commentaries

We were told state would turn into the wild west if Minnesota allowed conceal carry. That turned out to be nonsense. I suspect more of the same here.

Massachusetts has had the Castle Doctrine sonce 1995, but used to have the opposite of the Castle Doctrine: Up until that point (under a law enacted in the Mike Dukakis administration) in the event of an intrusion, the home owner was obligated to flee the premises, and was only permitted to use self-defense if it could be proven that there was no possible means of escape from the home.

Yes, the streets will run with blood. Just like they did the first time the MPPA passed; and the second.

Obviously written by a left wing liberal. I don't know of any CC person who wants to shoot anyone and would only do so as a last resort to protect life and limb.

Why should criminals have the comfort of knowing there are areas of our property which are risk-free for them? If a garage is considered a place where we may not defend ourselves as opposed to our homes what are the rules in a breezeway? What about porches? Do the same rules apply in an open porch vs. a 3 or 4 season porch which is usually part of a house? What about an intrusion which moves from say the house to an attached garage? What if someone attempts to carjack us and our family? Do we have a duty to retreat to the side of the road and put ourselves in equivalent danger from traffic or weather? In the calm of the aftermath it's always easy for someone, particularly a prosecutor, to make an after-the-fact judgement of whether an act of self-defense was justified. It's quite another matter to wonder what action to take depending on whether a part of one's residence may be seen as a "no self-defense zone" when a break-in is taking place. The problem with "duty to retreat" is that the criminal has already broken the "duty not to intrude" and the burden is now being placed on the home or car owner to consider whether to protect themselves and their family at the risk of prosecution. In other words, it seems like we are told to respect the criminal's rights above our own or our family's. Once a criminal has initiated an unlawful act, i.e. a break-in, regardless of where it takes place on our property, they're the ones who should be worried about whether our response is going to be appropriate to the situation, not us. Does that mean we have an unlimited right to "shoot anything that moves" on our property? Of course not, but no one's arguing for that, only the right to defend ourselves in difficult situations regardless of the specific location on our property.

While I will probably never have the ability to call the police from the privileged confines of the Dakota county DA's home, and to have the response that would bring, I do know that when I cant run away I should be able to defend myself, and not beg for my life.

And the streets will run red with blood! How many times have we heard people that don't understand say that? Law abiding gun owners and those that legally carry guns are not the problem. The biggest problem isn't even the criminals that use tools to rob, harm and kill. The most dangerous person out there is the one that wants to strip us all of our fundamental God given Rights (as described by the Founding Fathers). It has been proven that allowing law abiding citizens to arm themselves does not endanger the population.

Let's put this article in proper perspective. Backstrom is a politician and is spouting a political agenda. Stating that this law would give criminals additional rights ignores the fact that they are committing a violent crime and are the very ones we need to defend ourselves against.

I must respectfully disagree with the author. It seems to me that this law is empowering citizens to stand their ground and defend themselves, their loved ones, and their property. I for one intend never to turn my back on someone threatening any of the above, which is exactly what the currert law requires with the dictate to "retreat". The change in law will not change whether a person exercising such force is "reseasonable". A person is either reasonable or not. The truth is that a person's response in such situations is directed by an ancient set of instincts and emotions fueled by a massive release of chemicals within the body. People will do what they must to meet a threat. The question is, why should one have to fear the law after they have dealt with an imminent threat of harm to themselves or their loved ones?

When I took my CC permit I was told by the instructor, who was a lawyer, that I had to retreat from my attached garage into my house before I could use deadly force. So who is right? I debated my instructor and he said that was the law. It was something he had to study and demonstrate accurate knowledge before he could become an instructor. I believe my instructor before I would believe the author of this opinion piece.

This writer is full of BS.