More thoughts (and possible action) on the "Stand Your Ground" bill

HB 1027 filed by Rep. Mike Burris (D-Malvern) is set for a special order of business on Tuesday, February 6th in the House Judiciary Committee. This bill modifies the self-defense statute in Arkansas (click here for the current law). I received a call this morning from Brent Haltom, my local prosecutor, in opposition to this bill. Brent's concern, as well as mine, deal with the phrase "where a person has a right to be." After all, this bill's alternative common name is the "Castle Doctrine," not the "place where I have a right to be" doctrine. I simply want to protect lawful gunowners and close the loophole on potentially assisting criminals avoid prosecution.

Word is that Rep. Bond will offer an amendment in committee (obviously a 'hostile' amendment) to restrict the area where this statute applies to a person's home and surrounding curtilage. I'm even willing to go farther than that and to allow protection in the person's car and office. Both Rep. Bond and John Anderson (in the comments section of a previous post on this blog) raise the point that this language can't be drafted in the bill in a manner that would make sense.

I've done some research in states where this same bill is pending in other states and have found language in the Texas proposal (SB378 -- click here) that I could actually live with. It uses the definition of "habitation" and restricts the area to the actor's "habitation, vehicle, and place of business or employment." This is much better than an area "where a person has a right to be." This will probably upset both sides, which means it's likely a good compromise.