ALEC Gun Legislation Protects Corporations, Not People

I have repeatedly told my readers that ALEC legislators do not serve the public
    – ALEC legislators serve ALEC corporate members.

I have repeatedly told my readers that ALEC legislation does not serve the public
    – ALEC legislation serves ALEC corporate members.

Today’s entry – is another case in point of how ALEC legislators serve ALEC corporate members and NOT the public.

Across the media – there are pundits that are saying that the Trayvon Martin family must be cautious when filing a civil suit because the “Stand Your Ground” law in Florida contains a section, under the "use of justifiable force" section, that would require the Martin family to pay ALL of Zimmerman’s expenses and loss wages – from the case – should they lose the civil case.

Key point – yes, this civil suit limitation is in Florida law.

AND
this same provision is probably in effect in your state, even if you don’t have the heinous “stand your ground”, kill at will” “make my day” "judge, jury & executioner", "kill the only witness" laws
– because if your state enacted the  "ALEC Castle Doctrine Act" – your state also has that civil suit limitation. 

The resulting Stand your Ground laws are the "ALEC Castle Doctrine" law on steroids – requiring only perceived threat to kill someone, anytime, anywhere. 
Most states don’t have that – but, most states did implement the 2005 "ALEC Castle Doctrine".

This civil lawsuit provision, found in the "ALEC Castle Doctrine Act" could stop YOU from filing a civil lawsuit against someone who kills one of your family members with a gun – and is found innocent in a criminal trial.

ALEC legislation put this limitation on civil suit provisions into state law starting in 2005
– in the  "ALEC Castle Doctrine Act".

Now the first thing to address is
– in 2005, was the "ALEC Castle Doctrine" legislation something new? 
Something we needed?

From Wiki

A Castle Doctrine (also known as a Castle Law or a Defense of Habitation Law) is an American legal doctrine  ... 

The legal concept of the inviolability of the home has been known in Western Civilization since the age of the Roman Republic.[2] The term derives from the historic English common law dictum that "an Englishman's home is his castle." This concept was established as English law by 17th century jurist Sir Edward Coke, in his The Institutes of the Laws of England, 1628.[3] The dictum was carried by colonists to the New World, who later removed "English" from the phrase, making it "a man's home is his castle", which thereby became simply the Castle Doctrine.[3]

Did we need a "new" Castle Doctrine law - written by ALEC?
NO!
Castle Doctrine law has been around since the 17th century.
And up until ALEC stepped in with their version - for the most part the original versions of Castle Doctrine worked quite well.

From another source

The Castle Doctrine is a common law doctrine stating that an individual has no duty to retreat when in his or her home, or “castle,” and may use reasonable force, including deadly force, to defend his or her property, person, or another. Outside of the “castle,” however, an individual has a duty to retreat, if able to do so, before using reasonable force. Stand-your-ground laws, by comparison, remove the common law requirement to retreat outside of one's “castle,” allowing an individual to use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of a threat. Deadly force is reasonable under stand-your-ground laws in certain circumstances, such as imminent great bodily harm or death.

Forty-six states,   ..  , have incorporated the Castle Doctrine into law.

If it was not broken - why fix it?
WELL  ....   

Before ALEC legislators  introduced the "ALEC Castle Doctrine"  in YOUR state, YOU already had perfectly good self-defense law on the books - YOUR self defense law (before ALEC inteference) was clear and encompassing - the law you had before ALEC legislators brought this new "ALEC Castle Doctrine" was excellent and served the people.

Now,think about it.
– In 2005 was the "ALEC Castle Doctrine" legislation something
–  we, the people, needed?

Hell NO!
We ALREADY had perfectly good Castle Doctrine protection!

Then the question arises
– why did ALEC introduce the their "ALEC" Castle Doctrine?

The people did not need it – we already had castle doctrine laws in effect.

The people did not need it!

ALEC’s reason to distribute the "ALEC Castle Doctrine Act"?
– The only reason that ALEC even exists
    – to use legislation to benefit ALEC corporate benefactors.
    – to artificially manipulate "tort reform" law and destroy consumer protections
    – to benefit ALEC corporate benefactors.

 – to benefit ALEC corporate benefactors.

Let's look at that a little closer.

Since the early 1980s, a growing number of gun violence victims have turned to the tort system seeking compensation for their injuries. These victims have filed claims not only against their assailants but also against gun sellers and manufacturers.

OOPS – someone is filing claims against ALEC corporate benefactors.

Oh, no, says ALEC, this must stopped.

Opponents argue that the suits represent an end run around the legislative process and that the costs of defending these suits, even if the courts ultimately reject them, will wreak financial ruin on the industry

OOPS – these claims “will wreak financial ruin on the industry” – against ALEC corporate benefactors.

Oh, no, says ALEC, this must stopped.

