T.Mike Curry Weblog

Thursday August 09, 2007

Missouri Municipal League and Banning Discharge of Firearms

In Newsletter No. 261 of June 2007, the Missouri Municipal League (MML) encouraged cities and municipalities to act before August 28th of this year to create ordinances/laws prohibiting the discharge of weapons within city limits.

August 28th is when Missouri Senate Bill 225 goes into affect. This bill, referred to as the "Hunting Heritage Protection Areas Act", states that "the discharge of firearms for hunting, sport, and other lawful purposes shall not be prohibited in hunting heritage protection areas, which are defined as the 100-year floodplains of the Missouri and the Mississippi Rivers as designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency."

The areas affected are only the 100-year floodplains of the Missouri and Mississippi rivers. However, the MML has encouraged all of its members to pass laws prohibiting hunting and weapon discharge within their city limits before August 28th. SB225 has a clause in it which allows any such law in affect before August 28th to stand and remain on the books.

Interestingly, SB225 already has a provision in it which specifically exempts areas designated as "urbanized areas according to the 2000 U.S. Census". Additionally it exempts "land used by facilities that are regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; land used for the operation of physical ports of commerce and customs ports; land within Kansas City and St. Louis City; and land located within one-half mile of an interstate highway, as such highway exists as of August 28, 2007."

There are already plenty of laws and ordinances on the books with which a person who discharges a firearm can be charged. So, the questions are- Why the push to get all MML member cities to pass these laws before August 28th? If the "urban areas" (i.e.- cities and towns) on the 100-year floodplains are already exempt, why do they need to pass yet another new law? Why do cities not on the 100-year floodplains need to pass yet another new law?


Here is an excerpt from Missouri Municipal League Newsletter No. 261 of June 2007 (as of August 9th, 2007):

"DISCHARGE OF WEAPONS WITHIN THE CITY … The General Assembly adopted H.B. 327 that allows hunting and the discharge of weapons within the city limits in Missouri and Mississippi River flood plains. They also passed S.B. 225 that allowed cities to prohibit such activities if the ordinance was passed before August 28, 2007. The bills are in conflict and, at this time, no one seems to know which will prevail. The Governor may veto H.B. 327. If you do not now have an ordinance prohibiting hunting and the discharge of weapons within the city, we encourage you to do so before August 28, 2007. We have an excellent sample ordinance from Lee’s Summit on the MML Web site."


Relevant Links:
-- Mo Senate Bill 225
-- Missouri Municipal League

  ( Aug 09 2007, 03:59:41 AM CDT ) Permalink

An Eminent Domain Victory You Might Have Missed

On July 6, 2007, Missouri Governor Matt Blunt vetoed House Bill 327. This bill, amongst other things, would have allowed creation of Regional Railroad Authorities. These agencies or departments would have had the ability to use eminent domain within Missouri and would have been under the control of unelected officials.

In his veto letter, Governor Matt Blunt had this to say [emphasis mine]:

"IV. The bill would create a regional railroad authority giving eminent domain and taxing authority to unelected officials.

"House Bill 327 authorizes local government entities to create a new type of political subdivision called a regional railraod authority. Regional railroad authorities created under this legislation will be directed by unelected officials and granted some degree of eminent domain and taxing powers. This comes at a time when we have been working successfully to end the abuse of eminent domain authority to protect private landowners."


House Bill 327
http://www.house.mo.gov/bills071/bills/HB327.htm

Veto Letter
http://www.house.mo.gov/bills071/rpt/HB327vl.pdf


Read more about eminent domain abuse in Missouri and find out how to sign the petition...

Missouri Citizens for Property Rights
http://www.mo-cpr.org/

Missouri Eminent Domain Abuse Coalition
http://medac.typepad.com/

  ( Aug 09 2007, 03:08:13 AM CDT ) Permalink

Thursday July 12, 2007

Be Glad You Don't Live in Australia

In late June an Australian man was arrested by Australian authorities and charged with "conduct endangering life and firearm offences". His arrest and confiscation of his rifle came after a reported group of three to five men cut the power to his southwest Victoria house, worked their way around it trying to find a way in, then threw rocks through the front window, and finally started forcing the locked front door open. The man reportedly fired a single shot through the door, to protect himself, a woman, and a young girl with him in the home. Since then, none of the reported house-breakers have been arrested. The only arrest has been the home-owner. And apparently, as far as Australia goes, he's in a fair amount of trouble.

