Senate restores some provisions of 'castle doctrine' measure
BEN NEARY Associated Press writer | Posted: Thursday, March 6, 2008 12:00 am
CHEYENNE - The Senate on Wednesday resurrected some, but not all, of the contentious provisions of a self-defense bill that it had stripped out the day before.
The Senate reinstated language specifying that people have a right to assume that anyone who breaks into their home is out to do them harm.
But lawmakers stopped short of reinstating a provision that would specify citizens are under no obligation to retreat before using deadly force outside their homes.
The bill, House Bill 137, now heads back to the House, which could either accept the Senate changes or send the bill to a conference committee.
The Senate on Tuesday voted to cut all provisions of the so-called "castle doctrine" bill except a paragraph specifying that people who use justified self-defense to repel criminal attack would be immune from lawsuits.
On Wednesday, however, the Senate accepted an amendment sponsored by Sen. Tony Ross, R-Cheyenne, and Sen. Drew Perkins, R-Casper. The amendment restored a provision specifying that homeowners can presume that people who break into their homes mean them harm. The provision excludes cases involving police or other special circumstances.
After adopting the amendment, the Senate passed the bill by a vote of 29-1. Sen. Rae Lynn Job, D-Rock Springs, cast the lone vote against it.
Supporters say the "castle doctrine" title of the bill comes from the English common-law concept that a man's home is his castle. As such, he traditionally doesn't have to try to retreat before using deadly force to defend it.
The National Rifle Association has made passing such "castle doctrine" legislation a national priority. Several lawmakers have said that the NRA has mobilized its members in support of passing such a law in Wyoming.
Sen. Kit Jennings, R-Casper, a sponsor of the bill, said he was pleased the Senate voted to restore some provisions.
"It does cover the castle part of the bill," Jennings said Wednesday. "It doesn't cover when you're away from your castle, out in the public."
Some prosecutors and others have lobbied against the bill, saying Wyoming's case law is clear that people already have a right to defend themselves and their homes. They've warned against unintended consequences of passing the bill, saying it could actually weaken the citizens' right to self-defense.
"Unless you can say with confidence that this new language incorporates every defense under the common law that's available to you, then don't adopt it," said Sen. Phil Nicholas, R-Laramie, who urged rejection of the Ross-Perkins amendment.
Jennings and other supporters maintain that it's important to codify the law so that everyone in the state knows what it is and where to find it. He also said the bill now specifies that people may protect themselves and their families, "without the bad guys suing you."
"We will have to come back someday and address the no-retreat part of it, because that's gone," Jennings said.
Rep. Lorraine Quarberg, R-Thermopolis, sponsored the bill in the House. She said she was pleased with the Senate vote.
"My constituents really want the opportunity to defend themselves away from the home," Quarberg said. "They look at it as, we've kind of turned the streets over to the criminals if you take away the law-abiding citizens' right to defend themselves."