Quote Originally Posted by XJ
Starting from the next part of line 27, which is where the previous poster stopped his paste. The next part seems to define when you presume this reasonable fear.

AN OCCUPANT OF A DWELLING, PLACE OF BUSINESS, OR VEHICLE IS PRESUMED TO HAVE HELD A REASONABLE FEAR OF IMMINENT PERIL OF DEATH OR SERIOUS BODILY INJURY TO HIMSELF OR HERSELF OR A THIRD PERSON WHEN USING PHYSICAL FORCE THAT IS INTENDED OR LIKELY TO CAUSE DEATH OR SERIOUS BODILY HARM TO ANOTHER IF:

(a) THE PERSON AGAINST WHOM THE PHYSICAL FORCE WAS USED WAS IN THE PROCESS OF UNLAWFULLY AND FORCIBLY ENTERING, OR HAD UNLAWFULLY AND FORCIBLY ENTERED, THE DWELLING, PLACE OF BUSINESS, OR VEHICLE, OR IF THAT PERSON HAD UNLAWFULLY REMOVED, OR WAS ATTEMPTING TO UNLAWFULLY REMOVE, ANOTHER PERSON AGAINST THAT PERSON'S WILL FROM THE DWELLING, PLACE OF BUSINESS, OR VEHICLE; AND

(b) THE OCCUPANT KNEW OR HAD REASON TO BELIEVE THAT AN UNLAWFUL AND FORCIBLE ENTRY OR UNLAWFUL AND FORCIBLE ACT WAS OCCURRING.

My reading of the above: part (a) says they are in the process of coming in, or already there. OR they try and take someone away. Two seperate things. No need to get into the bad guy's means, opportunity, jeopardy, disparity of size, whatever. AND (b) you know they aren't supposed to be there or doing that.

Next is 2.5 which sets out some exceptions, which don't seem too bad as long as "unlawful activity" isn't taken to extremes (copyright violation :roll: )


Thoughts? It seems like an improvement
This is an improvement but there are still legal gotchas hidden in the language. For example "Unlawfully and forceably entering" - what if you left your door unlocked or it was even open? They didn't forceable enter.

I applaud the addition of vehicles to the explicit definition of where the law will apply, but what makes you think an anti-gun DA, or any DA looking to make a name before an election (think Duke Lacrosse Team) won't take "unlawful activity" to extremes (somebody else used the example of copying a DVD). Language can be very precise, yet most lawyers wield language like a weapon and can find ambiguities in even the best intentioned law. So why couldn't the lawyers have just said "commiting a felony" instead of "unlawful activity". That would have covered the obvious intent (e.g., a crack dealer shooting a rival gang member who just broke in) while not giving the criminals a free out just because you were participating in an illegal gambling operation (i.e. betting in a football pool). It's lawyers twisting the wording of the 2nd amendment that has us all worried now.