This story has been posted on a lot of internet news sites. Some give more information, some less. Here's two for example...

Man Charged For Firing Shot to Scare Off Home Intruders
News.com.au
TheAustralian.News.com

After having the power cut to your home, a group of men rounding your house testing the windows and doors, throwing rocks through the front window, and finally starting to work on breaking in your front door.. I'd say it's safe to assume those men were not there to make a FedEx™ delivery. Yet, in Australia, the home-owner gets arrested. Well, it's that way in England too, as I understand.

As sad as self-defense rights are in Australia, it is also interesting to read the commentaries on these articles.

A lot of mention is made of the United States and how people here have the right to defend themselves. A lot of mention is also made of how we in the USA can have firearms to defend ourselves as well. Then typically the anti-gun commentors kick in and point out how much lower the "violent death by guns" rate is in Australia compared to... in the USA.

The pro-self-defense and pro-gun commentors then point out how many more times a firearm is used to ~prevent~ crime... in the USA.

To this the anti's point out how "Americanizing" their gun laws would lead to rivers of blood and how they would have the horrendously high gun-deaths numbers like... in the USA.

Someone usually manages to insert a comment about how steeped in the violence of the gun our culture is and how American's will, "sadly", continue to be such a violent people. Often times an additional negative comment is made about the NRA (National Rifle Association)... in the USA.

Pro-gun voices then counter with numbers showing how violent crimes using alternate weapons have shot up in Australia.

Anti's return the counter with numbers on how gun suicides have dropped to almost nothing. (I still don't understand how this point is the counter to the previous one).

Pro-gun commentors next respond that the law-abiding citizens are the only ones being disarmed; the criminals still get guns.

Well, the anti's will reply, that's why more and stricter gun laws and more banning of firearms is needed.

A few more reasonable points are made by a rapidly dwindling group of commentors. Someone at about this point mentions the cost and time of law enforcement arresting law-abiding citizens for defending themselves against the ever-growing tide of criminals. Meanwhile, real criminals don't get caught or get sentences smaller than the victims who defended themselves.

Before much longer the remaining comments degrade into personal digs at each other by the small handful of remaining comment posters.

But having read through a fair number of comment sections on various outside-the-USA web sites, I'm surprised to find how consistently the chain of comments follows this pattern.

Here's a fairly typical example...
TheWideAwakes.org - I'm ashamed to be an Australian Tonight


A couple of thoughts:

• I never realized we in the USA were "such a violent people".
   
• Australia is much further along in the process of disarming their citizens than is the United States.
   
• It seems it is a ~lot~ easier in Australia to get yourself arrested and put in jail for simply defending yourself from a criminal than it is in the USA.
   
• There's still a number of people in Australia who believe they should have the right to defend themselves, and be able to use a firearm for that purpose if need be. Unfortunately, they are fighting an already-lost battle.
   
• Anti-gun people in Australia use pretty much the same reasons and "evidence" for gun control/banning as do the anti-gun people in the USA. They seem to stick to a repertoire of statements and will only use certain selected statistics to support gun-bans. They ignore any other statistics presented and instead reply with "so you want blood to run in our streets, you violence promoting mad-man" type responses.
   
• The NRA is despised even in Australia.
   
• The debate seems so similar to the one going on here in the USA. The only difference is, they're way ahead of us in the banning of firearms and the controlling of who may, or rather who may not, have a firearm.
   
• Reading articles like this in TheAustralian.News.com, and more so the comments, makes me wonder if I'm looking through a window to our future.
   
• And lastly, it makes me realize I'm glad I live here... in the USA.

Saturday June 02, 2007

Why Gun People Always Have A Stockpile of Ammunition

I'm not sure why I've been thinking of this lately, but for some reason it's just been on my mind. No particular recent news article made me think of it. Perhaps it's just there've been so many online, printed, or broadcast stories over the years that it's just sort of stuck to the roof of my brain; a big to-do article comes out about some person's house being searched (many times for reasons unrelated to a weapons offense) and they find "a massive stockpile of ammunition" - which they always confiscate too, by-the-way. They always make it sound like there's something seriously wrong that George Doe had "hundreds of rounds of lethal ammunition". Invariably they quote some bystander or opinionated official who says something along the lines of "there's just no reason anyone could possibly need that much ammunition".

