Playboypenguin
Moderator
The Oregon supreme court ruled this week that a person is not legally required to contemplate the possibilty of retreat when they have just cause to belive they are facing threat of bodily harm. They reversed an earlier deicision that stated that "option of retreat" was a necessary tactic.
The supreme court said that the need to retreat, even though a long held opinion of the court, has never been part of the actual law and is therefore it is an invalid ideology from a legal standpoint. A person has never been legally required to retreat from a threat. This idea was one created by society but not based in law. I have always thought these policies stank of a "blame the victim and pity the predator" mentality...with which it appears the supreme court agrees.
One gun rights advocate locally warned against seeing this as a victory for gun rights since it does not directly deal with purchase, ownership, or carrying of firearmsin any way. It just says you can defend yourself. What tools you have to do that with are completely up in the air and secondary. It could just as easily be anything from a bat to a broadsword...maybe even just a pointy stick (or maybe a banana for us MP fans).
When he said this it made me think of recent posts where people have used the Castle doctrine as an example of progress for gun owners. I agree with him that this is not really the case. It says we can use deadly force to protect ourselves but determining what means we will be allowed to have to defend ourselves is an entirely different topic. This is not a time to say "see...we are winning" and relax.
He pointed out that personal owership and carry of guns has become more rstrictive over the last two decades even though more CCW laws have been passed. People get confused and think the AWB expiring or CCW laws being passed is really helping them on a personal level when in reality they are more like smoke screens. They give the illusion of greater freedom for all when they actually effect very few and anti-gun people are able to further their own agendas under cover of undo celebration on the other side.
The supreme court said that the need to retreat, even though a long held opinion of the court, has never been part of the actual law and is therefore it is an invalid ideology from a legal standpoint. A person has never been legally required to retreat from a threat. This idea was one created by society but not based in law. I have always thought these policies stank of a "blame the victim and pity the predator" mentality...with which it appears the supreme court agrees.
One gun rights advocate locally warned against seeing this as a victory for gun rights since it does not directly deal with purchase, ownership, or carrying of firearmsin any way. It just says you can defend yourself. What tools you have to do that with are completely up in the air and secondary. It could just as easily be anything from a bat to a broadsword...maybe even just a pointy stick (or maybe a banana for us MP fans).
When he said this it made me think of recent posts where people have used the Castle doctrine as an example of progress for gun owners. I agree with him that this is not really the case. It says we can use deadly force to protect ourselves but determining what means we will be allowed to have to defend ourselves is an entirely different topic. This is not a time to say "see...we are winning" and relax.
He pointed out that personal owership and carry of guns has become more rstrictive over the last two decades even though more CCW laws have been passed. People get confused and think the AWB expiring or CCW laws being passed is really helping them on a personal level when in reality they are more like smoke screens. They give the illusion of greater freedom for all when they actually effect very few and anti-gun people are able to further their own agendas under cover of undo celebration on the other side.