Here we go, brady bunch is coming to Paula Dow's aid.

 

http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2011/01/27-3

 

The Brady Center brief explains that the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago dealt only with a Second Amendment right to possess guns in the home for self-defense. The U.S. Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment right "is not unlimited" and is subject to "reasonable firearms regulations." The Supreme Court has said that bans on carrying concealed weapons do not violate the Second Amendment. Numerous other courts have recently upheld state restrictions on carrying loaded guns in public

 

CeaseFireNJ and NJ's Million Mom March also signed onto this brief.

So the brady bunch is saying you can sue the state for a castle doctrine?

Idiots!

The Brady's have a perfect losing record in major gun cases. I welcome the brief in support of the state. It simply underscores how irrelevant they are becoming.

So the brady bunch is saying you can sue the state for a castle doctrine?

 

New Jersey does not have a Castle Doctrine statute.

New Jersey does not have a Castle Doctrine statute.

 

That was his point. He's saying if the 2A only applies in the home, we should file a suit to get castle doctrine. He was trying to be funny.

That was his point. He's saying if the 2A only applies in the home, we should file a suit to get castle doctrine. He was trying to be funny.

 

But uhm, we have a castle doctrine.

But uhm, we have a castle doctrine.

 

I was under the assumption we had to retreat in our own home.

I was under the assumption we had to retreat in our own home.

'

Read this post: http://njgunforums.com/forum/index.php?/topic/15388-use-of-deadly-physical-force/page__view__findpost__p__203901

 

Then read below it. We've been on this Merry-go-round before.

Here we go, brady bunch is coming to Paula Dow's aid.

 

http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2011/01/27-3

 

The Brady Center brief explains that the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago dealt only with a Second Amendment right to possess guns in the home for self-defense. The U.S. Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment right "is not unlimited" and is subject to "reasonable firearms regulations." The Supreme Court has said that bans on carrying concealed weapons do not violate the Second Amendment. Numerous other courts have recently upheld state restrictions on carrying loaded guns in public

 

CeaseFireNJ and NJ's Million Mom March also signed onto this brief.

 

The achilles heel of New Jersey's law is that it does not differentiate between open and concealed carrying... They can ban one or the other and not be considered infringing upon the right to carry however by denying both they are indeed infringing upon that right. This is going to start to get good very soon...

'

Read this post: http://njgunforums.com/forum/index.php?/topic/15388-use-of-deadly-physical-force/page__view__findpost__p__203901

 

Then read below it. We've been on this Merry-go-round before.

 

 

I read it, and this part sticks out:

 

(2)The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death or serious bodily harm; nor is it justifiable if:

 

(a)The actor, with the purpose of causing death or serious bodily harm, provoked the use of force against himself in the same encounter; or

 

(b)The actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating or by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that he abstain from any action which he has no duty to take, except that:

 

(i)The actor is not obliged to retreat from his dwelling, unless he was the initial aggressor; and

 

(ii)A public officer justified in using force in the performance of his duties or a person justified in using force in his assistance or a person justified in using force in making an arrest or preventing an escape is not obliged to desist from efforts to perform such duty, effect such arrest or prevent such escape because of resistance or threatened resistance by or on behalf of the person against whom such action is directed.

 

It says you're not obligated to retreat from your house. And I don't see any definitive evidence later in the thread that proves we have castle doctrine. Am I missing something?

I read it, and this part sticks out:

 

It says you're not obligated to retreat from your house. And I don't see any definitive evidence later in the thread that proves we have castle doctrine. Am I missing something?

The way I understand it, the law basically says deadly force is not justifiable if you could retreat. In other words, someone breaks into your house, you can't just shoot him. Is that what the castle doctrine is supposed to do? In other states, their castle doctrine says iif someone breaks in your house you could blow him away and be protected from any charges.

I read it, and this part sticks out:

 

 

 

It says you're not obligated to retreat from your house. And I don't see any definitive evidence later in the thread that proves we have castle doctrine. Am I missing something?

