Iowa Considers Castle Doctrine – State Legislature Considers Removing ‘Duty to Retreat’

Iowa Considers Castle Doctrine – State Legislature Considers Removing ‘Duty to Retreat’

Important changes to self-defense law in Iowa, otherwise known as the Castle Doctrine.

Iowa is one of the states that requires you to pretty much be cornered to use deadly force. Yesterday, the legislature made steps to correct that lunacy. The state House Public Safety Committee passed House File 573 by a 14 to 7 vote. The legislation will now be sent to the House floor for consideration.

House File 573 would remove a person’s “duty to retreat” from an attacker, allowing law-abiding citizens to stand their ground and protect themselves or their family anywhere they are lawfully present. It would create a presumption that an individual who unlawfully or forcefully enters your dwelling, place of business or employment, or occupied vehicle is there to cause serious bodily injury or death, so the occupant may use force, including deadly force, against that person. HF 573 also would expressly enhance the protections against criminal prosecution and civil lawsuits when justifiable force is used.

Read more here.

One thought on “Iowa Considers Castle Doctrine – State Legislature Considers Removing ‘Duty to Retreat’

  1. The following is an email I wrote to Iowa’s Public Safety Committee:

    I support “House File 573″
    bob.kressig@legis.state.ia.us

    Message flagged
    Tuesday, February 28, 2012 1:20 AM
    Dear Sir;

    As one who exercises his rights to bear arms not only as an American and Iowan citizen, but as a human being entitled to the preservation of life – be it my own or those whose lives are at risk (namely, my family), I wish to communicate my support in the passage of “House File 573″ for the sole reason that the right to bear arms is a right that isn’t ‘given’ by the enacting of any law by man (as in it isn’t a privilege), but rather it is a right that we are born to.

    Just as the U.S. Constitution didn’t give us our rights as federal and state citizens by it’s ratification, but rather the document being drafted in recognition of these already preexisting right so to bring heed and to protect them, I find that any law passed that restrict these rights simply inexcusable. Though I would have it encouraged among all who partake in exercising this right to be absolutely the last measure taken in assuring their lives, I can’t fathom one facing prosecution for doing what anybody would want to do when faced with danger that they had interpreted as life-threatening, what any ‘average’ man would deem life-threatening. (I hereby declare the breaking into my home as being interpreted ‘life-threatening’, and I would not want to pursue necessary dictations as scripted by current law in a most adrenaline-pumping scenario to first verbally warn and then attempt to dissuade the perpetrator from further ingression as I believe the visible displaying of my gun in my hand as saying enough – literally non-verbally speaking – “get the fuck out!” (pardon my usage). What more needs to be said? “Oh, I won’t shoot you. I’ll just wait for the police to get here before you potentially rape me, beat me, sodomize me, steal my valuables, or simply scare me beyond comprehension because you’re an intruder. That being said, are you going to let me use my phone?”)

    Furthermore, should a prosecution of any magnitude attempt to strip such a person of their rights and means to life (not their actual life but freedom unto self) for the actions they took to ensure their life, could not and would not the person’s countering-actions to the provocation caused by the prosecution justify that persons countering-act in furthering ensuring their rights to life (and therefore the rights to bear arms so to further preserve their lives) by whatever means necessary? I think so, for such a provocation is unmerited and is cause for one to interpret said prosecution as a continuing threat to their livelihood. (Of course, this is the high-extreme, and the more diplomatic approach to such a threat would be to sue. I simply state this to show what is observably justifiable, as any threat against a man who is in the right, what anybody would know to be of one who is in the right, regardless of the threat being within the confines of law or not (as man laws don’t always apply), gives that man the right to act accordingly. We know this to be true for nations have been doing this for millenniums.)

    I staunchly reiterate my support of “House File 573″ simply because of what History has to teach us: that no man wishes for his life to be in the hands of another but his own, or God’s, if he prefers.
    Sincerely
    Daniel Young

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>