Castle Doctrine

Since the expansion of the Castle Doctrine in December 2011, every argument, altercation, and confrontation has the potential added element of a weapon. The intent maybe different, as written, but the results are not.

Trayvon Martin is only one story of how the gun laws have enabled the over-zealous to "shoot first." Elected officials across the country are already speaking out against "shoot first" laws, and many of the original supporters of the legislation have made it clear that given a second chance, they would oppose “Shoot First.”

Fourteen NC Representatives have taken a second look at the new version of the law. Ours is similar to the one in Florida, which enabled George Zimmerman to shoot unarmed Trayvon Martin because he claims he thought the teen posed a threat in his neighborhood. The bill they introduced, HB 1192, titled “Amend Castle Doctrine/Repeal Stand Ground” is a reasonable law. We will all still be able to protect our homes and families if necessary.

 Contact your representative now! Then send the link below to your family and friends so they can contact their representatives as well!


More on the law as it is now -

Castle Doctrine:  Legalizes Murder and Vigilantism

NOT Self-Defense

In North Carolina every citizen has the right to use deadly force to defend themselves or their families. If someone protects themselves with force they will not be prosecuted as long as they had no opportunity to retreat. Our current law removes this “duty to retreat” and is an invitation to the reckless use of deadly force.

Where Does Your Castle End?

The “Castle Doctrine” implies that this law applies only to a home or residence.  However our current law extends past the individual’s home to their workplace, and vehicle. The shooter could receive immunity for shooting recklessly into a crowd, as long as he thought he was in serious danger. This law provides the shooter civil and criminal immunity for any death or injury whether to a hardened criminal or a helpless child who was only a by-stander.

 Encourages and Excuses Vigilantism

America’s police officers undergo months of intensive training to learn the judicious use of deadly force in a public setting.  They learn, through that training that the use of deadly force in public is excruciatingly dangerous, and that innocent bystanders can easily be injured or killed. Police leaders and prosecutors in numerous states are concerned these laws will send a message of empowerment to the most aggressive individuals in society – that rather than serve to defend people who use deadly force in a truly life-threatening situation, it will serve as an excuse to edgy individuals. 

 Who Does this Law Endanger?  You.

This law provides protection for someone using deadly force -- it provides no protections for the innocent victims caught in the crossfire.  Worse yet this law directly threatens North Carolinians whose jobs require them to visit others homes and properties.  For example a social worker on an unannounced home visit, volunteers distributing materials door to door, or even a mailman delivering a package. 

 The Threat is Real.

After passing similar legislation:

Kenneth Allen, 58, twice shot his neighbor, Jason Rosenbloom, 30, in early June 2006.  Rosenbloom went to Allen’s house about a complaint filed. “I was no threat.  I had no weapon… He had a gun.  I turned around to put my hands up.  He didn’t even say a word, and he fired once into my stomach.  I bent over, and he shot me in the chest,” Rosenbloom told the New York Times. [New York Times, 8-7-06]

Christopher Cote, 19, of The Acreage, Florida was shot twice with a shotgun and killed by his neighbor, Jose Tapanes, 62, September 17 after an argument began when Cote walked his dog on Tapanes’ property.  Tapanes has been charged with first-degree murder and has argued that the new Florida law gave him the right to kill the teen. [Miami Herald, 9-18-06]

 Gary Lee Hill got in an argument with a group of people at his house. There was a physical fight, but as the group of people drove away, Hill walked out away from his house with a gun, and shot one of the group, John Lee Knott, in the back.  Mr. Hill was found “not guilty’ according to the standards of Colorado’s “Shoot First” law.


Read the Full Text of the Law

Showing 13 reactions

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
  • Sylvain Poma
    commented 2016-11-04 15:38:43 -0400
    If this is not one of the most blatantly skewed, convoluted pieces of liberal bullshit I’ve ever seen I don’t know what is. I may never truly understand in my lifetime why the fuck you left wing douche bags want to protect criminals so much. You are single-handedly destroying this country and all innocent people who just want to live their lives in peace. You make me want to puke, all of you.
  • John King
    commented 2016-05-24 06:36:06 -0400
    Next time, before you write an article, actually trouble yourself to actually READ the law you are trashing. This article is so filled with nonsense, bull shit and misinformation as to only qualify as petty propaganda. Your contention that it would protect people who “recklessly fire into a crowd” ignores all of the other gun laws that already make reckless discharge a violation. Your complaint about extending the “castle” to include workplace and motor vehicle make perfect sense and are very reasonable. If you don’t understand that, I’d suggest you read up on armed robberies of businesses and workplace violence. This law does NOT apply to someone who initiates workplace violence, but it DOES apply to those trying to stop it once it begins. If you don’t like the motor vehicle part, tell it to the families of women who have been carjacked and raped/killed. You people are pathetic.
  • Jimmy Persinger
    commented 2016-04-22 17:01:12 -0400
    Oh Bull shit,Some people will post anything on the internet to further there causes if its true or not as in this case,
  • Tami Potirala
    commented 2014-09-19 20:49:53 -0400
    What a bunch of liberal nonsense. I sure hope people are smart enough to do real research.
  • Matt Carpenter
    commented 2014-02-20 20:20:24 -0500
    Wow, I have rarely read an article so full of half-truths and all out lies as I have here tonight…. If anything we should do away with the current requirements for concealed carry permits altogether and allow both open carry and concealed carry statewide without a permit.