So why do all these people have these "massive stockpiles" of ammunition? The "drive-by media" (I'm starting to like that phrase) make it sound like the person must have been saving it up and hording it for years. What were they possibly going to do with all those deadly rounds of lethal lead? The media typically leaves the reader/listener hanging in suspense on that one, to ponder on their own worst fears of havoc and carnage.

Well let's look at widgets for a moment. You have a set amount of money you earn each month. Widgets cost a certain amount, and like everything else, the price always tends to go up. Fortunately, Widgets stay good and usable for a long time even after you've purchased them if stored properly. The manufacturer makes different types of widgets. There are little ones, medium ones, and big ones. Packaging and labor costs a certain amount and as is often the case, especially with the little ones, it's just not cost-affective to sell fewer than certain quantities per box; the labor and packaging costs more than the manufacturer can charge for the number of widgets in a too-small-a-quantity box. Occasionally there are special sale bargains like buy 2 get one free, or 10% off, and such. There are also price breaks if you buy larger quantities. Lastly, the demand for widgets is seasonal. Small widgets are popular year-round, but the medium widgets are primarily wanted by widget-consumers in the fall and the large widgets are in big demand in the spring. During the on-season the stores are crowded and mail-order is backed up. During the off-season it's often hard to find the widgets you want or they're only available in limited quantities. Some stores even quit carrying certain widgets completely during the off-season, to reduce their overhead costs and make more room on their shelves for faster moving, currently-in-season products.

So what does the widget consumer do? Knowing that the price will go up yet the widgets will still be good long after they've bought them, the consumer is inclined to buy now. To minimize the headache of shopping in crowded stores and standing forever in long checkout lines during the on-season, they are inclined to buy in quantity. Doing so also gives them the benefit of the price breaks at higher quantities, further inclining them toward buying larger quantities at a time. For those buyers who prefer the smaller widgets available year-round, the manufacturers only sell them in certain minimum quantities, so they end up buying larger amounts regardless, if simply because they have no other smaller purchase option. These consumers don't typically mind however, as the smaller widgets are less expensive and tend to get used up faster anyway. The buyers of the medium and large widgets also know that during the off-season it will be harder to find the widgets they want, and so they are yet again further inclined to buy larger quantities and "set some aside" (store them) for use later.

Now, go back and re-read the above two paragraphs and replace the word "widget" with the word "bullet".

It's actually very easy for even a modest gun owner to accumulate a quantity which meets the pervading media's definition of "a stockpile of ammunition" or a "lethal cache". Small caliber ammunition (like .22 rimfire for example) is typically sold in quantities of 100, 300, or 500 rounds and is rather inexpensive. Find it on sale, let's say a 'buy one get the second for half price' sale, and you can easily walk out with 200 to 1000 rounds of "lethal ammunition" and still have money left over for a BigMac (tm).

Medium caliber ammunition (like 9mm just to name one) is typically sold in cartons of 50, with a price break for 250 and 500 round boxes. Being such a popular round, you can frequently find it on sale somewhere, so again, people easily walk out with a couple cartons or boxes.

Other medium caliber and larger caliber ammunition (like shotgun shells, or hunting rifle shells, or .45ACP, or .357Magnum rounds) typically come in packages of 5, 10, 20 or 25. They are more expensive. Many of them are seasonal. Especially with the seasonal ammunition, people will buy as many of them as they can at a time for the best price they can find. And why not? After all, they keep for years if stored properly, the price is only going to be higher next year, and out-of-season they're harder to find. So... buy now and buy lots while you can.

So what it comes down to is most of the time the "ammo-hoarding gun-nuts" aren't gearing up for doomsday, they're just responding to common buyer economics. They're wisely making spending choices to maximize their purchase for the most equitable expense. Yes, there are a few real nut cases out there who really ~are~ stocking up on ammo for when the brain-sucking aliens invade earth, but the greater majority are just simply spending their money wisely.

( Jun 02 2007, 09:30:57 AM CDT ) Permalink

Wednesday May 16, 2007

Castle Doctrine and PTA Repeal Passes Mo House
By a vote of 151 to 6 the SCS for HCS for SCS for SBs 62 & 41 (combined, perfected) bill passed the Missouri House. Next stop, the Governor's desk.

