Castle Doctrine is up for debate tomorrow in House Judiciary

The Castle Doctrine, better known as the "Stand Your Ground" bill (click here, is up for consideration as a special order of business in House Judiciary in the morning. I'm pretty tormented and still don't know how I'll vote. My dad and I got out the current statute on Saturday and compared it to the proposal, and we both came to the conclusion that the proposal doesn't have that much of a legal effect on current law.

Current law states that unless you are in your home (where the intruder is fair game as far as deadly force is concerned), you have a duty to retreat if "complete safety" does not exist. The 495 e-mails I received on this bill take the position that current law requires one to retreat, which simply isn't the case.

The proposal would create a presumption that if one of three conditions exist (someone committing a felony, someone about to use deadly force, or someone imminently endangering a person's life), deadly force may be use in return.

The phrase I have concerns about extends this presumption to "any place a person has a right to be." An amendment will be offered in committee in the morning that culls this presumption to the "home/curtilage, vehicle, and place of employment" of the person." This amendment is exactly what the NRA thinks this bill already proposes -- read their press release about this very bill -- this bill goes further than even the NRA says it does. This proposed amendment, (and the language in the NRA press release) mirrors the current Texas proposal, and I can definitely support that language, especially since all indications are that it will be the law on the other side of State Line Avenue.

Additionally, Arkansas prosecutors have a problem with the civil and criminal immunity extended in this proposal, fearing that this law may throw up roadblocks to investigations and the gathering of evidence. I am somewhat comforted by the language in subsection (g)(2)(b), which gives a law enforcement agency the right to invesitgate if the act was deemed "unlawful."

Another consideration is that this proposal is already law in 15 states. I've googled the law to determine whether it has caused explosions of crime in states where it has been enacted, and I can't find anything. I'm anxious to hear from the various experts who are sure to testify tomorrow morning both for and against the bill. I've heard from both sides and now just have to make a decision on what I think is best for my district.

Last consideration for those of you handicapping this bill -- don't underestimate legislators' -- especially rural lawmakers' -- concerns of their standing with the NRA (click here for Arkansas NRA ratings).