Bills clarifying right to firearm self-defense should passBeing able to defend yourself in your own home is a long-held principle of common law. Two state House bills co-sponsored by a mid-Michigan lawmaker bolster this self-defense tenet.
Lawmakers should pass this legislation.
House Bills 5142-43 give Michigan residents a good deal of immunity from criminal prosecution or civil lawsuits if they kill or injure someone breaking into their homes. The same law would apply to residents in their cars, and assumes that someone trying to break in means harm to the occupants.
The legislation also eliminates a requirement that someone defending themselves and their property from intruders must retreat before responding.
It is true that many firearm experts believe it's safer to run, not confront. But in a split-second decision, if a person chooses to stand his or her ground, that person should not be liable.
The legislation, introduced by Rick Jones, R-Grand Ledge, and Tom Casperson, R-Escanaba, is similar to a Florida law that takes effect Oct 1. There is a significant difference in the legislation, however. The Florida law allows Floridians to defend themselves in public places if they think they are threatened.
The Jones-Casperson bills restrict these self-defense measures to one's home or vehicle.
The immunity provided by the legislation is not absolute. For example: The law would not protect a homeowner if the "attacker" turns out to be a police officer who's identified himself and is acting in an official capacity. The bills' self-defense protections might also fall short if the "attacker" is someone who has the right to be inside a home, such as a property owner.
Overall, though, these bills clarify and strengthen the belief that it is no crime to defend oneself when threatened.
http://www.lsj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050913/OPINION01/509130316/1086/opinion.