This bill defines the Castle Doctrine for Missouri; that within your home or vehicle you have a legal right to meet violent criminal force with force and defend yourself, without being required to first retreat. It also grants a person found lawfully justified in self-defense an immunity from criminal and civil lawsuit in connection with that act of self-defense. In addition, the Permit to Acquire (PTA) system for purchasing concealable firearms is repealed. Since the VT Tech tragedy, an addition was (slightly earlier) added regarding reporting of court-ordered mental health treatment to the NICS system. This bill also allows Federal flight deck officers and some retired police officers to carry concealed firearms without first obtaining a concealed-carry weapons (CCW) permit. Lastly, it allows law enforcement departments to sell confiscated firearms and keep the proceeds.
( May 16 2007, 08:53:11 PM CDT ) Permalink

Tuesday May 15, 2007

Castle Doctrine and PTA Repeal
The Missouri Senate voted 29 yea and 3 nay to pass the Castle Doctrine and PTA repeal bill. This bill must now go back to the House and pass again before it can go on to the Governor for signing. It remains to be seen if this bill will make it with the very short time remaining in the current legislative session. Should it pass and be signed, it would go into affect on August 28th, 2007.

SCS for HCS for SCS for SBs 62 & 41 (combined, perfected) (that reads "Senate committee substitute for House committee substitute for Senate committee substitute for Senate Bills 62 & 41 combined and perfected") would make several significant changes in Missouri law regarding self-defense, the use of force, and how Missourian's purchase handguns.

This bill defines the Castle Doctrine for Missouri; that within your home or vehicle you have a legal right to meet violent criminal force with force and defend yourself, without being required to first retreat. It also grants a person found lawfully justified in self-defense an immunity from criminal and civil lawsuit in connection with that act of self-defense. In addition, the Permit to Acquire (PTA) system for purchasing concealable firearms is repealed. Since the VT Tech tragedy, an addition was (slightly earlier) added regarding reporting of court-ordered mental health treatment to the NICS system. This bill also allows Federal flight deck officers and some retired police officers to carry concealed firearms without first obtaining a concealed-carry weapons (CCW) permit. Lastly, it allows law enforcement departments to sell confiscated firearms and keep the proceeds.

You can read the Senate journal page to find what actions were taken and who voted for and against this bill.
( May 15 2007, 08:57:49 PM CDT ) Permalink

Tuesday May 08, 2007

Missouri 2nd Amendment Gains in Trouble

Missouri's hopes for gaining ground on the 2nd Amendment were quite possibly dashed today as the Missouri Senate rejected the House changes to SB-62. The Missouri Senate has asked that the House either withdraw the changes or it will be sent to a conference committee. With little time remaining in the current legislative session, it is a most likely fate that this bill will simply fade away, lost in committee. If this happens, it will have to wait and be refiled next legislative session, where the whole process will have to start over again from scratch.

This is a sad fate for what was originally several prefiled bills. Over the legislative session these bills were drawn together into one bill, HCS SCS SBs 62 & 41. They-and-then-It went in and out of committee, and were voted on with highly favorable "Do Pass" margins in both the Missouri House and Senate. Unfortunately both sides kept making ammendments, forcing it to go back and forth in badminton-esque fashion between the House, Senate, and their committees.

Late Addition:
The Missouri House has decided not to decline its changes to SB-62. This means it will now go to a joint conference between the Senate and House.
( May 08 2007, 07:10:10 PM CDT ) Permalink

Thursday May 03, 2007

Restoring the 2nd Ammendment in Missouri
The HCS/SCS/SBs 62 & 41 bill is very close to going on to the Governor for a signature. Originally 62/41 started as several separate bills in both the Missouri House and Senate. As the different related bills went in and out of committee, they passed various votes and were combined to form what is now HCS/SCS/SBs 62 & 41. The Senate passed it and sent it to the House. The House made changes, and voted it "Do Pass" with 154 'yea' to 6 'nay' on May 2nd, 2007. Now this bill goes back to the Senate to consider the changes. If they pass it, it will go to the Governor's desk for (hopefully) a signature.

This bill is sponsored by Senator Jack Goodman. It would define that a lawful citizen "has no duty to retreat and has the right to meet force with force if he or she reasonably believes it necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony." It would also provide for immunity from civil suit in the event a lawful citizen was found justified in using lethal force in self-defense. In addition this bill would repeal the Permit To Acquire (PTA) requirements of Missouri law, as well reduce the current criminal penalty for transfer of a concealable firearm down to an infraction. In light of the recent VT Tech tragedy, it is likely that an additional ammendment regarding reporting of court-ordered mental health treatment to the NICS system will be added.

As this bill now goes back to the Senate, and since time in this current legislative session is running out, now is the time to contact your Senator and the Governor and let them know if you support this bill.

