[UPDATE POST113]S.661 Self Defense Bill

deadhead133 said:
My reply to Senator Keenan's email:

Dear Senator Keenan,
Section 8A of ch 278 is written ambiguously and open to interpretation as are nearly all laws in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts related to the use of force in self defense. The use of force in defense of anyone, anywhere they have a right be, when threatened with grave bodily injury or death, should be absolute and uncompromised. Should the self defense result in injury or death to the individual(s) perpetrating the attack on innocent victims, neither the perpetrators, their family, or their estate should be able to recover any damages whatsoever from the person defending themselves or others. Period.

Thank you for responding.

Sincerely
Click to expand...

​FIFY
 
I can't tell if this is just lip service...

Senator Timilty said:
Dear John,
Thank you for your letter in support of Senate Bill 661, “An act relative to Common Defense.” I appreciate you taking the time to express your opinion on this matter. You raise valid concerns in your letter about the relationship between self defense and liability when a conflict occurs on your property. I understand your desire to see legislation passed that would eliminate the potential for a person to be sued when protecting themselves in a place they legally have the right to be.

Senate Bill 661 was heard before the Joint Committee on the Judiciary on February 7, 2012. The language in this bill would permit acts of self defense if a person was defending their physical safety against a threat of death or bodily harm. It specifically protects a person who is defending themselves against an assailant from being arrested or prosecuted for any injuries or damage done to the attacker. Should this bill reach the Senate floor for debate, I will be sure to keep your thoughts in mind.

Again, I would like to thank you for voicing your opinion on this matter. If I can be of any further assistance on this or any other issue please contact me directly at any time.
Click to expand...

ETA:Everything from a politician's mouth is lip service....
 
So, what are the chances of this going in our favor so far based upon responses from our state gov officials?
 
I just got this a few min ago.
Dear Mr. Dreadedtrash,

Thank you for contacting my office about Senate Bill 661, An Act Relative to the Common Defense. I apologize as I believe you may have received a former email from my office in error, about my position on An Act Repealing the Ban on Modern Sporting Arms.

With regards S.661, I oppose this legislation and would like to take this opportunity to explain my position on this bill.

Existing self-defense and gun laws already permit an individual to protect him or herself with force – including lethal force – if threatened in his or her home.

Under current general law Chapter 278, Section 8A the law states that a citizen may defend themselves if they have the reasonable belief that the person unlawfully in their home is about to inflict great bodily injury or death. The law also goes on to say that a citizens has “no duty to retreat” from their home. An individual who rightly defends him or herself and is determined to have been a victim will be protected by the legal system under current law.

The proposed law extends this right beyond the home to anywhere a person “has a right to be.” This is a vague phrase that goes far beyond typical “castle doctrine” protections. I am concerned about the effect this could have on public safety and do not believe we should pass laws encouraging citizens – even law-abiding ones acting in self-defense -- to shoot a gun at someone in a public space. The potential for vigilantism and harm to innocent bystanders is too high.

Although I appreciate and understand your concerns about your right to protect yourself and your family, the current statute seems to me to be a reasonable balance of the right of an individual to protect him or herself in the home with the need to protect the public safety.

Thank you again for contacting my office regarding this important issue. If you have any further questions or concerns please feel free to contact me by email at [email protected], or you can reach me at the State House by calling 617.722.1120.



Very truly yours,


Jamie Eldridge
State Senator

Middlesex Worcester District
Click to expand...

I thought that we did have to retreat if in our home? Also I thought that most castle laws extended to anywhere one had a right to be?
 
dreadedtrash said:
I just got this a few min ago.


I thought that we did have to retreat if in our home? Also I thought that most castle laws extended to anywhere one had a right to be?
Click to expand...

MA's castle doctrine has no duty to retreat, but only applies in your dwelling. This bill would extend it to anywhere you have a right to be, as well as specifying that you can't have your LTC revoked or be sued.

http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleII/Chapter278/Section8A

http://www.malegislature.gov/Bills/187/Senate/S00661
 
Several years ago, when our "Castle Doctrine" was modified to what it is today, there were people who wailed that it would result in the shooting of kids cutting across your property, shootouts on the highways, etc. None of those scenarios has come to pass.

This is simple a modification to existing law, offering some further protection to a person who has to utilize lawful force to defend themselves. It should be passed.

I'll continue to express my viewpoint to the legislators involved.
 
person unlawfully in their home is about to inflict great bodily injury or death.
Click to expand...

