com
Under the belief that “a man’s home is his castle,” the bill would allow homeowners to use physical force, including deadly force, on any intruder who commits an “overt act” against them, without facing criminal charges or civil liability.
The bill has broad support: Versions of it passed the House of Delegates and Senate last year, but neither chamber agreed to the other’s changes.
Still, some legislators caution that if the bill became law, it could actually weaken self-defense claims people already use in court.
This year’s bill sits in a House Courts of Justice subcommittee in which Del. Rob Bell, R-Albemarle, serves as chair. Del. Anne Crockett-Stark, R-Wytheville, is the bill sponsor.
“A clear majority of us want to make it crystal clear [in statute] that you have a right to defend yourself,” said Bell, whose district includes the Elkton area of Rockingham County. “We haven’t found anything. … When case law is bad, it’s easy to make things better. When case law is good, you don’t want to make it worse.”
In this instance, case, or common, law — precedents set by what judges have ruled in court, using their own discretion — has recognized the self-defense argument. A castle doctrine statute could lead judges to rule differently as they determine what an “overt act” against a homeowner means.
Del. Todd Gilbert, R-Woodstock, said the bill is “effectively dead” in the House this year. He is deputy majority leader of the chamber.
“The law already recognizes the ability to use deadly force to repel an intruder to your home,” he said. “This attempted codification … would actually cause a number of problems rather than codify the common law. We have always been for this in principle, but the bill will make existing protections worse.”
Sen. Emmett Hanger, R-Mount Solon, said common sense tells the layperson such legislation should be approved.
But, as a commercial real estate broker, he says he looks at the bill differently than lawyers, such as Gilbert and Bell.
“In my opinion, it’s simply a codification of what has historically been decided in the courts,” Hanger said. “It’s something the lawyers tend to quibble over, perfecting the law. They support the common sense of it, but oppose when you delineate language that may hurt it.”
The bill is not on the agenda for the next meeting of Bell’s subcommittee on Monday.
Contact Preston Knight at 574-6272 or pknight@dnronline.com