If signed by Governor Matt Blunt, this law would become effective on August 28, 2007.

( May 03 2007, 09:47:59 PM CDT ) Permalink Comments [2]

SIGNED: Confiscation Protection During State Emergencies
On April 13th, 2007, at the NRA Convention in St.Louis, Governor Matt Blunt signed SB-257 into law. This legislation prohibits the confiscation of lawfully possessed firearms or ammunition from citizens during a state of emergency. The ammendment to RSMo Chapter 44 will become affective on August 28, 2007. Similar legislation, dubbed "the Katrina Bill", has already passed in many other states.

And yes, I am rather behind in getting this posted!! However, since it doesn't become affective until August I could, with a bit of a stretch, argue that I'm actually posting this ~early~ since you'll have to wait several months for it to become active law... stretch, stretch!

  ( May 03 2007, 09:15:58 PM CDT ) Permalink

Friday April 13, 2007

Confiscation Protection Bill Goes to Governor
Having made its way through the House and then the State Senate, it is now on Governor Matt Blunt's desk awaiting signature. Senate Bill 257 states that "The state, any political subdivision, or any person shall not prohibit or restrict the lawful possession, transfer, sale, transportation, storage, display, or use of firearms or ammunition during an emergency."

Contact Governor Matt Blunt if you are interested in urging him to sign this bill.

This bill passed easily through the House and Senate, and is expected to be signed in short order. After Katrina, many states have begun enacting anti-confiscation laws. This is indeed a good law to have, as it helps ensure citizens retain their 2nd Aemndment rights at a time when they may be most in need of this right. However, when you take a step back and look at the larger picture, big catastrophes and state emergencies don't actually occur all that often. For politicians, this bill is a fairly easy give-away to 2nd Amendment supporters. Although it is an important law to have enacted in Missouri, 2A supporters should be thankful, appreciative, and continue on with equal vigor supporting laws that protect their Constitional rights, as well as supporting the reduction of the multitude of useless restrictions and regulations which only the law-abiding adhere to and the criminals ignore.

( Apr 13 2007, 07:03:22 AM CDT ) Permalink Comments [1]

Friday April 06, 2007

License Those Evil Bullets!

State Senator Eric Adams of Brooklyn, New York, wants to license bullets. He and others like him would further make laws that allow a person to only buy ammunition as specified for the firearm listed on a gun license. Purchases of bullets would also be registered with the State. The State bills Sen. Eric Adams and two others are proposing come after a tragic event were a man shot and killed a bartender and an auxiliary police officer in a Greenwich Village restaurant.

Although this is occurring in New York, similar legislation is also being proposed elsewhere around the country. And it could happen here. All it would take is for one unfortunate, tragic event to occur in Missouri, and the bills would come rolling in.

Unfortunately, these bills miss the point. The bullets are not evil. The guns do not attack people, kill them, rape them, nor rob them. Neither do the bullets that go in the guns. It is violent criminals who do these things. Criminals rob. Criminals commit murder. Criminals break into houses and steal things. Rather than introduce new bills, legislation, and laws, simply enforce the laws we have... and make the sentences stick.

Licensing and legal restrictions on bullets would affectively amount to nothing more than an attempt to condition people to licensing and legal restrictions. This serves well to pave the way for more licensing; past conditioning is a wonderful means of assuring acceptance of future further licensing and restrictions (just look at our tax code and our driver’s license renewal process!).

As with hand-guns, knives, and machetes, the law abiding citizens will obey and the criminals will continue to ignore the law. Meanwhile, valuable law enforcement time, funds, and effort will be spent tracking and recording all these licensed bullets... the huge majority of which will end up in dirt banks immediately after punching little holes through empty aluminum cans.

Read the story "Guns Aren't Enough - Pols Want Bullet Control" in the New York Post Online.

( Apr 06 2007, 11:30:15 PM CDT ) Permalink

Bob Barr in St.Louis, April 13th, 2007

Former Congressman Bob Barr will be speaking in St. Louis on April 13th, 2007 at 7:30pm. This speaking event, hosted by the Missouri Libertarian Party, will be about privacy rights and the second amendment. The event is free and will be held at the Renaissance Grand Hotel at 800 Washington Avenue in St. Louis, Missouri. Everyone is welcome to come to the Landmark IV room and enjoy the speech!

