Posted on Jan 25, 2016
Do you agree with Maines proposed law to grant immunity for self defense to soldiers on Active Duty?
5.23K
27
24
5
5
0
Posted in these groups: 
Self Defense
Self Defense
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 9
Everybody always has the right to self-defense. I therefore don't understand what they are trying to accomplish with this bill. It's probably well intentioned, but it seems to actually take away people's rights. If somebody leaves the National Guard does that mean they lose their right for self-defense? What does that even mean? "Granting immunity for self-defense" -- that's like "granting immunity for freedom of speech". Really not sure what they are thinking on this one.
(6)
(0)
LTC Yinon Weiss
Cpl Christopher Bishop - Agreed, it's not needed. People in Maine can already carry openly or concealed with no permit, and they always have a right for self-defense. More laws which "grant" what people already have is just a recipe to take away existing rights in the future.
(1)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
I believe the purpose is to prevent civil actions against a soldier using a weapon, personal or otherwise, in an act of self-defense.
Basically, you won't have to pay an arm and a leg for a lawyer to clear your name after you're sued... because you can't get sued.
Basically, you won't have to pay an arm and a leg for a lawyer to clear your name after you're sued... because you can't get sued.
(0)
(0)
LTC Yinon Weiss
CPT (Join to see) - I don't see how a "can't sue me" law can exist in the US. People can sue the police department / city if they feel they didn't act in self-defense. Surely the government can't give National Guard soldiers an even higher level of protection.
(0)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
LTC Yinon Weiss From my understanding (and I'm a layman and in no way an expert), the federal government can only be sued on a very limited basis. The law seems to me to mean that any act of self-defense performed by a soldier would be considered an action performed on official duty, and therefore the individual would be shielded from personal responsibility as long as they act in accordance with the law.
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
They are not referring to AD Soldiers. TN is trying to do the same. When they authorized NG Soldiers to Carry/Conceal at Armories it is at our own "risk" in the event of a Active shooter event. There are no protections.
LTC Yinon Weiss
LTC Yinon Weiss
(3)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
In my opinion, as a National Guardsman, I do not see why I or others cannot carry a personal gun, like I do every nearly everyday, simply because I change my clothes from a polo shirt and jeans to ACU's. There is still no one who is in charge / or appointed to protect me... except for me. I feel more vulnerable in uniform knowing that everyone knows that I do not have a gun on me my under my ACU top, and that I would make an awesome video clip for ISIS as a target for lone wolf attack while I'm getting my coffee at 7-11 on my way to drill. What a great guaranteed soft target, and the Soldier is alone, and not armed, and will be on video getting lit up by a pos ISIS sympathizer wannabe executing his jihad for all those drone strikes...etc...
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
I'm curious, since when did police officers acquire criminal and civil "IMMUNITY" for their actions? Are they not held to the exact same standards as the rest of the civilian population? We have a great problem in this country when we declare that the police are "immune" from the law and don't have to face consequences for their actions. Now the legislature of Maine wants to place their "National Guard" on that same raised pedestal?
Don't get me wrong EVERYONE should have the "RIGHT" to protect themselves and their families from the evil around us. It's what the Declaration of Independence declared, and the 2nd Amendment codified... However; We all should be guided by the SAME SET OF RULES. There should NEVER be any special dispensation for police or anyone else.
Although I believe this "bill" is intended to do good, it should never pass! In fact if there are laws in Maine that make the police immune from both criminal and civil liability for their actions those laws should, IMHO be repealed.
Don't get me wrong EVERYONE should have the "RIGHT" to protect themselves and their families from the evil around us. It's what the Declaration of Independence declared, and the 2nd Amendment codified... However; We all should be guided by the SAME SET OF RULES. There should NEVER be any special dispensation for police or anyone else.
Although I believe this "bill" is intended to do good, it should never pass! In fact if there are laws in Maine that make the police immune from both criminal and civil liability for their actions those laws should, IMHO be repealed.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google