Ever since Rep. Marilyn Ruestman, R-Joplin, filed her Castle Doctrine (Frontier Justice) bill, which will soon be signed into law by Governor Matt Blunt, she and other supporters have claimed that it will keep Missourians who use weapons to defend their lives and their property from having to face lawsuits.
Sen. Jack Goodman, R-Mount Vernon, who filed the bill on the Senate side, made the same claim, but told Dave Catanese of KY3 Political Blog that there had been no such lawsuits in southwest Missouri. At each and every such claim, I have challenged the bill's supporters to point out one such lawsuit anywhere in this state. So far no one has done so.
The simple fact is the Castle Doctrine bills are the latest flavor of the month for the National Rifle Association and Marilyn Ruestman, who uses her campaign funds to pay her NRA dues to perfectly willing to go along, even to the extent of claiming that she has had constituents clamoring for this bill. (I would also challenge any constituent who went to Ms. Ruestman before she filed this bill, saying it was necessary to come forward now, if for no other reason than to stop me from saying I don't believe any such constituents exist.)
In the Wednesday Lamar Democrat, Rep. Ed Emery perpetuates this myth about lawsuits:
"Property owners will no longer have to face the agonizing fate of some Missourians who have been subjected to lawsuits for simply defending their property."
I will repeat my challenge. Show me the lawsuits!
One thing is for sure. After the Castle Doctrine is signed there won't be any lawsuits in the future, right?
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, that's a good thing.
:)
Mr.Turner, it's OVER. Move on to to another substantial cause. Maybe something like the amnesty bill or the assault on the First Amendment that gives us the right to express our opinions no matter how asinine they are.....
ReplyDeleteAs long as our politicians are perpetuating this myth that there have been all of these lawsuits filed against law-abiding citizens, and fail to show that any have been filed, I will continue to write about it. The same thing holds true when our local politicians insist that they are proffering bills that are being demanded by their constituents when in fact they are simply the top legislative goals of special interest groups.
ReplyDeleteWhat happened to my own grandson out in Oklahoma in 2007 is good reason to worry about how these laws might be misused. He was shot to death, unarmed, less than a week before his court date as a prosecution witness, yet the same prosecutor who was going use him a as a witness turned his killer loose and called it "self-defense." The homicide was thus suspicious, to say the least. It moved me to do some serious investigating and researching, and the more I dug into the matter the more I believed it was an outright murder. So what did my grandson witness? It was drug related murder, which happened in connection with drug trafficking between McKinney Texas and Oklahoma. The researching caused me to realize that his death was only one of numerous others of a questionable nature. It moved me to write a book, "Legalized Killing: The Darker Side of the Castle Laws" which is now available through Kindle. I am a gun owner, a veteran who served honorably, and I am not anti-gun or anti-self defense; however, I sincerely believe that misuses of the castle laws will be the reasons why we'll lose our Second Amendment rights. Get your facts straight before believing that the castle laws are just what we needed. These laws are already working for the criminals!
ReplyDeleteJohn R. Wright, Ph.D.
Emeritus Professor of Chemistry
Cotter, Arkansas