Stiff resistance to firearms regulation by the National Rifle Association (NRA) has defeated or significantly scaled back most congressional attempts to impose design standards and sales restrictions. Gun control proponents have filed lawsuits against the gun industry as a way to shift the struggle over gun control from legislatures to courts, where NRA lobbying power is not effective.

OOPS – National Rifle Association (NRA) – an ALEC corporate benefactor.

OOPS – “shift the struggle over gun control from legislatures to courts, where NRA lobbying power is not effective” – ALEC cannot allow that!
OOPS, says ALEC - we must write legislation to protect our corporate benefactors.

Oh, no, says ALEC, these lawsuits must be stopped.

The NRA and the industry have fired back accusations that courts have no business deciding the gun control policy issues raised by plaintiffs’ claims and that these issues should be decided by democratically elected legislatures, not unelected judges. The NRA has denounced the suits as an attempt to achieve through litigation the very same reforms rejected by federal, state, and local legislatures.

OOPS – National Rifle Association (NRA) - ” claims   …   these issues should be decided by democratically elected legislatures”
Which will then lead to ALEC controlled legislatures using NRA written legislation, distributed by ALEC, enacted by ALEC legislative members - to protect ALEC corporate benefactors.

Oh, yes, says ALEC, we can help you out, NRA and ALEC corporate gun benefactors.

By 2000 gun litigation was regularly front-page news, and manufacturers faced potentially bankrupting industrywide liability exposure as a result of suits by dozens of individual victims, over thirty cities, and the State of New York 

OOPS – “manufacturers faced potentially bankrupting industrywide liability exposure” –ALEC corporate benefactors.

Oh, no, says ALEC, this must stopped - we must write pro-corporate legislation to protect our gun industry benefactors.

By 2000 gun litigation was regularly front-page news

That had to stop – and the NRA with ALEC’s help take gun litigation off the front-page, with the unneeded "ALEC Castle Doctrine" legislation, introduced in 2005.

The people did not need it 
   – we already had perfectly good castle doctrine laws in effect.

The people did not need it!

ALEC's version of the castle doctrine was never intended to protect the people.
ALEC's version of the castle doctrine was intended to protect their corporate benefactors in the gun industry from lawsuits.

ALEC Corporate gun members aided by ALEC member, the NRA, needed protection from lawsuits – and "ALEC Castle Doctrine" legislation gave it to them – in the last three paragraphs of the 2005 ALEC Castle Doctrine Act.

2. A person who uses force as permitted in Section (1) [and other state codes which

are affected/amended by this legislation and which refer to the use of force

including deadly force] is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal

prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, except when:

a. The person against whom force was used is a law enforcement

officer as defined in [insert appropriate reference to

state/commonwealth code, which defines the term “law enforcement

officer” or similar], who was acting in the performance of his or her

duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with

applicable law; or

b. The person using force knew or reasonably should have known that

the person was a law enforcement officer. 

3. A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the

use of force as described in subsection (2), but the agency may not arrest the

person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the

force that was used was unlawful.

4. The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for

loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil

action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from

prosecution as provided in subsection (2).

And what has resulted is that a perfectly good piece of law
"the castle doctrine"
has been replaced in many states with
the unneeded pro-corporate" ALEC Castle Doctrine"
that not only allows for
  stand your ground
  based on perceived threats
  anywhere
  anytime
BUT
also protects ALEC benefactors in the weapon industry from civil lawsuits
AND
by doing so
severely hampers YOUR ability to seek recourse through a civil lawsuit.

I have repeatedly told my readers that ALEC legislators do not serve the public
    – ALEC legislators serve ALEC corporate members.

I have repeatedly told my readers that ALEC legislation does not serve the public
    – ALEC legislation serves ALEC corporate members.

Legislative members of the extremist pro-corporate American Legislative Exchange Council serve ALEC corporate members - NOT, we, the people.

This "ALEC Castle Doctrine Act" was introduced by ALEC to protect the NRA and their gun company buddies from being defendants in a civil lawsuit over gun violence – and now, eight years later – it will protect George Zimmerman in a civil lawsuit.

The people did not need the "ALEC Castle Doctrine"
    – we already had perfectly good, functional castle doctrine laws in effect.

The people did not need the ALEC Castle Doctrine Act!

BUT - TWENTY TWO STATES GOT IT!

TWENTY TWO STATES HAVE

Laws in at least 22 states allow that there is no duty to retreat an attacker in any place in which one is lawfully present.  (Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and West Virginia.)

NINE OF THOSE STATES have

"no duty to retreat"  AND “stand his or her ground.” 

At least nine of those states include language stating one may “stand his or her ground.”  (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and South Carolina.)

DEMAND 
REPEAL STAND YOUR GROUND!
AMENDMENT of ALEC Castle Doctrine laws in your state.