Additional good news is that if you are attending the NRA 136th Annual Meeting in St.Louis, this event does not conflict with other events on that Friday. The NRA exhibit hall closes at 6pm that day with no major evening events scheduled. However, if you feel like making a day of it, there is a NRA-ILA Grassroots Workshop also being held at the Renaissance Grand Hotel at 8am that morning. Keep in mind that even if your greater interests do not include second amendment rights, the principles and concepts discussed apply to other arenas of grassroots efforts as well (eminent domain, 4th amendment, and etc.).

Read an announcement of this event that has some more information over on the ShowMeFreedom.org web site.

( Apr 06 2007, 10:17:53 PM CDT ) Permalink

Saturday March 31, 2007

Permit-To-Acquire Going Away

It's a step in the right direction; Under current Missouri law, if a person sells or gives a small firearm to someone else, without first making the other person get a Permit To Acquire (PTA), then both people are guilty of a class A criminal misdemeanor. Missouri House Bill 462 would change that. If passed, HB462 would remove the much criticized PTA requirement and reduce the penalties down to an infraction (basically, a ticket) and at most a $100 fine. People would still be required to adhere to Federal 18 U.S.C. Section 922 however.

It's a start at reducing the daunting multitude of unnecessary gun restriction laws. It would also remove yet another opportunity for law abiding citizens to suddenly and unexpectedly become "criminals" who are "guilty" of a victim-less "crime".

House Bill 462 is sponsored by Representative Brian Munzlinger. This bill was recently reported as "do pass" on March 15th by the Missouri House.

( Mar 31 2007, 08:50:36 AM CDT ) Permalink

Wednesday March 14, 2007

No Confiscation During Emergencies

The Missouri Senate today held a third reading for SB 257. This bill, if passed, would prohibit the confiscation of lawfully possessed firearms or ammunition during a state of emergency in Missouri.

This bill is sponsored by Senator Kevin Engler from District 3, who is also the Majority Caucus Whip. This bill is being handled by the Judiciary and Civil and Criminal Jurisprudence Committee.

Now, if not sooner, is definitely the time to contact your Missouri Senator and let it be known if you support this bill.

The irony of course is that we shouldn't even need to make this a law. It should already be taken as a given that such confiscations by government officials and law enforcement are prohibited. However, given the government ordered and sanctioned confiscations which have occured in recent years during emergencies, many states are passing laws very similar if not the same as this one.

View the online text of this bill and follow its progress.

( Mar 14 2007, 08:03:36 PM CDT ) Permalink Comments [1]

Saturday March 03, 2007

Missouri "Castle Doctrine" Possibly Close to Final Passage

Senate Bill 62, labelled the Missouri "Castle Doctrine" legislation, was introduced into the Senate by State Senator Jack Goodman of District 29. This bill is scheduled for a third reading and possible vote on the Missouri Senate floor on Monday, March 5, 2007.

This bill is intended to amend RSMo Chapter 563 of Missouri law covering the use of deadly force. If passed by the Senate, it would establish the "Castle Doctrine" for Missouri as well as providing for immunity to criminal and civil suits in cases of justified self-defense.

This bill has seen several modifications since its introduction. For example...

• The wording "any place a person has a lawful right to be" has been taken out of the online listed "Perfected" bill (563.0312.(2) and 3 - lines 26-31). The removal of this text has caused some consternation as it leaves only inside a person's dwelling, residence, or vehicle as places where Castle Doctrine protection can be claimed. Some proponents of this bill worry rural residents out on their property, but not in a home, for example, may be denied a Castle Doctrine defense because they were not in a "dwelling, residence, or vehicle". An alternate example expresses concern that someone placing groceries in their car trunk in a parking lot (a place where someone "has a legal right to be") could also be denied a Castle Doctrine defense with this wording. These sound like legitimate concerns, in light of how much courts and lawyers can be sticklers for the wording of the law.
  
  
• The inclusion of "criminal prosecution" as one of the immunities has been put back in the online listed "Perfected" bill (563.074.1). The House version had dropped this wording leaving only immunity to civil action. Proponents deam this item important as they fear it is entirely possible someone using a firearm in lawful self-defense could be found legally justified in using lethal force, yet still be charged with such things as brandishing a firearm, going in terror of the public, discharge of a firearm, criminal public endangerment, and etc.

• Senate Bill 62 Status
• Senate Bill 62 Action Taken
• Senate Bill 62 Text
• The committe handling this bill is the Judiciary and Civil and Criminal Jurisprudence Committee.