# Castle Doctrine Amendment



## Damaged Eagle (Jun 4, 2021)

The events of 6 January 2021 makes it clear to all law abiding citizens that there needs to be an Amendment to the United States Constitution putting in place Castle Doctrine, incorporating Stand Your Ground & Concealed Carry within its codification, across this great nation. We the citizens of the United States have the right to defend ourselves and our property when we feel threatened. Our Congresspersons made it quite evident that they agree on this issue when they felt threatened that day and carried out their will on an unarmed protestor within the Capitol building.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## Esdraelon (Jun 4, 2021)

TIRESIAS was RIGHT...


----------



## Baron Von Murderpaws (Jun 4, 2021)

Now............the problem is GETTING a gun.........and ammo.
Gun shops are still closed up around here.   

I have a friend who is ex-police who will help me pick something out, but finding a seller is another issue altogether.


----------



## Damaged Eagle (Jun 4, 2021)

ESDRAELON said:


> TIRESIAS was RIGHT...






To which of Tiresias tales do you refer?

*****SMILE*****


----------



## Damaged Eagle (Jun 10, 2021)

Everyone in this great nation should have the right to protect themselves and their property from harm and intrusion

Codify the Castle Doctrine Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. 

Write your congressperson today!

*****SMILE*****


----------



## whitehall (Jun 14, 2021)

Maybe the "castle doctrine" is more than actually defending your property. It's about having a choice of not abandoning your property when confronted by an intruder. The old concept was to retreat if you could.


----------



## Damaged Eagle (Jul 9, 2021)

Time to write your congressperson so this happens

*****SMILE*****


----------



## meaner gene (Jul 9, 2021)

Damaged Eagle said:


> Time to write your congressperson so this happens


The castle doctrine is long standing common law.  You confuse things like "make my day" laws, with castle doctrine laws.


----------



## Damaged Eagle (Jul 9, 2021)

meaner gene said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> > Time to write your congressperson so this happens
> ...






If it's common law then homeowners and business owners wouldn't have been arrested or had their guns confiscated during the rioting during the rioting that's been going on for years now. 

This law needs to be incorporated into the United States Constitution as a right as soon as possible so state and local governments can not deny the people their right to stand up and defend themselves when they feel threatened.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## meaner gene (Jul 9, 2021)

Damaged Eagle said:


> If it's common law then homeowners and business owners wouldn't have been arrested or had their guns confiscated during the rioting during the rioting that's been going on for years now.


No one properly acting under the castle doctrine faced any such actions.  You probably confuse brandishing, threatening, or use of such weapons outside.

It's the castle doctrine, not the moat doctrine, it doesn't extend beyond the four walls.


----------



## meaner gene (Jul 9, 2021)

Damaged Eagle said:


> This law needs to be incorporated into the United States Constitution as a right as soon as possible so state and local governments can not deny the people their right to stand up and defend themselves when they feel threatened.



This is the danger with the "right to carry" laws.  When two people encounter each other on the street.  And for whatever reason one of them feels threatened by the other.  It becomes a quick draw situation.

When one goes for his weapon, even if it's just his cellphone, it then gives the other the right to defend himself.


----------



## Damaged Eagle (Jul 9, 2021)

meaner gene said:


> This is the danger with the "right to carry" laws.  When two people encounter each other on the street.  And for whatever reason one of them feels threatened by the other.  It becomes a quick draw situation.
> 
> When one goes for his weapon, even if it's just his cellphone, it then gives the other the right to defend himself.






That's the chance you're going to have to take.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## meaner gene (Jul 9, 2021)

meaner gene said:


> When one goes for his weapon, even if it's just his cellphone, it then gives the other the right to defend himself.





Damaged Eagle said:


> That's the chance you're going to have to take.
> 
> *****SMILE*****


Actually it's inevitable.

The problem then becomes who started it.  And the only witness would be the one left standing.


----------



## Damaged Eagle (Jul 9, 2021)

meaner gene said:


> Actually it's inevitable.
> 
> The problem then becomes who started it.  And the only witness would be the one left standing.