 

Not sure that I understand what you're missing? You're home is your castle, you're not required to retreat from it. It defines justifiable homicide within your home if you or someone in your home is threatened. It also defines that you may estimate the need for self defense. It's an estimate, it's not a defined standard and YOU are the one that makes the determination to use force.

 

In states without a castle doctrine, you are required to retreat at all times and under all circumstances, never defining any level of justifiable force. Without this defined statute, a prosecutor could prosecute you even if you perforated a crazy gun toting crack head that broke down your door, guns ablazin. NJs castle doctrine basically draws the line at your door. If a threat proceeds through your doorway, you can legally stop the threat and you will be immune from criminal prosecution. You are still subject to civil liability.

The way I understand it, the law basically says deadly force is not justifiable if you could retreat. In other words, someone breaks into your house, you can't just shoot him. Is that what the castle doctrine is supposed to do? In other states, their castle doctrine says iif someone breaks in your house you could blow him away and be protected from any charges.

 

No, that's not what it says.

 

Except as required by paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection, a person employing protective force may estimate the necessity of using force when the force is used, without retreating, surrendering possession, doing any other act which he has no legal duty to do or abstaining from any lawful action.

 

Without retreating means without retreating. You are in your home, no retreat is required to employ deadly force.

The way I understand it, the law basically says deadly force is not justifiable if you could retreat. In other words, someone breaks into your house, you can't just shoot him. Is that what the castle doctrine is supposed to do? In other states, their castle doctrine says iif someone breaks in your house you could blow him away and be protected from any charges.

 

thats what i thought it was. im fairly sure texas (america) has the real castle doctrine....anyone on your property, not just in your house, can be a target. i dont know if what malusa posted was to mean we DO or we do NOT have the CD, and im guess we do NOT have it, citing the highlighted part of the text.

It says you're not obligated to retreat from your house. And I don't see any definitive evidence later in the thread that proves we have castle doctrine. Am I missing something?

I was always under the impression that we have no protection from either criminal or civil liability for shooting an intruder in our own homes - thus no castle doctrine.

 

Now this does beg the question - how does one effectively retreat in your home? Unless you're wealthy enough to have a panic room in your house, I can't imagine any way you could seriously retreat in your home from an intruder that intends to cause you harm. Does this mean you have to go through the motions of running into a room, locking the door, and waiting for the BG to kick the door down before you can open fire? Or can you just cut to the point and shoot the guy when he refuses to leave and instead decides to advance?

 

And not to totally threadjack - any idea where a copy of their brief can be found? I can't seem to find it anywhere. I doubt it has any valuable substance, but their dribble is always good for a few chuckles.

I was always under the impression that we have no protection from either criminal or civil liability for shooting an intruder in our own homes - thus no castle doctrine.

 

Now this does beg the question - how does one effectively retreat in your home? Unless you're wealthy enough to have a panic room in your house, I can't imagine any way you could seriously retreat in your home from an intruder that intends to cause you harm. Does this mean you have to go through the motions of running into a room, locking the door, and waiting for the BG to kick the door down before you can open fire? Or can you just cut to the point and shoot the guy when he refuses to leave and instead decides to advance?

 

And not to totally threadjack - any idea where a copy of their brief can be found? I can't seem to find it anywhere. I doubt it has any valuable substance, but their dribble is always good for a few chuckles.

 

Not sure I have the stamina to keep repeating this...Retreat is not required within the home. Period. You are in your home, you do not have to retreat, not to the next room, not 1 inch further away, RETREAT IS NOT REQUIRED. If someone bursts through the door, you can shoot to stop the threat. If someone is slowly advancing and you demand they withdraw or disarm and they do not, you can shoot to stop the threat. You may estimate the need to employ deadly force. If you follow those rules, you will be immune from criminal prosecution. If there is no threat, you may not employ deadly force. You are not immune if you shoot the paperboy who came in to give you the paper and startled you.

