Northeast Assembly Thread

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Aye on the bill
Aye on Napoleon

[Free Palestine]

Aye to both.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Aye on the bill.
Aye on Napoleon.

[tpfkaw]

Aye on the bill
Nay on Napoleon (I believe the commission to be unconstitutional).

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Aye

[Username MechaRFK]

Aye to both the bill and Napoleon

[Cincinnatus]

All representatives have voted, this bill passes unanimously.  Napoleon is also confirmed. 

The Assembly will now debate the Castle Law, proposed by the Representative from CT.  Debate will last 48 hours.

Castle Law

A BILL that enforces the Castle Doctrine, to protect owners of homes, businesses, vehicles, or pets, who use deadly or non-deadly force against intruders, from prosecution.

1. An intruder(s) must have made an attempt to unlawfully enter a person's home, business, or vehicle without the consent of the owner

2. The owner of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder(s) had intended to commit a crime (murder, rape, robbery, or arson).

3. The owner may apply force if his or her pet is being harmed by intruder(s)

4. The intruder(s) must have acted illegally; i.e. the owner does not have the right to attack a police officer acting in the course of their legal duties.

5. The owner is not required to retreat from their home before using deadly or non-deadly force.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I have proposed this bill because I believe it is necessary to ensure that people are not charged with murder or assault for defending themselves against criminals.

Here's an article in case someone doesn't know what the Castle Doctrine is, but this bill explains it pretty clearly.

[Cincinnatus]

Is this meant to replace the Self Defense Act?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Is this meant to replace the Self Defense Act?

Shoot.  I searched the wiki to see if there was a bill like this, and I didn't see that come up.

Originally, no, it was not.  Though my bill does expand on this somewhat, and defines what "justifiable" means for this.

[Cincinnatus]

It definitely expands on it, yes.  I would just amend either this act, or the Self Defense Act in a way that prevents the two from conflicting.  Just thought I'd bring this to your attention  

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

It definitely expands on it, yes.  I would just amend either this act, or the Self Defense Act in a way that prevents the two from conflicting.  Just thought I'd bring this to your attention  

I will amend this bill as legislation that makes amendments to the Self Defense Act.  The amendment is friendly.

The preamble will now read:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Napoleon]

I accept the nomination.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Is the parenthetical list at the end of section 2 of the proposed bill meant to be exhaustive, or simply examples of what constitute crimes for this purpose?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Is the parenthetical list at the end of section 2 of the proposed bill meant to be exhaustive, or simply examples of what constitute crimes for this purpose?

It's exhaustive.  You can't go ahead and kill someone for only, say, walking around on your lawn.  It's illegal if they're trespassing, but you can just call the cops for those kinds of things.

[Napoleon]

The Self Defense Act was repealed underrated my term as Speaker FYI.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

The Self Defense Act was repealed underrated my term as Speaker FYI.

What legislation did that?

[Napoleon]

The Self Defense Act was repealed underrated my term as Speaker FYI.

What legislation did that?

The SRC Report.

[Cincinnatus]

Good.  This is fine as a separate bill then.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I didn't see a report that repeals the previous bill, but if it's no longer in effect, then I am withdrawing my amendment.  This is now a separate bill.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Is the parenthetical list at the end of section 2 of the proposed bill meant to be exhaustive, or simply examples of what constitute crimes for this purpose?

It's exhaustive.  You can't go ahead and kill someone for only, say, walking around on your lawn.  It's illegal if they're trespassing, but you can just call the cops for those kinds of things.

Good. In that case I would offer an amendment changing the wording of section 2 to:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I can certainly support this bill.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Is the parenthetical list at the end of section 2 of the proposed bill meant to be exhaustive, or simply examples of what constitute crimes for this purpose?

It's exhaustive.  You can't go ahead and kill someone for only, say, walking around on your lawn.  It's illegal if they're trespassing, but you can just call the cops for those kinds of things.

Good. In that case I would offer an amendment changing the wording of section 2 to:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I can certainly support this bill.

Doesn't the fact that someone's trying to rob you give you the right to fend them off, if they're armed or unarmed?

[Cincinnatus]

Does the sponsor consider the amendment friendly or unfriendly?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Does the sponsor consider the amendment friendly or unfriendly?

Unfriendly.

If someone is stealing from you, period, you have the right to defend yourself.  Also, say the person committing the burglary is unarmed, but ends up getting killed unintentionally, in a fight with the person he's stealing from.  The property owner would be held liable for using force to protect his property, just because the robber didn't have a gun on them.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

All right, I'll remove 'armed'. Though I don't personally believe that a person should use deadly force in those circumstances (mainly because I take a dim view of the concept of property as being somehow an extension of its owner), I also agree that one should be protected from prosecution in the situation laid out.

New proposed amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.