Happens every day in Chicago

*****SMILE*****


----------



## meaner gene (Jul 9, 2021)

Damaged Eagle said:


> Happens every day in Chicago
> 
> *****SMILE*****


Well the castle doctrine happened on January 6th.

When an intruder broke into the house, they used the castle doctrine justification against the intruder


----------



## Faun (Jul 9, 2021)

Damaged Eagle said:


> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> > Damaged Eagle said:
> ...


Oh? Who got arrested for using a gun to defend themselves from rioters breaking into their business or home?


----------



## Damaged Eagle (Jul 9, 2021)

meaner gene said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> > Happens every day in Chicago
> ...






Which means it should be a nationwide god given right by writing it into the United States Constitution as an Amendment which is covered in my opening post if you had bothered to read it.

If it's good enough for our congresspersons then it's good enough for everyone to have that same write spelled out for them in the United States Constitution.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Damaged Eagle (Jul 9, 2021)

Faun said:


> Oh? Who got arrested for using a gun to defend themselves from rioters breaking into their business or home?






Goggle is our friend learn to use it.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Faun (Jul 9, 2021)

Damaged Eagle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oh? Who got arrested for using a gun to defend themselves from rioters breaking into their business or home?
> ...


No need to. If you can't say, it's because you're full of shit.

Thanks for confirming what I already suspected.


----------



## Damaged Eagle (Jul 9, 2021)

Faun said:


> No need to. If you can't say, it's because you're full of shit.
> 
> Thanks for confirming what I already suspected.







The only one full of that is you.









						Screaming BLM mob surrounds fearful Milwaukee homeowner, he gets arrested after showing a weapon
					

A Milwaukee homeowner was arrested for the alleged crime of pulling a weapon on local activists who'd trespassed onto his home in the middle of the night.




					www.bizpacreview.com
				












						St. Louis couple who brandished guns had right to defend property: attorney
					

Lawyer for the couple says they acted legally under Missouri's Castle Doctrine.




					www.foxnews.com
				












						Teenager charged over killings at Kenosha protest
					

Arrest comes after three nights of unrest in Kenosha following the police shooting of Jacob Blake, a Black man.




					www.aljazeera.com
				




*****SMILE*****


----------



## meaner gene (Jul 9, 2021)

Damaged Eagle said:


> Which means it should be a nationwide god given right by writing it into the United States Constitution as an Amendment which is covered in my opening post if you had bothered to read it.



Actually we need a constitutional amendment, since the first couple didn't seem to work, that says that every american citizen has the right to vote.  And when and how the franchise can be taken away, or restored.

The constitution doesn't actually state a right to vote,  as in shall not be infringed, but only requires that it's equitable.  And merely dictates sanctions when the right is denied.


----------



## meaner gene (Jul 9, 2021)

Damaged Eagle said:


> The only one full of that is you.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


None of those were castle doctrine.

Brandishing (as I already previously mentioned) and gunfights in the streets.

As faun pointed out, why did you lie about people being arrested for defending their castle?


----------



## Faun (Jul 9, 2021)

Damaged Eagle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > No need to. If you can't say, it's because you're full of shit.
> ...


LOLOL 

None of those are cases where someone was arrested for using a firearm to stop a rioter who was breaking into their house.

The first one was a crowd gathered outside the home to annoy the homeowner with loud music and lights. They never even stepped onto the guys property, no less tried to break in. The homeowner was arrested for handling a firearm while intoxicated.

The second one was a crowd passing by a home. They too never even stepped onto the couple's property, no less tried to break in. They were arrested for brandishing a firearm at someone who wasn't threatening them.

The third one didn't even involve a home.

Again, thanks for proving you were full of shit as I suspected all along. Even you know it which is why your initial response was to tell me to hunt for a case with Google.


----------



## meaner gene (Jul 9, 2021)

Faun said:


> None of those are cases where someone was arrested for using a firearm to stop a rioter who was breaking into their house.
> 
> The first one was a crowd gathered outside the home ...
> 
> ...