 

 

Here is the text http://law.onecle.com/new-jersey/2c-the-new-jersey-code-of-criminal-justice/3-4.html

or you can just google: 2C:3-4 Use of force in self-protection.

you keep saying retreating.......the point we're looking at is this:

 

(2)The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death or serious bodily harm; nor is it justifiable if:

 

(a)The actor, with the purpose of causing death or serious bodily harm, provoked the use of force against himself in the same encounter; or

 

(b)The actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating or by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that he abstain from any action which he has no duty to take

 

 

to me, this sounds ilke someone breaks into your house. says 'give me your money and you will be safe.' he did NOT say 'leave the house or die' which would be called 'retreating.' forfeiture of property to avoid being killed sounds like a loophole that gets around calling it an outright castle doctrine.

 

i hope you realize none of us are fighting the castle doctrine. i wish we had it in plain text saying NJ HAS THE CASTLE DOCTRINE, so we wouldnt even have this conversation. what we're getting at is playing devils advocate, and thinking of a way some scumbag lawyer representing the bad guy, his family, etc, could snake his way through a loophole of the stated law.

I understand that you don't have to retreat, but you can only use equal force if you decide to protect your home. You cannot use DEADLY force if you can avoid it. It clearly says deadly force is NOT justifiable if you can retreat or surrender the object the mofo is trying to take. In other words, you can't just shoot the bastard.

you keep saying retreating.......the point we're looking at is this:

 

(2)The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death or serious bodily harm; nor is it justifiable if:

 

(a)The actor, with the purpose of causing death or serious bodily harm, provoked the use of force against himself in the same encounter; or

 

(b)The actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating or by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that he abstain from any action which he has no duty to take

 

 

to me, this sounds ilke someone breaks into your house. says 'give me your money and you will be safe.' he did NOT say 'leave the house or die' which would be called 'retreating.' forfeiture of property to avoid being killed sounds like a loophole that gets around calling it an outright castle doctrine.

 

i hope you realize none of us are fighting the castle doctrine. i wish we had it in plain text saying NJ HAS THE CASTLE DOCTRINE, so we wouldnt even have this conversation. what we're getting at is playing devils advocate, and thinking of a way some scumbag lawyer representing the bad guy, his family, etc, could snake his way through a loophole of the stated law.

 

The statute is USE OF FORCE IN SELF PROTECTION.

 

The first part defines when you can use it.

 

It then goes on to say "Inside the dwelling, retreat is not required".

 

The first part is talking about outside the dwelling, the second parts are talking about inside the dwelling. It then defines it further: the use of force or deadly force upon or toward an intruder who is unlawfully in a dwelling is justifiable when the actor reasonably believes that the force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself or other persons in the dwelling against the use of unlawful force by the intruder on the present occasion.

I understand that you don't have to retreat, but you can only use equal force if you decide to protect your home. You cannot use DEADLY force if you can avoid it. It clearly says deadly force is NOT justifiable if you can retreat or surrender the object the mofo is trying to take. In other words, you can't just shoot the bastard.

 

The part you are reading is talking about OUTSIDE the home. Some schmuck asks for your wallet, you must give it to them.

 

The statute does not permit someone to break into your house and if they ask nicely for your wallet while they have a gun to your head, you are required to give it to them. See below.

a person employing protective force may estimate the necessity of using force when the force is used, without retreating, surrendering possession, doing any other act which he has no legal duty to do or abstaining from any lawful action

 

Edit to add: Force is force. We've had discussion before. If force is permissible, it means deadly physical force is permissible.

if thats the case, then why is this part in it at all

 

(b)The actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating or by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that he abstain from any action which he has no duty to take

 

whats the point of saying this if you have every right to kill an intruder.

So now you're trying to tell me that even with a legal carry permit, you can't use deadly force if you could retreat or if you surrender the object the bastard is claiming. So what's the point of the CCW then?

