MI - Bring Lawyers, Guns, and Money

[FWiedner]

Bring Lawyers, Guns, and Money

Michigan legislature debates expanding self-defense rights

By Nick Cheolas

RECENTLY, REPRESENTATIVE RICK Jones (R-Grand Ledge) of the Michigan State Legislature introduced a bill in the sate House intended to “clarify the rights and duties of self-defense…to provide for criminal and civil immunity…to regulate the investigation of incidents involving self-defense or the defense of others; and to provide for certain remedies.”

Those who favor the legislation hail it as a major victory for the Second Amendment; those who favor gun-control say the bill amounts to “frontier justice” and will result in widespread vigilantism. However, most Michigan residents, as is the case with most bills in congress, will cast judgment on the bill based on sound-bytes and the scare tactics of both sides of the argument.

Fortunately, Representative Jones has been very clear with the intent of the bill and its two major provisions: 1) Citizens are permitted to use deadly force if they are confronted by a person who has unlawfully and forcibly entered or broken into their home or vehicle. 2) Citizens who are in a public place no longer have the duty to “retreat,” and now have the ability to “stand his or her ground” and “meet force with force, including deadly force.” Those who favor gun-control, understandably, have concerns about the bill. They allege that the need for these laws has not been displayed, and worry about how freely citizens will be to use their firearms in public and in defense of their homes. Fortunately, the bill does contain many restrictions on gun-owners. First, citizens may use force, but not deadly force, to protect their own property. The use of deadly force outside the home is still legal only when one believes it is necessary to prevent a “forcible felony.” Furthermore,, citizens may not fire “at will” in their own homes - citizens must positively identify whether the individual who has entered their home has a right to be there. In other words, shooting your drunken roommate for climbing in the window at 3am is not an option.

Gun-control advocates also speculate as to the need for such a bill. A bill introduced into the US House in

May of 2003 by Joe Wilson (R-SC) – and cosponsored by 50 other representatives– provides many facts indicating the need for such a bill.

For example, in 1989, the US Attorney General reported that there were “168,881 crimes of violence for which police had not responded within 1 hour.” The bill also makes reference to the 2.4 million Americans who use a gun to defend themselves from crimes- indicating that “firearms are used 60 time more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.” And of these 2.4 million cases, less than 8% result in actual harm to an attacker. Over 92% of the time, the mere display will suffice to prevent a crime.

Wilson’s bill also makes note of citizens who have been prosecuted for possessing or using a firearm when confronted by violence. For example, the bill describes the experience of Don Campbell, a Michigan resident. Campbell “was arrested, jailed, and criminally charged after he shot a criminal assailant in 1991. The thief had broken into Campbell’s store and attacked him. The prosecutor plea-bargained with the assailant and planned to use him to testify against Campbell for felonious use of a firearm” Intense community pressure subsequently forced the prosecutor to drop the charges.

The bill in the Michigan House will certainly have far-reaching consequences in the state. As The Detroit News recently reported, Detroit has the highest murder rate per 100,000 citizens of any major American city – although the “justifiable homicide rate” was in line with the national numbers. Law -abiding Detroiters will certainly appreciate the ability to defend their homes and families from harm without fear of criminal prosecution. And while criminals usually could not care less about which gun laws are passed, they will now be confronted with the possibility that the next house they break into or car they attempt to hijack will be their last.

Think of the stories right here on campus that seem to appear on a monthly basis. Students wake to intruders in their room, or are confronted in their own kitchens by criminals. These stories have almost invariably ended with intruders coming away with a laptop and jewelry, or simply getting away and moving on to the next house. But the first time it ends with a thief on the receiving end of a bullet may very well be the last.

http://www.michiganreview.com/article.php?id=1575

*FW Note:

...the first time it ends with a thief on the receiving end of a bullet may very well be the last...

...for that thief, and I'm pretty sure that's the whole point...

 :roll:

.