Published: September 30, 2007 11:29 pm      

Senator confident about ‘castle doctrine’ bill

OAK HILL — Shirley Love took a healthy swallow of a soda and ice cream drink in a fast-food diner and pondered the dangers of living in a lawless age, a perilous time exposing the ordinary citizens to threats of home-grown criminals, and foreigners bent on destroying America through unprecedented acts of terrorism.

“Since homeland security has come into existence and terrorism has expanded to what it is, you don’t hear the talk of gun control like you did,” the 11th District state senator said.

Terrorism is one element that has many Americans jittery these days, he said, but domestic criminal activity is another that has many law-abiding citizens worried about the safety of their homes.

For that reason, Love is preparing to offer his version of the so-called “Castle Doctrine” bill, one the National Rifle Association has successfully pushed in 20 states, beginning two years ago in Florida.

Based on the old English common law that “a man’s home is his castle,” it allows a homeowner to use deadly force, if needed, to repel an intruder without fear of facing either criminal charges or civil liability. Actually, the idea harkens back centuries before medieval England. In the Old Testament, under the laws provided to the freshly liberated Hebrews, Exodus 22:2 states, “If a thief is caught while breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there will be no bloodguiltiness on his account” (New American Standard Bible).

Love encountered no opposition among his fellow senators this year, but the measure ran into a logjam in the House of Delegates and never saw the light of day in the judiciary committee.

“People are concerned about their own liberties and freedom within their own homes and their own premises,” Love, D-Fayette, said in an interview.

“What this bill does, it more or less puts you on equal ground with the criminal. The way our law reads now, if you come in from a trip at 2 o’clock in the morning and there’s someone in your home, and you have to confront them, you have to defend yourself, and you do harm to them, you’re vulnerable for that intruder’s hospital bills, you’re vulnerable to a lawsuit, even though you’re on your own premises and you’re protecting your home and your family.”

Love wants a fresh law that removes any misunderstandings about a homeowner’s rights — no charges, no lawsuits, when protecting hearth and home.

“You have some very liberal individuals who don’t want that bill at all,” he said.

“Sometimes they make the loudest noise and for some reason prevail. This happened in the last session of the Legislature. Not in the Senate, because 33 of 34 senators signed on to the bill, and the 34th would have had he been there. But in the House, the bill did not even get to the committee where it could have been passed out, and it would have been passed out.”

Love said Judiciary Chairman Carrie Webster, D-Kanawha, disliked the proposal “for some reason unbeknownst to me and did not want that bill to come out of committee and come before the House for a vote.”

Webster told one reporter the measure simply withered in the final, hectic days of the session when more important matters demanded attention by her panel.

But Love is convinced it was philosophical opposition, not the lack of time, that killed his bill.

“And that shows the power of several individuals can have within the legislative body to prevent a popular bill,” he said.

“If you took a vote on that bill, you would find that 70 percent or more of the populace of West Virginia would want to see that bill pass as it has in other states.”

In the 2008 session, Love said he has the assurance of Senate Judiciary Chairman Jeffrey Kessler, D-Marshall, his bill will get top and early priority for a quick floor vote so the bill will arrive in the House early.

To date, the Castle Doctrine has become law in Florida, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana, Michigan, North and South Dakota, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Arizona, Alaska, Idaho, Missouri and Maine.’

“And they were passed overwhelmingly on both sides of the aisle,” NRA spokesperson Ashley Varner says.

By far, the popular concept in those states has been the “stand your ground” approach that permits a homeowner to fire upon invaders at first sight. Another tack insists on a “duty to retreat” so that one must attempt to get out of danger, if possible, while issuing a warning to an intruder.

“Alaska is the only one that may require a duty to retreat,” Varner said. “All the others removed that duty to retreat.”

Love scoffed at the duty to retreat clause.

“This is similar to what you have right now in West Virginia,” he said.

“In other words, if someone is in your living room, he almost has to have a club in his hand, right on top of you, and you almost have to warn that you will shoot him. That doesn’t work if you’re in harm’s way and you’re on your own premises. We don’t want this in this particular bill. Then, too, this doesn’t give you the right to shoot your brother-in-law, your mother-in-law or the newspaper boy, or whatever. It has to be proven and it would be if you found a burglar in your house and you did, God forbid, you wouldn’t want to shoot him, but if you had to, it would prove he had no business there if he had the tools and was breaking into your home and his automobile was nearby and he had a gun or another weapon.”

Love used the bizarre kidnap-torture case that developed last summer in Logan County as an example of the dangerous elements lurking in society, saying such disregard for life and property demand more protection for law-abiding residents.

“There was a time, not too long ago, even small towns and larger municipalities were passing gun laws,” the senator said.

“You notice how that has ceased. It just comes down to a simple thing — you ban guns and only criminals will have guns.”

— E-mail:

mannix@register-herald.com