2005 House Bill 5143 (Repeal “duty to retreat” in self defense )

Legislation watch

Public Act 309 of 2006

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

Introduced by Rep. Rick Jones (R) on September 7, 2005, to create a new law establishing that a person who uses deadly force for self defense in his or her home, contiguous private property or occupied vehicle need not first flee from a threatening attacker, and that a person who unlawfully and forcibly enters one of these is presumed is to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence, with certain minor exceptions. This would place the “home is my castle” doctrine in statute. Also, to establish that a law-abiding person who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be, has no duty to retreat, and can “stand his or her ground” and meet force with force, including deadly force if necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm.
- 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-4) 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 does not presume that a person who breaks and enters into a dwelling or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to committ an unlawful or violent act, and thus may me shot without first retreating. Instead, bill instead establishes a rebuttable presumption that this is the case. The substitute passed in the House by voice vote on April 25, 2006.
- Amendment offered by Rep. Rick Jones (R) on April 25, 2006, to remove provision that a person who breaks and enters into a dwelling or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to committ an unlawful or violent act. The bill instead establishes a rebuttable presumption that this is the case. The amendment passed in the House by voice vote on April 25, 2006.
- Amendment offered by Rep. Rick Jones (R) on April 25, 2006, to name the bill the "Dr. Ossian Sweet self-defense act". The amendment passed in the House by voice vote on April 25, 2006.
Passed in the House (90 to 16) on April 25, 2006, to create a new law establishing that a person who uses deadly force for self defense in his or her home, contiguous private property or occupied vehicle need not first flee from a threatening attacker, and that there is a rebuttable presumption that a person who unlawfully and forcibly enters one of these is doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence, with certain minor exceptions. This would place the “home is my castle” doctrine in statute. Also, to establish that a law-abiding person who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be, has no duty to retreat, and can “stand his or her ground” and meet force with force, including deadly force if necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm. [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-2) 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 reflects that its home defense provisions are now in Senate Bill 1046. 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 (28 to 10) on June 6, 2006, to establish that a law-abiding person who is attacked in any place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat, and can “stand his or her ground” and meet force with force, including deadly force if necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm. See also Senate Bill 1046, which places the "castle docrine" regarding home defense in law. [Vote Details and Comments]
Received in the House on June 6, 2006.
Passed in the House (90 to 17) on June 27, 2006, to establish that a law-abiding person who is attacked in any place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat, and can “stand his or her ground” and meet force with force, including deadly force if necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm. See also Senate Bill 1046, which places the "castle docrine" regarding home defense in law. [Vote Details and Comments]
Signed by Gov. Jennifer Granholm on July 18, 2006.

Most Recent Comments

Add Comment

1) Re: 2005 House Bill 5143 (Repeal “duty to retreat” in self defense ) [by anansie on April 13, 2009]

Someone know if it exist any retroactivity about this law?

Line

2) Re: 2005 House Bill 5143 (Repeal “duty to retreat” in self defense ) [by BIRD'O'PREY on February 16, 2009]

Yes, you are quite correct. My girlfriend is affraid of weapons. Her daughter lives with us (senior in high school). But she won't have much to do with me as I am the "outsider". They have both been instructed as to my "no touchy" rule as far as my weapons. My girlfriend's two sons are no longer in the house...they've had to move out. Both are 23 & 25 years old. T'was about time eh? Can't live at home with mommy til your 30. I was out on my own at 18.

Her oldest son is the one that came to attack me. Anytime there's been a disagreement in the home, the daughter calls him and he thinks he's the calvary. He and the 23 year old are no longer welcome. The situation is uncomfortable. I'm not their father...never tried to be. I'm 51 years old, have four kids of my own. But her boys are trouble makers...you know...tough guys. They found out that this ex-hockey player gives no quarter. No one walks in and stomps on me. The situation seems quiet for now, but the pattern dictates that he'll return and make for more trouble. Of course, I will stand my ground, and this time he may not be as lucky. I'm not taking anymore crap...from anyone.

So, this spring, I plan to educate my girlfriend on the weaponry. I am a well trained survivalist, and was formerly affiliated with a para-military unit. I still have a very small group of friends who I affiliate with on a regular basis. We're law abiding, tax paying, decent people. No criminals allowed and are devout patriots. We love our God and country.

I keep tabs on many of these groups and lately, there are a growing number of them with rapidly expanding membership. Everyone needs to protect their 2nd Amendment rights. Gun control doesn't takes guns out of the hands of criminals. It only leaves law abiding citizens unarmed, and without means to protect themselves. My idea of gun control is "aim true, squeeze, and don't miss".

So to all LAW ABIDING citizens...protect your Constitution, your Bill of Rights, and your country. Remember those that have sacrificed their lives for your freedom. Obey the laws of the land and for God's sake be honest! Stand your ground and do not let thugs and criminals ruin your freedom and infringe upon your rights. It's called being an American.

Line

3) Re: 2005 House Bill 5143 (Repeal “duty to retreat” in self defense ) [by crazycajun on February 15, 2009]

your next step is to make sure that everyone in your home knows what the weapons are, what they are there for (that they are not toys) and, when responsible enough, how to use them.

you must train not only yourself, but each and every member of your family.

it CAN be the most fun you have with your family. i know my daughter really appreciates the QUALITY TIME we spent together at the range. she went on to shoot competitively, and had a blast doing it.

we also occasionally go hunting together. everything from rabbits and squirrels to deer, turkey, and alligators. depending on whats on the menu.

Line

View Full Conversation