    As a veteran of the industry I can attest to the fact that criminals are not impeded by laws hence why they are indeed criminals. They do not report for background checks, take 8 hours of training, coursework/bookwork, range certification, fingerprinting waiting 10 weeks for a permit, etc. No, they just carry a firearm at will and use it to hurt others also at will.

    The idea that a person should retreat instead of standing their ground is lunacy. It also allowed individuals who were protecting themselves to be charged with a crime. If an assailant is hurting you or a loved one and you are provided the opportunity to retreat or to fire, retreating does not stop the threat, firing a gun does!

    Law Enforcement is permitted to use deadly force on anyone committing a felony, felons escaping from custody or when there is an immediate threat to life, a citizen should be allowed to protect themselves, others and their own personal property in the same way.

    Prior to the expansion of the castle doctrine in N.C. I know of several instances where homeowners were investigated and/or charged because of making, what I consider to be, the correct decision to protect themselves and their homes but failed to comply with the law as it was written in some capacity. EVERYONE has the right to be secure in their person and protect themselves from attack/injury. No one has the right to remove that GOD GIVENNATURAL right from anyone.

    Since the expansion of the castle doctrine and concealed carry NC has seen a zero percent increase in the instances of vigilantism claimed in the article above. We don’t have people forming mobs to go out and play cop. That isn’t to say it can’t or won’t happen just that the premise is completely false. Further, if these individuals were so inclined they could just as easily operate within the same set of gun laws as the criminals….

    NO ONE is exempt when firing into an open crowd and sorry but no one receives immunity. However, should a person who accidentally shoots another be charged/tried/convicted of murder/manslaughter? If so, should the same apply to law enforcement universally? I can show you case after case where it hasn’t. Two days ago a cop in Georgia shot a kid when he opened the door of his home and was holding a Wii remote controller. In October in Georgia, Police shot and killed a man holding a knife in his own home. The man was not charging the officer nor posing a threat to anyone. In Charlotte a Police Officer shot and killed a man running up to him to ask for help following a car accident. I can provide instance after instance where Police have failed to use good judgment yet no one would ever question the notion that they should be armed. I can also show you case after case where citizens have been charged for everything from discharging a firearm inside the city limits, manslaughter to murder, when they were simply defending themselves against an intruder or attacker. The law should protect the citizens of the State/Community from attackers not protect attackers from peaceful citizens.

    When I was in school for my training and law enforcement certification it was made clear to me that I was responsible for every bullet fired. Where it ended up and who/what it affected along the way. That’s been many years ago but the message to me is no less true today than it was then. The same is no less true for an individual carrying a gun and protecting themselves. They cannot simply go waiving a gun around in a crowd just because they feel threatened nor firing in a crowd recklessly. The law does not permit that.

    Please take the time to revisit this article and remember you cannot make the state safe for all, so choose who you want to make it safe for, criminals or innocent citizens….
  • Tami Potirala
    commented 2014-02-02 15:20:12 -0500
    I support the castle doctrine law
  • bob cat
    commented 2013-11-24 09:18:23 -0500
    TY :)
  • @justus4all tweeted link to this page. 2012-06-05 12:09:18 -0400
    Help @NCGV repeal the #NRA/#ALEC "Stand Your Ground" law in #NorthCarolina. Pass HB 1192! #NC #Trayvon #Justice4Trayvon
  • @KeepGunsoffCamp mentioned @NCGV link to this page. 2012-06-05 12:05:21 -0400
    Castle Doctrine via @NCGV
  • @buckwilde tweeted link to this page. 2012-06-05 11:58:49 -0400
    Help @NCGV repeal the #NRA/#ALEC "Stand Your Ground" law in #NorthCarolina. Pass HB 1192! #NC #Trayvon #Justice4Trayvon
  • @vladtepish tweeted link to this page. 2012-06-05 11:56:44 -0400
    Help @NCGV repeal the #NRA/#ALEC "Stand Your Ground" law in #NorthCarolina. Pass HB 1192! #NC #Trayvon #Justice4Trayvon
  • @CSGV mentioned @NCGV link to this page. 2012-06-05 11:56:30 -0400
    Help @NCGV repeal the #NRA/#ALEC "Stand Your Ground" law in #NorthCarolina. Pass HB 1192! #NC #Trayvon #Justice4Trayvon
  • Proroxy
    published this page 2012-03-26 10:47:59 -0400