You called it, before he even tried to bullshit his way by telling you to Google it.


----------



## justinacolmena (Jul 9, 2021)

Damaged Eagle said:


> Our Congresspersons made it quite evident that they agree on this issue when they felt threatened that day and carried out their will on an unarmed protestor within the Capitol building.


I don't think you deserve a photo of Ashli Babbitt on your profile, nor has that Congress for many years had any intention of affording to ordinary American citizens the rights and means of defending themselves.


----------



## meaner gene (Jul 9, 2021)

justinacolmena said:


> I don't think you deserve a photo of Ashli Babbitt on your profile, nor has that Congress for many years had any intention of affording to ordinary American citizens the rights and means of defending themselves.


Congress will never let people have F-16's or Nukes.


----------



## Damaged Eagle (Jul 9, 2021)

meaner gene said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> > The only one full of that is you.
> ...







Quit lying.

The first two I cited were homeowners on their property.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## Damaged Eagle (Jul 9, 2021)

Faun said:


> None of those are cases where someone was arrested for using a firearm to stop a rioter who was breaking into their house.
> 
> The first one was a crowd gathered outside the home to annoy the homeowner with loud music and lights. They never even stepped onto the guys property, no less tried to break in. The homeowner was arrested for handling a firearm while intoxicated.
> 
> The second one was a crowd passing by a home. They too never even stepped onto the couple's property, no less tried to break in. They were arrested for brandishing a firearm at someone who wasn't threatening them.






And the homeowners never fired a shot yet they had repercussions taken against them by law enforcement.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## Damaged Eagle (Jul 9, 2021)

justinacolmena said:


> I don't think you deserve a photo of Ashli Babbitt on your profile, nor has that Congress for many years had any intention of affording to ordinary American citizens the rights and means of defending themselves.








*****SMILE*****


----------



## Faun (Jul 10, 2021)

Damaged Eagle said:


> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> > Damaged Eagle said:
> ...


The liar is you. 

The homeowners were on their property but no one was trying to break into their homes. The Castle Doctrine didn't apply to any of those cases.

Maybe the problem is just that you don't know what the Castle Doctrine is?


----------



## Faun (Jul 10, 2021)

Damaged Eagle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > None of those are cases where someone was arrested for using a firearm to stop a rioter who was breaking into their house.
> ...


I don't know what you're trying to change your point to?

I already pointed out why they were arrested.

1. Handling a loaded firearm *while intoxicated*. That's a crime in Milwaukee. 

2. Brandishing a firearm against someone not threatening you. That's a crime in Missouri.

3. Shooting people. That's a crime in Wisconsin.


----------



## Damaged Eagle (Jul 10, 2021)

Faun said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> > meaner gene said:
> ...






You're right the homeowners were on their property and no one was shot but the homeowners in at least one case were arrested and their firearm confiscated.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## Damaged Eagle (Jul 10, 2021)

Faun said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...






I believe the homeowners felt as threatened as our congresspersons felt about Ashli Babbitt so your argument fails.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## meaner gene (Jul 10, 2021)

Damaged Eagle said:


> You're right the homeowners were on their property and no one was shot but the homeowners in at least one case were arrested and their firearm confiscated.
> 
> *****SMILE*****


Being on your property is not the same as being inside your castle.

That's why it's not called the "property doctrine"


----------



## meaner gene (Jul 10, 2021)

__





						The Castle Doctrine: Why was Chicopee homeowner charged with murder for shooting Springfield teen?
					

The issues of home defense and self-defense are at the forefront of the murder case against Chicopee homeowner Jeffery Lovell, who is accused of fatally shooting 15-year-old Dylan Francisco on Saturday.




					www.masslive.com
				




 "The Massachusetts Castle Doctrine (applies) only to the space within the four walls of your home--step one foot outside, and the generalized duty to retreat is once again imposed," Branca wrote. The Massachusetts law does not apply to what's known as the curtilage, which Branca describes as "the porch, the driveway, the front yard, etc."


