Lets find out where we all stand.

Technically, at least in the state of Texas, there is no statute regarding something called a "Castle Law". That is simply a name given to cover the rights of homeowners in protecting their homes.

I'm not sure where you are getting your information from. I can cite several articles that state a Castle Law exists in NY.

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

http://www.mjsacco.com/articles/ny-c...ome-intruders/

http://www.longislandfirearms.com/fo...ut-has-no-sta/

I don't like using Wikipedia as a source, but if you read the state statutes state-by-state you will find several that allow a homeowner to use deadly force only when the homeowner believes his/her life to be threatened.

I would certainly agree that an intruder is in your home in the middle of the night it would be tough for a prosecutor to prove that deadly force was not necessary. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

It's mostly my opinion of watching Castle Doctrine evolve over the last several years since FL instituted the first one and understanding the principles of the Castle Doctrine.

In your first link it specifically states:

Duty-to-retreat

"Castle laws" remove the duty to retreat before using deadly force when one is in their home or in some U.S. states just simply where one can legally be.

So in my mind, by definition, if a state still has a provision which places a duty to retreat then it can't be Castle Doctrine.

That's all I'm saying.

And it's attitudes like that that piss off citizens and police alike.

BTW, the latest poll shows 55% of Americans support gay marriage. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

People that place individual freedom over group think are not pissed off. It is faux individual liberty folks that get pissed off.

Shold we shut down all titties bars because the majority of people do not like titty bars? If you do not likr titty bars don't visit them. If you do not like guns don't buy one.

A homeowner's rights inside the home are very different from a homeowner's rights outside the home. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I am intimately familiar with "my rights inside my home" and "outside my home" ... "in my car" and walking down the fucking street,

.... as well as at the courthouse.

But thanks for your hooker board opinion.

Let me ask speedie a question. What if you are attacked in your home and you are fighting for your life. Your neighbor (like myself) is up late and hears the struggle. He grabs his legally owned gun and rushes to your doorway. Knowing your preferences regarding his gun and his rights he yells for you to push him outside so he can shoot him since he does not want to come into your house with a loaded weapon. Does this sound reasonable or is there a loophole in your thinking? How about an armed officer?

He'd be dead by then...

Jesus Christ....please relate how many incidents where a neighbor has helped another neighbor by breaking into the broken into house and shot a suspect.

Also tell me how the police think about such action.

I wish I could post the little sign I have at my house, but I can't on my phone. It says
I don't call 911, I call the coroner.

Jesus Christ....please relate how many incidents where a neighbor has helped another neighbor by breaking into the broken into house and shot a suspect.

Also tell me how the police think about such action. Originally Posted by WTF

You might want to go back and read the hypothetical again. He said nothing about breaking into the neighbor's house. Actually to the contrary considering respect for the homeowners stance on guns in the house.

I'm confused. You voted for "No restrictions other than age and citizenship" yet you are saying I have the right to ban guns from my home. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Yes. No restrictions to ownership. I would still possess the right to not enter your home, if you didn't want my gun there.

Let me ask speedie a question. What if you are attacked in your home and you are fighting for your life. Your neighbor (like myself) is up late and hears the struggle. He grabs his legally owned gun and rushes to your doorway. Knowing your preferences regarding his gun and his rights he yells for you to push him outside so he can shoot him since he does not want to come into your house with a loaded weapon. Does this sound reasonable or is there a loophole in your thinking? How about an armed officer? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

We can dream up all sorts of scenarios that are totally unlikely to happen. The problem comes in determining when the person is actually fighting for his life. If the guy simply has me at gun point, I do not want assistance. If I am in a physical struggle with the guy and he has a gun, then yes, I would like his assistance.

Yes. No restrictions to ownership. I would still possess the right to not enter your home, if you didn't want my gun there. Originally Posted by JohnnyCap

I guess JD's choices were missing options. I read #5 as being no restrictions at all. Any person 18+ would have the right to carry any weapon in any place at any time.

It's mostly my opinion of watching Castle Doctrine evolve over the last several years since FL instituted the first one and understanding the principles of the Castle Doctrine.

In your first link it specifically states:

Duty-to-retreat

"Castle laws" remove the duty to retreat before using deadly force when one is in their home or in some U.S. states just simply where one can legally be.

So in my mind, by definition, if a state still has a provision which places a duty to retreat then it can't be Castle Doctrine.

That's all I'm saying. Originally Posted by boardman

To be honest how you define "Castle Law" is somewhat irrelevant to me. The point is that as a homeowner you have to know your rights as to defending yourself when there is an intruder in your house.

People that place individual freedom over group think are not pissed off. It is faux individual liberty folks that get pissed off.
Originally Posted by WTF

Your opinion.

I am intimately familiar with "my rights inside my home" and "outside my home" ... "in my car" and walking down the fucking street,

.... as well as at the courthouse.

But thanks for your hooker board opinion. Originally Posted by LexusLover

My apologies. I tend to forget that you are always correct on every subject.

It's mostly my opinion of watching Castle Doctrine evolve over the last several years since FL instituted the first one and understanding the principles of the Castle Doctrine.

In your first link it specifically states:

Duty-to-retreat

"Castle laws" remove the duty to retreat before using deadly force when one is in their home or in some U.S. states just simply where one can legally be.

So in my mind, by definition, if a state still has a provision which places a duty to retreat then it can't be Castle Doctrine.

That's all I'm saying. Originally Posted by boardman

Personally, I prefer "Duty to Retreat" over the Castle Doctrine. People should tend to De-escalate if they can before they do something stupid.