Stop the 'Shoot First' Law in Massachusetts

"Shoot first, ask questions never" is now state law in Florida. The NRA is now pushing this law in Massachusetts, but with your help, our partners at the Brady Campaign will stop them.

This is a cooperative campaign of Working Assets and The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

Take Action with the Brady Campaign -- Stop the "Shoot First" Law in Massachusetts

In October, Florida became a very dangerous place, and if the National Rifle Association (NRA) gets its way, Massachusetts will be next.

On October 1, the Shoot First Law went into effect in Florida, giving the people of Florida permission to use deadly force as a first resort, even in a public place. The law grants sweeping criminal and civil immunity to anyone who pulls the trigger when they feel 'threatened' -- and specifically denies legal recourse to innocent bystanders killed or wounded in the crossfire, even if the shooter acted negligently.

Click here to tell Governor Romney that "Shoot First" is a horrible policy idea for Massachusetts.

http://www.shootfirstlaw.org/

But the Shoot First doctrine isn't just staying in Florida -- the NRA has made no bones about the fact that it plans to export Shoot First legislation to all 50 states in 2006. This is about to become a national disgrace, and will take us back to the days of the Wild West -- unless you get involved.

Our partners at the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence have put together an easy way for you to tell your Governor to "Keep Shoot First out of our state" -- and we encourage you to click the link below to get this important message to Governor Romney.

Click here to take action with the Brady Campaign and keep "Shoot First" from becoming law in Massachusetts.

http://www.shootfirstlaw.org/

http://www.bradynetwork.org/site/PageServe..._alert_thankyou

Signed, thanks for posting. Even if Mittens thinks this is a swell idea, I don't think it will fly with the majority of people in MA. We've currently got some fairly tough gun laws.

Bad idea, I think. I talked with a cousin there the other night and she told me a lot I didn't know about the situation.

But I believe in a "shoot first" policy if someone breaks into your home. We don't have that here, and one can be prosecuted if one shoots and kills an intruder.

You have to believe your life is in danger in order to escape jail time, and supposedly people are killed with their own gun often because they hold it on an intruder but hold back from shooting and the intruder grabs the gun away and ... well, if anyone broke into my home, I would DEFINITELY feel my life is in danger. Definitely and positively. Shoot first, no questions asked, and I might therefore save my own life.

Not a bad idea.

You're right, Rox... I think the chances of this gaining any momentum in Massachusetts is somewhere between slim and none... but then we'd better be sure anyhow.

Mushroom Cloud, I don't have a problem with defense of life in home. That one has been encoded in law for a very long time indeed.... kings, castles, that sort of thing. Outside the home, however, is an entirely different matter... That sidewalk or city square is just as much mine as anyone else's and we don't need any gun-totin' looney tunes feeling threatened by some gesture or comment to pull out a weapon and empty a clip willy nilly. So far as I can tell, this law isn't about anyone's rights to own or carry a weapon; it loosens restrictions on and responsibilities of those who do, and lessens or eliminates liabilities. This is not a law for a civilized society; if it passes, everyone will have to consider "packing heat" or riding with a small posse. In Florida, where this law does exist, the car rental agencies feel obligated to inform tourists about the possibility that someone they encounter at the beach or on the way to Disney might take a pop at them....

I wonder if this allows me to get one of those thermobaric weapons...
My neighbor has been threatening me about my dog.

"Having to feel my life is in danger" can be a very subjective issue... and involves a process that, in the human brain, is measured in milliseconds and is not subjeect to rational thought. The amygdala is the center in our brain that regulates our "fight or flight" response... our reaction to what we perceive as fear or threat... and the rational brain requires far more time to identify the opportunity for a peaceful solution that it does to initiate a destructive one. What this law will go is to give more freedom and less responsibility to the shorter, destructive, reactionary response.

I just don't want to see what happens when drunks and guns mix in the middle of the city. It's bad enough as it is with the illegal weapons and gangs and hoodlums. But if regular folks get it in their heads that they can just shoot first and ask questions later, there will be worse trouble. A lot of Massachusetts is urban, and that's just not a good place for people to shooting off their guns.

Magmak, it's different here as to your right to defend yourself in your home. I've questioned a local police friend about it, and there must be proof you believed your life is in danger if you suffer a break-in while you're at home and shoot the intruder.

I would feel my life is in danger. I've thought that one out in advance. Subjectivity, yes, that's me.

As for the "shoot first" policy OUTSIDE your home, that is one scary proposition and I agree with the thoughts here about it. From what I hear you have an abundance of looney toons in Massachusetts, at least more than exist here where it's pretty peaceful except in certain areas where craziness abounds.

Hey, part of my family tree is from MA and still lives there so I hope I am speaking with a little authority about the loonies, no antagonism intended. (One of them I think could be classified as a member of the loony fringe. He votes Republican and has become a hater.)