2005 House Bill 5142 (Repeal “duty to retreat” in home self defense )

Legislation watch

Public Act 313 of 2006

[Comments on this legislation] [Post new comment] [Text and Analysis] [Add to Watch List]
[Previous] [Next]

Introduced by Rep. Tom Casperson (R) on September 7, 2005, to establish in law that a person who uses deadly force for self defense in his or her home or contiguous private property need not first flee from a threatening attacker.
- Referred to the House Judiciary Committee on September 7, 2005.
  - Reported in the House on April 19, 2006, with the recommendation that the substitute (H-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
- Substitute offered in the House on April 25, 2006, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that revises details but does not change the substance of the bill as previously described. The substitute passed in the House by voice vote on April 25, 2006.
- Amendment offered by Rep. Tom Casperson (R) on April 25, 2006, to clarify language in a provision contained in the bill in a way that does not change the substance of the provision. The amendment passed in the House by voice vote on April 25, 2006.
Passed in the House (91 to 15) on April 25, 2006, to establish in law that a person who uses deadly force for self defense in his or her home or contiguous private property need not first flee from a threatening attacker. See also Senate Bill 1046. [Vote Details and Comments]
Received in the Senate on April 26, 2006.
- Referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 26, 2006.
  - Reported in the Senate on May 18, 2006, with the recommendation that the substitute (S-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
- Substitute offered in the Senate on June 6, 2006, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that revises various details but does not change its substance as previously described, and tie bars it to Senate Bill 1046, which establishes the presumption that deadly force may be used against a home intruder. This bill now contains the definition of "dwelling," which includes the "curtillage" or grounds, garage, outbuildings, etc. The substitute passed in the Senate by voice vote on June 6, 2006.
- Amendment offered by Sen. Samuel B. Thomas, III (D) on June 6, 2006, to not name the main bill in the package the "Dr. Ossian Sweet Self Defense Act". The amendment passed in the Senate by voice vote on June 6, 2006.
Passed in the Senate (27 to 10) on June 7, 2006, to establish in law that a person who uses deadly force for self defense in his or her home or contiguous private property need not first flee from a threatening attacker. See also Senate Bill 1046. [Vote Details and Comments]
Received in the House on June 7, 2006.
Passed in the House (91 to 16) on June 27, 2006, to concur with the Senate-passed version of the bill. [Vote Details and Comments]
Signed by Gov. Jennifer Granholm on July 18, 2006.

Most Recent Comments

Add Comment

1) Sen. Scott's "no vote explanation" [by Admin003 on June 8, 2006]
Senator Scott, under her constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the passage of House Bill Nos. 5142, 5153,1185 and 5548.

Senator Scott's statement is as follows:

All this talk about protecting oneself from an intruder or a possible threat or attack. What about protecting those who truly cannot protect themselves, our young children? It is becoming so commonplace for us to hear or to read about another senseless shooting of a child because of an adult who left a loaded gun within reach. Just last week in the Lansing State Journal, I read how a 3-year-old boy in Pontiac was left in critical condition after finding his father's handgun and accidentally shooting himself in the head. Plus we have had so many of those in Detroit. It's such a shame and I can't understand for the life of me why I cannot get support for my bill, Senate Bill No.24, that would prohibit and provide penalties for anyone storing or leaving a loaded firearm within reach or access of a minor.

Don't get me wrong, we must protect ourselves and our families from harm or any wrongdoing, but let's get serious about keeping our children safe. They need responsible adults in the Michigan Legislature to help protect them from irresponsible adults who care for them.

I am hopeful that I will get the support that I need to get a hearing on my legislation. There are young children out there who deserve nothing less.

Reply

Line

2) the problem this cures [by Anonymous Citizen on April 26, 2006]
A law abiding citizen should not have to face prosacution because he defends his family or him self. He should not have to run when faced by a law breaker who intends harm to him or his family. He should not have the burden of civil law suit by the criminal or the criminals family because he defendes his own. This law has been in force in Florida for over a year with out the dire effect predicted by those opposed to it.
Reply

Line

3) the problem this cures [by Anonymous Citizen on April 26, 2006]
A law abiding citizen should not have to face prosacution because he defends his family or him self. He should not have to run when faced by a law breaker who intends harm to him or his family. He should not have the burden of civil law suit by the criminal or the criminals family because he defendes his own. This law has been in force in Florida for over a year with out the dire effect predicted by those opposed to it.
Reply

Line

View Full Conversation