----------



## Damaged Eagle (Jul 10, 2021)

meaner gene said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> > You're right the homeowners were on their property and no one was shot but the homeowners in at least one case were arrested and their firearm confiscated.
> ...







Had a stone wall surrounding the property with ironwork gate that had been broken into as far as I'm concerned they were inside their castle.

Which is why we obviously require this Amendment to the United States Constitution to clarify that it is everyone's right to protect their property.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## meaner gene (Jul 10, 2021)

Damaged Eagle said:


> Had a stone wall surrounding the property with ironwork gate that had been broken into as far as I'm concerned they were inside their castle.



Would you hold the same as the barricades erected outside of the Capitol on January 6th.

If so, they not only had full justification to shoot Ashli Babbit who was inside the castle, but they could have shot the rest of the insurrectionists before they even got into the building.

Now that I could support.


----------



## Damaged Eagle (Jul 10, 2021)

meaner gene said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> > Had a stone wall surrounding the property with ironwork gate that had been broken into as far as I'm concerned they were inside their castle.
> ...







And they did shoot her which is why it should be everyone's Constitutional right to be able to do the same.

If it's good enough justification for our congresspersons then it should be everyone's right and clarified as a right in the United States Constitution as an Amendment for all peoples across this great nation.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## Damaged Eagle (Jul 10, 2021)

The only reason ya'all don't like this Constitutional Amendment proposal is because ya'all are BLM and ANTIFA types and know you'll have to be PEACEFUL protestors if ya'all don't want to get shot.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## meaner gene (Jul 10, 2021)

Damaged Eagle said:


> And they did shoot her which is why it should be everyone's Constitutional right to be able to do the same.


Everybody already has the "castle doctrine" under common law.

_The common law principle of “castle doctrine” says that individuals have the right to use reasonable force, including deadly force, to protect themselves against an intruder in their home. This principle has been codified and expanded by state legislatures_


----------



## meaner gene (Jul 10, 2021)

Damaged Eagle said:


> The only reason ya'all don't like this Constitutional Amendment proposal is because ya'all are BLM and ANTIFA types and know you'll have to be PEACEFUL protestors if ya'all don't want to get shot.



You know the castle doctrine doesn't expand into the streets.


----------



## Damaged Eagle (Jul 10, 2021)

meaner gene said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> > And they did shoot her which is why it should be everyone's Constitutional right to be able to do the same.
> ...







And I say it needs to be a Constitutional Amendment that allows castle doctrine, stand your ground, and concealed carry, across this great nation and strikes down unConstitutional gun control laws like the ones in many of the big cities.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## Faun (Jul 10, 2021)

Damaged Eagle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Damaged Eagle said:
> ...


So? You cited those cases in a discussion about the Castle Doctrine. Not one of those cases is a Castle Doctrine case.

For your education, the Castle Doctrine allows for someone legally inside a house or business to resort to lethal defense, if needed, to stop an illegal intruder who is attempting to break in.

None of the cases you cited were about illegal intruders attempting to break into the homeowner's property.


----------



## Faun (Jul 10, 2021)

Damaged Eagle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Damaged Eagle said:
> ...


Your beliefs are irrelevant. As are unreasonable fears by those homeowners given no one was attempting to break into their homes.

Ashli Targetpractice's suicide by cop isn't a Castle Doctrine case either. It's a standard self-defense case where a cop was defending the lives of members of Congress from a violent mob breaking into a restricted area where lawmakers & staff were holed up.


----------



## Damaged Eagle (Jul 10, 2021)

Faun said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...







There's plenty more if you want to look around I'm not going to do the work for you.

I've already gave my reason this needs to be a Constitutional Amendment in the OP and if you don't like it that's really too bad.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## Faun (Jul 10, 2021)

Damaged Eagle said:


> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> > Damaged Eagle said:
> ...


