Indiana: Gov. Daniels signs "Castle Doctrine" into law!!

S

steelheart

Moderator
:D :D :D HOUSE ENROLLED ACT No. 1028
AN ACT to amend the Indiana Code concerning firearms and self-defense.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana:

SECTION 1. IC 35-41-3-2 IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2006]: Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; only and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.
(b) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, or curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.
(c) With respect to property other than a dwelling, or curtilage, or an occupied motor vehicle, a person is justified in using reasonable force against another person if the person reasonably believes that the
force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect. However, a person:
(1) is not justified in using deadly force; unless and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
only if that force is justified under subsection (a).
(d) A person is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person and does not have a duty to retreat if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or stop the other person from hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight. For purposes of this subsection, an aircraft is considered to be in flight while the aircraft is:
(1) on the ground in Indiana:
(A) after the doors of the aircraft are closed for takeoff; and
(B) until the aircraft takes off;
(2) in the airspace above Indiana; or
(3) on the ground in Indiana:
(A) after the aircraft lands; and
(B) before the doors of the aircraft are opened after landing.
(e) Notwithstanding subsections (a), (b), and (c), a person is not justified in using force if:
(1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime;
(2) the person provokes unlawful action by another person with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) the person has entered into combat with another person or is the initial aggressor unless the person withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the other person the intent to do so and the other person nevertheless continues or threatens to continue unlawful action.
(f) Notwithstanding subsection (d), a person is not justified in using force if the person:
(1) is committing, or is escaping after the commission of, a crime;
(2) provokes unlawful action by another person, with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) continues to combat another person after the other person withdraws from the encounter and communicates the other person's intent to stop hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight.:D :D :D

PLEASE NOTE: The above law does not become effective until 1 July 06.
 
Couple of points to make here [and yes I know I'm nit-picking]

First off this has nothing to do with "Castle Doctrine" even though that is how it has been widely reported. Castle Doctrine refers to a duty to retreat while in ones own home. The bill was about a duty to retreat anywhere.

Second, there never has been a duty to retreat in Indiana. What the bill does is amend the existing law with specific language to prevent an opportunistic prosecutor or civil lititgation professional from coming after an individual on that basis.

Well that should give Indiana an F on Brady standards.
Next up is lifetime conceal carry permit.
Click to expand...
Would love for lifetime carry, or better yet Vermont style, to be passed in Indiana. I do hope they strip the poison language out of it though. Currently that bill includes language that would require the dealer to send copies of 4473s to the state police to keep on file. That is backdoor registration.
 
Not how I read it.

garretwc states: "Currently that bill includes language that would require the dealer to send copies of 4473s to the state police to keep on file. That is backdoor registration."
We have been filling this form out for as long as I can remember the only difference now is, instead of ISP providing form now BATF does. But the form stills goes down state or up state depending where you live.
You also state for bill 1028 "The bill was about a duty to retreat anywhere." That not how I read it.
Specifies that a person: (1) is justified in using deadly force; and (2) does not have a duty to retreat; if the person reasonably believes that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. Specifies that a person: (1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person; and (2) does not have a duty to retreat; if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.
 
The lifetime carry bill was also signed into law. They were signed about the same time, I think.

Check out: http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2006/HE/HE1176.1.html to see what the bill does.

The "backdoor registration" section replaces the form that went to the ISP already with the 4473. Not ideal, but not as big of a change as some are making it out to be.

As to "Castle Doctrine" ...

As I read it, the law simply extends existing protections. In some situations it applies to duty to retreat outside the home, but it is specifically "castle doctrine" as well.
 
I read about this in the Boston Herald today. They called it a "Stand Your Ground Law"


They said the Brady campaign called it a "Shoot First" law.
 
3 states

There are only 3 states with this law: Florida, one of the Dakota's and now Indiana. There are about 18 states considering it though.
 
Sorry, I've been offline for a while and didn't get a chance to respond to this before the law passed.

The "backdoor registration" section replaces the form that went to the ISP already with the 4473. Not ideal, but not as big of a change as some are making it out to be.
Click to expand...

Not exactly. The original form as written in the state law, specifically prohibited the inclusion of any information about the firearm. Now with it being replaced by the 4473, the information about the fiream will be on file so I stand by that statement.

If I read your response correctly, you are saying the 4473s were already going to ISP? That's news to me.
 
Not exactly. The original form as written in the state law, specifically prohibited the inclusion of any information about the firearm. Now with it being replaced by the 4473, the information about the fiream will be on file so I stand by that statement.
Click to expand...
I agree, it expands the information that the ISP has. That's Not Good. However, I am not too worried. If the ISP comes to your door to confiscate your guns, does it really matter if they know you have purchased 2 1911s and a Glock retail inside the state of Indiana or just sure that you've bought 3 guns?
If I read your response correctly, you are saying the 4473s were already going to ISP? That's news to me.
Click to expand...
No, just saying the 4473 replaces an existing form that went to the ISP. That form already told them you were buying a handgun.

I don't like it, but I view this on a whole as an incremental gain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top