http://www.wral.com/news/state/nccapitol/story/9805007/

Quote :

" CHAPEL HILL, N.C. — The idea that a man's home is his castle dates to the 18th century. In law, it is codified as the right to defend one's home from intruders without fear of being arrested. North Carolina lawmakers recently voted to expand that right. Paul Valone, president of gun rights group Grass Roots North Carolina, knows guns and the Castle Doctrine. He wrote the original law currently on the books. “The important thing to note is that Castle Doctrine is not a make my day law,” he said. Under current state law, before homeowners can use deadly force against someone, they must have a reasonable belief that the intruder intends to kill or seriously hurt them. Effective Dec. 1, gun owners will have less guesswork. The update to the law flips the burden of proof from the homeowner to prosecutors. If someone unlawfully crosses a homeowner’s threshold, whether there's a weapon in the intruder’s hands or not, it's automatically presumed that the person is a violent intruder. “So, under Castle Doctrine, there’s a legal presumption that if he’s here, inside forcibly and unlawfully inside, he’s here to do me harm. And at that point, I can respond with deadly force,” Valone said. However, there are limits in the new law. If the intruder tries to leave, the Castle Doctrine no longer applies. The bill also includes the right to defend your car and workplace, but you can't just pull a gun on anybody walking by. “(The intruder) has to forcibly and unlawfully try to enter the vehicle,” Valone said. Part of the law will also apply outside people’s homes – an alley, a mall, anywhere that person has a legal right to be. Under the law, if a perpetrator runs up to someone with a bat, that person would first have to try to run away. The new law removes the duty to retreat. If the person felt the perpetrator could kill or cause harm, he or she could use deadly force, if necessary. However, prosecutors can still argue that the threat wasn’t real. “Castle Doctrine is not a get out of jail free card,” Valone said. The law that updates the Castle Doctrine makes these other changes to gun laws in the state: District attorneys, assistant district attorneys and DA investigators can carry concealed handguns in courthouses, but not in courtrooms. If a person is found with a gun of any kind (open or concealed) on school property or at a school-sponsored event, they are only guilty if they knowingly brought it on campus. A sheriff has to either issue or deny a gun permit within 45 days, down from 90 days. People can carry a concealed handgun on the grounds or waters of state parks. People can purchase a gun in another state as long as they under go a background check for that state, including an inquiry of the National Instant Background Check System."

12/8/2011 1:56:44 PM

sounds like a make my day kinda law to me

12/8/2011 2:11:09 PM

^It isn't. The changes to the law to more effectively protect the homeowner against prosecution for defending their own home.

12/8/2011 2:20:23 PM

To me it sounds like motherfuckers just looking for an excuse to shoot motherfuckers to me

12/8/2011 2:21:17 PM

ahahaha, this isn't close to a make my day law

12/8/2011 2:21:37 PM

gotta go to $exas for that

12/8/2011 2:22:28 PM

The doctrine is fine the way it is. No need to let the redneck-wanna-be-cowboys feel like they have more rights to pop off.

12/8/2011 2:24:36 PM

good

12/8/2011 2:27:31 PM

Quote :

" The changes to the law to more effectively protect the homeowner against prosecution for defending their own home. "

Has this been an actual problem or were law makers just wasting time pandering for votes?

12/8/2011 2:28:49 PM

while the chances of getting robbed by a determined criminal are slim, you do have to yield to the fact that it is for the most part random; being prepared is great, but being lawfully protected takes away a hesitation to stop aggression that has been there for decades.

12/8/2011 2:37:04 PM

so we can legally shoot mormons and door to door salespeople now? sweet

12/8/2011 2:41:34 PM

to me it sounds like Texas to me

12/8/2011 2:42:41 PM

Quote :

"The doctrine is fine the way it is. No need to let the redneck-wanna-be-cowboys feel like they have more rights to pop off."

No, it isn't fine. I shouldn't have to run and hide if someone breaks into my house.

This isn't about "redneck-wanna-be-cowboys". It is about the fact that in my house (and honestly, anywhere else I'm legally allowed to be), I shouldn't have to cower in fear to someone who wishes to do me harm.

12/8/2011 2:43:11 PM

i feel like if it becomes armed robbery just because the perp says he has a gun wether he does or does not then it should be automatically assumed that someone entering your residence or property while you are there intends to inflict harm

good law imo

Quote :

"while the chances of getting robbed by a determined criminal are slim"

que?

if youre getting robbed, why would you think they are being casual about it?

[Edited on December 8, 2011 at 3:16 PM. Reason : g]

12/8/2011 3:15:44 PM

cool, so don't shoot them in the back and you're all good

12/8/2011 3:31:59 PM

Quote :

"if youre getting robbed, why would you think they are being casual about it? "

that's a fair question
-=In My Opinion=-
the vast majority of crimes that aren't committed are simply the result of the 7 P's being properly exercised, Proper Previous Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance. Things like locking your car/house/office/business when you can't be there to watch it personally, or using a safe in a grocery store that everyone can see is always locked with a drop slot, etc.

The Exception to this rule (once again, in my opinion) is the determined individual that will not stop at the first, second or third obstacles between him and my well being/property, such as deadbolts, car windows, public places, etc.

I am the last person that would ever want to mortally injure another person, I prefer to apply the philosophy of 'stopping aggression' as my main intent. With that said, I appreciate very much having the law on my side in a muddy case of self-defense, should it come to that.

12/8/2011 4:31:59 PM

Quote :

"I shouldn't have to cower in fear to someone who wishes to do me harm."

You don't under the current law. If they are intending to harm you, you can shoot them.

The new law lets you shoot anyone who enters your property, regardless of whether they intend to harm you or not.

12/8/2011 4:38:13 PM

EVEN MORE INCENTIVE TO STAY THE FUCK OUTTA SOMEONE ELSE'S YARD NOW, EH.

12/8/2011 4:41:00 PM

Quote :

"The new law lets you shoot anyone who enters your property, regardless of whether they intend to harm you or not."

It shifts the burden to the prosecution, which in most other cases, is the correct way the law should be applied. The prosecution must prove guilt; you don't have to prove innocence. The law prior to Dec 1 put the burden of proving innocence on the real victim.

12/8/2011 4:45:21 PM

^thank you, well said.

12/8/2011 4:53:44 PM

how was I suppose to know she was pulling a jesus pamphlet out of her pocket? could have been a gun

12/8/2011 5:50:16 PM

It you don't want to get shot. Dont break into my house. It's really simple.

12/8/2011 5:53:20 PM

It you don't want to get shot. Dont break into my house step on my grass. It's really simple.

12/8/2011 5:58:31 PM

If you don't want to get shot, don't break into my house / step on my grass look at me funny. It's really simple.

12/8/2011 6:04:05 PM

It you don't want to get shot. Dont break into my house get in front of my bullets. It's really simple.

12/8/2011 6:05:27 PM

12/8/2011 6:06:45 PM

12/8/2011 6:10:58 PM

i support these changes

12/8/2011 7:11:12 PM

Quote :

"The new law removes the duty to retreat"

That whole you have to try to escape first has always seemed like BS to me. If you come at me, I should be able to respond appropriately.

Also, STAY OFF MY GRASS.

Lastly, just rewrite the law "don't start nuttin', won't be nuttin'"

12/8/2011 11:11:55 PM

12/8/2011 11:49:13 PM