Your concerns are misguided.  That gate led to a private neighborhood and that gate, leading to a sidewalk and street, are not the McClowsky's property. At no time were any of them on the McClowsky's property. Even worse for the McClowsky's case -- one of them drew a firearm *before* that mob even passed through that gate.


----------



## Damaged Eagle (Jul 10, 2021)

Faun said:


> Your beliefs are irrelevant. As are unreasonable fears by those homeowners given no one was attempting to break into their homes.
> 
> Ashli Targetpractice's suicide by cop isn't a Castle Doctrine case either. It's a standard self-defense case where a cop was defending the lives of members of Congress from a violent mob breaking into a restricted area where lawmakers & staff were holed up.







*****ROFLMAO*****


----------



## Faun (Jul 10, 2021)

Damaged Eagle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Damaged Eagle said:
> ...


Nah, you lost this already. You say you're not going to do your work for me as though it's my job to do your work for you.

You made the claim. If you can prove it it's because you're full of shit.


----------



## Faun (Jul 10, 2021)

Damaged Eagle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Your beliefs are irrelevant. As are unreasonable fears by those homeowners given no one was attempting to break into their homes.
> ...


LOL

Deflection noted and laughed at.


----------



## Damaged Eagle (Jul 10, 2021)

Faun said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> > meaner gene said:
> ...






I have no reason to believe you over what the McClowsky's said.

So I'm more likely to believe them over a liar.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## meaner gene (Jul 10, 2021)

Damaged Eagle said:


> And I say it needs to be a Constitutional Amendment that allows castle doctrine, stand your ground, and concealed carry, across this great nation and strikes down unConstitutional gun control laws like the ones in many of the big cities.


Everybody already has the castle docrine.

For "stand your ground" and "concealed carry"  be careful what you ask for.  It would allow a motorist stopped for a traffic  violation to shot the cop, if the cop approaches with his hand on his gun.


----------



## Damaged Eagle (Jul 10, 2021)

Faun said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...







I've already given my justification and there's lots of people I know who agree with me and are writing their congresspersons.

So suck it up.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## meaner gene (Jul 10, 2021)

Faun said:


> Ashli Targetpractice's suicide by cop isn't a Castle Doctrine case either. It's a standard self-defense case where a cop was defending the lives of members of Congress from a violent mob breaking into a restricted area where lawmakers & staff were holed up.


Actually it's both.  The officer was justified under self defense / defense of others.  And also justified under the castle doctrine on top of that.


----------



## Damaged Eagle (Jul 10, 2021)

meaner gene said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> > And I say it needs to be a Constitutional Amendment that allows castle doctrine, stand your ground, and concealed carry, across this great nation and strikes down unConstitutional gun control laws like the ones in many of the big cities.
> ...






They already do that.

So what's your point?

*****SMILE*****


----------



## meaner gene (Jul 10, 2021)

Faun said:


> None of the cases you cited were about illegal intruders attempting to break into the homeowner's property.





Damaged Eagle said:


> There's plenty more if you want to look around I'm not going to do the work for you.



You said there were such cases, and you failed miserably when you tried to find any.

Now you're saying we have to find the non-existent cases of weapons confiscated or owners charged?   Because there aren't any.


----------



## meaner gene (Jul 10, 2021)

meaner gene said:


> For "stand your ground" and "concealed carry"  be careful what you ask for.  It would allow a motorist stopped for a traffic  violation to shot the cop, if the cop approaches with his hand on his gun.





Damaged Eagle said:


> They already do that.
> 
> So what's your point?


My point is under your constitutional wishes, people shooting a police officer that approaches them with his hand on his gun, can be shot in self defense.   And get away with it without fear of prosecution.

Is that what you want?


----------



## Damaged Eagle (Jul 10, 2021)

meaner gene said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > None of the cases you cited were about illegal intruders attempting to break into the homeowner's property.
> ...







Your deflection and lies are noted and those cases have nothing to do with the OP. 

