CHEYENNE - The state Senate on Tuesday cut language from a self-defense bill that would have specified people were under no duty to retreat before using deadly force.

The Senate voted 17-12 to strip the no-retreat language from the so-called "castle doctrine" bill before passing it on second reading on Tuesday.

As the bill stands now, it specifies that people who kill others in self-defense would be immune from civil lawsuits.

Supporters say the "castle doctrine" bill is named after the English common-law principle that a person's home is his castle, and that he doesn't have to try to retreat before killing anyone who breaks into harm him.

The National Rifle Association has been pushing similar "castle doctrine" legislation nationwide. A spokesman for the group said recently that such laws have passed in 20 states and were pending in five more, including Wyoming.

The NRA has been contacting members in Wyoming and encouraging them to contact their legislators to support the bill, lawmakers have said.

Sen. Kit Jennings, R-Casper, sponsored the bill, HB 137, on the Senate floor. He said the amendment passed Tuesday gutted the bill.

Speaking after the vote, Jennings said he's a life member of the NRA, but said he hasn't been communicating with the organization about carrying the bill.

"When you look at the e-mails and calls I get from my constituents, it's definitely something they want," Jennings said.

Sen. Charles Scott, R-Casper, and Sen. Bob Fecht, R-Cheyenne, sponsored the amendment on Tuesday to remove the no-retreat language.

Speaking in favor of the amendment on the Senate floor, Scott said criminal law in Wyoming is already clear that people have a right to defend themselves. He said changing the established law could have dangerous and unknown consequences.

Scott said his amendment would limit the bill to making sure that people who defend themselves couldn't later be sued in civil court.

Sen. Kathryn Sessions, D-Cheyenne, said on the floor that she was concerned about the bill.

"I already thought that I had the right to defend my home," Sessions said. "And it goes back to the middle 1960s. I was given a gun, a small pistol, and taught how to shoot it because I had three small children, and a mother that had suffered a stroke, and a husband that was out a lot of the time making a living."

Sessions said she could live with establishing civil immunity for people who act in self-defense. But said she was concerned about possibly encouraging more violence through enacting other provisions.

Speaking after the Senate vote, Sen. Tony Ross, R-Cheyenne, said he believes that the bill is "nebulous at best" as it stands after Tuesday's amendment. He said he expects more amendments to come on Wednesday when the Senate is scheduled to consider the bill for the last time.

Ross, a Cheyenne lawyer and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he's been contacted by people around the state and outside the state urging him to support the bill. Without mentioning the NRA specifically, he said, "It's just one very large organization that's pushing this."

Although Ross has expressed concerns about the original bill, he said he supports what he believes members of the public are saying they want when they say they support the "castle doctrine" idea.

"I think when I review these things and they say, 'Protect the castle doctrine,' they're talking about the right to protect their home, their family and their loved ones, and I support that," Ross said.