Therein lies the problem, who decides whether they are there to inflict, not just bodily injury (I guess that's ok), but GREAT bodily injury or death? I don't have a metal detector or a TSA agent at my door so I don't know if he has a weapon. I have to assume that if you take the time to break into my house, you are going to cause me great bodily injury. It's only after the illegal entry and the legal self defense that someone else decides if the perp was there to inflict GREAT BODILY INJURY. Maybe he posted on his Facebook account that he would never hurt anyone when he does a B&E, does that mean I'm screwed? This law needs to be clear and concise, under NO circumstances can I be charged with anything if you just illegally entered my home, period.
 
pdm said:
If only there was someone keeping score on our elected "representatives" and how they vote against our rights and then keeping people updated on it in a timely manner.
Click to expand...

i been pissed since i got this form letter. sooooo i sent the Senator

a reply just a short while ago. i did NOT include any anger, just

explained that i'm real disappointed that he believes that self defense

doesn't extend beyond ones home and that "we" would behave like

vigilanties. also that he was empowering criminals, and "when seconds

count, the cops are only minutes away. My state Rep, Steven Levy

had his aide call me back and said that he was in support of S661.

I also wanted to include that if he can't help protect my rights that

we need to find someone else, but i did not at this time.

JimB
 
I hate to be "that guy" but...
am I the only one that has a problem that this bill even needs to exist?
Don’t get me wrong I support it... I just wish judges would do their job and protect the innocent instead of helping the guilty and DA’s stop chasing down people who only acted to protect themselves and their property. Ok that’s enough of a downer for now. (just wish common sense was more common)
And lets not forget about HR. 822!
Good luck guys from your buddy in RI.
 
Here is the reply I got, doesn't tell me a damn. Or, does it....?





On Mar 15, 2012, at 3:09 PM, "Donoghue, Eileen (SEN)" <[email protected]> wrote:
March 15, 2012


Dear Stephen,

Thank you for your recent correspondence regarding Senate Bill 661, An Act Relative to the Common Defense. I appreciate you contacting my office regarding this particular matter and sharing your concerns with me.

As your state senator, it is important to understand the viewpoint of constituents like you so that I can make better informed decisions in the Senate. I will follow this issue and keep you up to date as this legislation moves throughout the process. Additionally, I will keep your thoughts and opinions in mind if this legislation comes before the Senate for a vote.

Again, thank you for bringing this important issue to my attention. Should you need further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact my office at (617) 722-1630.

Sincerely,
<image001.jpg>
Eileen M. Donoghue
State Senator
First Middlesex District


My reply:



I would have expected some insight on your position. Probably an indication that we're not on similar ground.

Too bad.

Thanks,

Steve
 
chiefsaj said:
Here is the reply I got, doesn't tell me a damn. Or, does it....?





On Mar 15, 2012, at 3:09 PM, "Donoghue, Eileen (SEN)" <[email protected]> wrote:
March 15, 2012


Dear Stephen,

Thank you for your recent correspondence regarding Senate Bill 661, An Act Relative to the Common Defense. I appreciate you contacting my office regarding this particular matter and sharing your concerns with me.

As your state senator, it is important to understand the viewpoint of constituents like you so that I can make better informed decisions in the Senate. I will follow this issue and keep you up to date as this legislation moves throughout the process. Additionally, I will keep your thoughts and opinions in mind if this legislation comes before the Senate for a vote.

Again, thank you for bringing this important issue to my attention. Should you need further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact my office at (617) 722-1630.

Sincerely,
<image001.jpg>
Eileen M. Donoghue
State Senator
First Middlesex District


My reply:



I would have expected some insight on your position. Probably an indication that we're not on similar ground.

Too bad.

Thanks,

Steve
Click to expand...

Donahue must have sent a bunch of these out to a distribution list at about the same time, a buddy of mine whom I informed about the bill is also in her district and fired off an email, she sent him the same response at 3:08-14.00 on the 15th.
 
I think this legislation is most likely just as dead as all the other. Pretty sad. Now that the casino stuff is over, what are they actually going to bicker over when the session comes to its bitter end in what, July or August?
 
terraformer said:
The story is a rehash from earlier in the year. They trotted this one out because of the FL incident. This just gives them a chance to whack us around a bit. ****ing DBs.
Click to expand...

You're so right, Tom. If even a mild piece of legislation like 661 won't get through, it makes Comm2A even more relevant. We will need the courts to try to straighten out this mess we're in.
 

Similar threads

Californians Arming Up for Self-Defense as Illegals Flood into Cities
Replies
23
Views
464
mothybee
mothybee
Fact Check: Brady Campaign Falsely Claims Guns ‘Are Rarely Used Successfully in Self-Defense’
Replies
0
Views
45
Reptile
Reptile
New Orleans Police Chief Pushes More Gun-Free Zones — Where Tourists Can’t Be Armed for Self-Defense
Replies
21
Views
351
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
Red Raven Defense
Replies
19
Views
517
RPLHVAC
R
Update-Liberty Safe Electronic Lock Fail
2
Replies
35
Views
982
GaryO
GaryO
Back
Top Bottom