I've already stated my case for this Constitutional Amendment stick to the subject addressed in the OP.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## Damaged Eagle (Jul 10, 2021)

meaner gene said:


> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> > For "stand your ground" and "concealed carry"  be careful what you ask for.  It would allow a motorist stopped for a traffic  violation to shot the cop, if the cop approaches with his hand on his gun.
> ...







A few posts ago you and your progressive friends were making the argument that those "somewhat peaceful protestors" weren't on the persons property and castle doctrine doesn't apply.

A cop outside your car is not on your property.

So now you're saying you can shoot someone who's standing on a public highway and isn't on your property?

Best get your argument straight.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## meaner gene (Jul 10, 2021)

Damaged Eagle said:


> Your deflection and lies are noted and those cases have nothing to do with the OP.
> 
> I've already stated my case for this Constitutional Amendment stick to the subject addressed in the OP.


As I said, under your scenario it would be worse than the wild west.  Anybody in law enforcement would have to approach suspects with their hands in the air, or be subject to the suspect legally shooting them first in self defense.


----------



## meaner gene (Jul 10, 2021)

meaner gene said:


> For "stand your ground" and "concealed carry"  be careful what you ask for.  It would allow a motorist stopped for a traffic  violation to shot the cop, if the cop approaches with his hand on his gun.





Damaged Eagle said:


> A few posts ago you and your progressive friends were making the argument that those "somewhat peaceful protestors" weren't on the persons property and castle doctrine doesn't apply.
> 
> A cop outside your car is not on your property.
> 
> So now you're saying you can shoot someone who's standing on a public highway and isn't on your property?



You granted them the right to self defense.  If they can prove the person approaching them had a gun, they would have legal justification to shoot first.  In self defense.


----------



## Damaged Eagle (Jul 10, 2021)

meaner gene said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> > Your deflection and lies are noted and those cases have nothing to do with the OP.
> ...








That's not an answer and the way it sounds a lot of these large cities are already like the...

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Damaged Eagle (Jul 10, 2021)

meaner gene said:


> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> > For "stand your ground" and "concealed carry"  be careful what you ask for.  It would allow a motorist stopped for a traffic  violation to shot the cop, if the cop approaches with his hand on his gun.
> ...







And now you're being ridiculous.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Damaged Eagle (Jul 10, 2021)

meaner gene said:


> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> > For "stand your ground" and "concealed carry"  be careful what you ask for.  It would allow a motorist stopped for a traffic  violation to shot the cop, if the cop approaches with his hand on his gun.
> ...







Most police don't approach you with a gun in hand unless they see a weapon in yours. 

*****SMILE*****


----------



## Faun (Jul 10, 2021)

Damaged Eagle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Damaged Eagle said:
> ...


LOLOL 

There's video evidence confirming what I said. But you are entitled to ignore it at your own risk.


----------



## Faun (Jul 10, 2021)

Damaged Eagle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > You made the claim. If you can['t] prove it it's because you're full of shit.
> ...


----------



## Faun (Jul 10, 2021)

meaner gene said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Ashli Targetpractice's suicide by cop isn't a Castle Doctrine case either. It's a standard self-defense case where a cop was defending the lives of members of Congress from a violent mob breaking into a restricted area where lawmakers & staff were holed up.
> ...


D.C. does not have any laws pertaining to Castle Doctrine. And lawmakers were in the process of retreating when Ashli Targetpractice was shot. I see that as only a standard self-defense measure.


----------



## Damaged Eagle (Jul 10, 2021)

Faun said:


> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...







Oh! So now they had the ability to retreat but they shot her anyway. 

Sounds like murder to me.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Faun (Jul 10, 2021)

Damaged Eagle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > meaner gene said:
> ...


No one actually said that. I said the opposite. Are you hallucinating again?


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 22, 2021)

Castle doctrine and stand-your-ground are completely the law of the land.  The Constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear arms and the intention is not for safe queens or for hanging above the fireplace.  The 9th and 10th Amendments protect the right already.  Any laws or precedent to the contrary are anti-constitutional.


----------

