• Mossberg Owners is in the process of upgrading the software. Please bear with us while we transition to the new look and new upgraded software.

Mississippi proposes changes to Castle Law

They better scratch the drug/alcohol testing...it has been declared unconstitutional to have welfare recipients and Congressmen be tested and so it should be in this instance.

And the changes are about as clear as mud to me. I guess if the murderer/rapist/robber gets out of your house/car/business he/she gets a "home free" card...can't chance them down.
 
Way too many legal weasel words. Guess I'll be writing some letters and making some phone calls. This is the second steaming pile of crap that's been proposed so far this session.
 
so far, its no better anywhere and the proposals are everywhere , "shootings" are springing up again just before all these things are to be considered in yearly legislation.....
 
OhioArcher said:
They better scratch the drug/alcohol testing...it has been declared unconstitutional to have welfare recipients and Congressmen be tested and so it should be in this instance.

And the changes are about as clear as mud to me. I guess if the murderer/rapist/robber gets out of your house/car/business he/she gets a "home free" card...can't chance them down.
Click to expand...

I agree.
 
On the upside here's another bill that prevents interference with the right of citizens to possess firearms. :D


Today Rep. Andy Gipson (R- District 77) and 51 other representatives introduced HB 314. This bill clarifies that the Governor or any other official or employee of the State may not interfere with the right of citizens to possess firearms. It also clarified that counties and municipalities may not interfere with the right of citizens to possess firearms.

To accomplish this goal several sections of MS law would be amended.

33-7-303 would be amended to include the following paragraph;

Nothing in this section or in any other statute shall be construed to confer upon the Governor or any official or employee of any department, agency or political subdivision of the state the power to:

(i) Confiscate or seize a firearm, ammunition, or components of firearms or ammunition from a person who is in lawful possession of such firearm, ammunition, or components of ammunition; or

(ii) Impose additional restrictions as to the lawful possession, transfer, sale, carrying, storage, display or use of firearms, ammunition, or components of firearms or ammunition.

MS Law 33-15-11 is amended

This law gives the Governor general control during a disaster. The law would be changed to include a statement that prohibits the Governor from confiscating or seizing firearms or ammunition from a person who is in lawful possession of the firearm or ammunition.

MS Law 45-9-51 is amended

This section prohibits the adoption of any ordinance that restricts or requires the possession, transportation, sale, transfer or ownership of firearms or ammunition or their components by counties or municipalities. HB 314 would add that they are also not allowed to adopt any ordinance that restricts citizens ability to carry a firearm.

Also added to this section would be a paragraph that prohibits any public housing authority from prohibiting residence ability to possess or carry a firearm in their residence.

http://www.mississippigunnews.com/propo ... -firearms/
Click to expand...
 
I have several problems with alcohol testing.

1. Alcohol is not illegal/unlawful as long as you are 21 or older.

2. You don't schedule an assault at your home. So if you had a beer 30 minutes before someone broke in and tried to kill you or was on your property, may cause you a huge legal problem if that is adopted into the wording of the law even when it should not matter.

3. I do not have an issue with (unlawful) drug testing. Provided that if you are not prescribed any type of medicine from a physician, does not count against you. See #2 above.

I also do not like that "30 feet of the home" wording. That should not matter what part of your property that you were on. Even if you owned 100 square miles of property.

I see the entire thing "Full of Fail".
 
John A. said:
I have several problems with alcohol testing.

1. Alcohol is not illegal/unlawful as long as you are 21 or older.

2. You don't schedule an assault at your home. So if you had a beer 30 minutes before someone broke in and tried to kill you or was on your property, may cause you a huge legal problem if that is adopted into the wording of the law even when it should not matter.

3. I do not have an issue with (unlawful) drug testing. Provided that if you are not prescribed any type of medicine from a physician, does not count against you. See #2 above.

I also do not like that "30 feet of the home" wording. That should not matter what part of your property that you were on. Even if you owned 100 square miles of property.

I see the entire thing "Full of Fail".
Click to expand...

I have exactly the same concerns, and will be stating them when I write to my reps, with one modification. That is there should be no qualification based on property limits. Many people are attacked no where near their property, so the right of self defense should not be dependent on location at all.
 
GunnyGene said:
That is there should be no qualification based on property limits. Many people are attacked no where near their property, so the right of self defense should not be dependent on location at all.
Click to expand...


I agree you should be able to defend yourself anywhere, but if outside the limits of your property then you are no longer within your castle grounds.

I thought this change was specific to the Castle Doctrine.
 
MikeD said:
GunnyGene said:
That is there should be no qualification based on property limits. Many people are attacked no where near their property, so the right of self defense should not be dependent on location at all.
Click to expand...


I agree you should be able to defend yourself anywhere, but if outside the limits of your property then you are no longer within your castle grounds.

I thought this change was specific to the Castle Doctrine.
Click to expand...

I'm no lawyer, but I've read thru this thing a couple times and it seems to me that it would effect self defense generally. And it arbitrarily defines castle grounds as within 30 ft of the exterior walls, which is totally unacceptable. I own 20+ acres. My driveway is nearly a 1/4mile long, and it's more than 30ft from one end of my garden to the other. I'm often armed when mowing,etc., or just walking my property, and wouldn't hesitate to defend myself and expect immunity from criminal or civil liability. I'm too damn old to run back to the house just to satisfy this womans idea of justice.
 
^ That would be the mild and very watered down version of what I would tell them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top