The Daily News is joining in on Mayor Mike’s antigun crusade with a couple more articles, “Shot NYPD cops luckier than police first realized — suspect Nakwon Foxworth had assault rifle” and “A bill only vigilantes could love“:
“… Mayor Bloomberg urged New Yorkers who want curbs on guns tightened to call Congress and rail about the 40% of gun sales that take place with no background check. “If you want to stop the carnage, that’s the only way that I know to do that,” he said. He said callers should tell their congressman or senator that, “It’s time for you to stop listening to the NRA and start doing something.” …”
What the DN never reports on is that even people from NYC aren’t listening to Bloomberg’s call for action. I cannot ever recall a single politician from in/around the City ever referring to receiving a flood of constituent calls/letters asking them to take action on a gun control proposal.
“… First of all, New Yorkers already have a legal right to kill if doing so is necessary to defend themselves and others. They also have a broad right to use deadly force against intruders in their own house or apartment. But when it comes to public places, they also have a so-called “duty to retreat” — to try to run away from an attacker, if possible, before trying to kill him. [Senator George] Maziarz’s bill starts by rolling back the “duty to retreat.” Instead, if someone “reasonably believes” they’re about to be killed or beaten to a pulp, they don’t have to back down. They’re free to blow their attacker away …”
Bill Hammond does not know what he’s talking about. New Yorker’s have a broad right to use deadly force wherever and whenever they feel it is necessary to protect their own life. It is not limited to one’s home and you are not obligated in the way Hammond thinks to retreat from attack. State law says:
“§ 35.15 Justification; use of physical force in defense of a person. 1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subdivision two, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself, herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by such other person … 2. A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless: (a) The actor reasonably believes that such other person is using or about to use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the actor may not use deadly physical force if he or she knows that with complete personal safety, to oneself and others he or she may avoid the necessity of so doing by retreating …”
Those three words are important just like “may issue” is under § 400.00. I previously asked NRA about this and the (paraphrased) response was New York already has some of the best self-defense laws. It’s not a “Castle Doctrine” as the wording is different and there is no clause about lawsuits by criminals against their intended victims, but from a practical standpoint it’s not an issue.