So now you're trying to tell me that even with a legal carry permit, you can't use deadly force if you could retreat or if you surrender the object the bastard is claiming. So what's the point of the CCW then?

 

Doesn't seem like there really is one...except to CCW in NJ.

Not sure I have the stamina to keep repeating this...Retreat is not required within the home. Period. You are in your home, you do not have to retreat, not to the next room, not 1 inch further away, RETREAT IS NOT REQUIRED. If someone bursts through the door, you can shoot to stop the threat. If someone is slowly advancing and you demand they withdraw or disarm and they do not, you can shoot to stop the threat. You may estimate the need to employ deadly force. If you follow those rules, you will be immune from criminal prosecution. If there is no threat, you may not employ deadly force. You are not immune if you shoot the paperboy who came in to give you the paper and startled you.

 

 

Here is the text http://law.onecle.com/new-jersey/2c-the-new-jersey-code-of-criminal-justice/3-4.html

or you can just google: 2C:3-4 Use of force in self-protection.

I agree that is the natural interpretation of the law; my only point was that I can see where one of our fine courts could imply a duty to retreat within the home. Do you know if there is any case law in this regard? Our state courts have a reputation of creatively reading between the lines.

 

That said, NJ most certainly DOES NOT have a 'castle doctrine' as it is usually defined. 2C:3-4 is very clear that you need to have a reasonable belief that you face serious bodily harm or death. With a castle doctrine, you only need to show a reasonable belief they wish to commit a felony. Castle doctrine also includes immunity to civil lawsuit - I don't believe we have any such immunity in this state.

 

For example, with a castle doctrine, you can legally shoot someone as they attempt to climb into a window. In NJ, not only do you need to wait for them to climb into the window, you need to wait to understand their demands and make sure you can't meet their demands without incurring injury or death. And after you shoot the guy to defend your life, you are still liable to him or his estate for damages.

 

NJ is in every way hostile to the right to self defense.

NJ is in every way hostile to the right to self defense.

 

QFT

 

That said, NJ most certainly DOES NOT have a 'castle doctrine' as it is usually defined. 2C:3-4 is very clear that you need to have a reasonable belief that you face serious bodily harm or death. With a castle doctrine, you only need to show a reasonable belief they wish to commit a felony. Castle doctrine also includes immunity to civil lawsuit - I don't believe we have any such immunity in this state.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine

 

A Castle Doctrine (also known as a Castle Law or a Defense of Habitation Law) is an American legal doctrine claimed by advocates to arise from English Common Law[1] that designates one's place of residence (or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such as one's car or place of work) as a place in which one enjoys protection from illegal trespassing and violent attack. It then goes on to give a person the legal right to use deadly force to defend that place (his/her "castle"), and/or any other innocent persons legally inside it, from violent attack or an intrusion which may lead to violent attack. In a legal context, therefore, use of deadly force which actually results in death may be defended as justifiable homicide under the Castle Doctrine.

 

 

There's your common definition. How does NJ violate this? That it's not good enough is a separate issue entirely.

 

You need to read that entire wiki page. Civil immunity does not exist in all states that have a castle doctrine.

 

NJ was one of the first if you can believe it. The rest of the states held NJ up as probably the wrong way to go about it and made theirs better.

 

It does not remove THE FACT that use of deadly physical force inside your home is permissible under NJ statutes I.E. A Castle Doctrine.

I will have to concede that you are correct - but only out of a technicality! I never realized there were actually states that didn't allow you to shoot an attacker in your own home. I suppose you learn something new everyday, but it doesn't change the fact NJ offers little protection for defending yourself. You still face the burden of proving you were in imminent danger of serious harm or death, and the civil liability can leave you homeless in the end. I still feel these are critical points that need to change for an effective castle doctrine.

So, who is going to greet the Brady Bunch and run them out of town?

we can only wish...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPuM_XAo2BE