Christensen feels support for 'Castle' bill

Thursday, January 14, 2010

A bill introduced by Sen Mark Christensen of Imperial that would allow people to use deadly force against someone breaking into their homes, workplaces or cars is getting overwhelming positive response, the senator said today.

In fact, the only negative feedback is coming from newspapers in Lincoln and Omaha which have "hammered" him on it, Christensen said this morning at the McCook Area Chamber of Commerce Legislative conference call.

Despite the newspapers calling it the "Make My Day law," Christensen prefers to call it the "Castle Doctrine" and said he's received nearly 100 percent support of the bill.

"It's amazing to me about the support,' he said, adding that other senators have told him their e-mail boxes are full of comments in favor of the bill.

Currently, it's legal to use deadly force if a person is threatened with death, serious injury, kidnapping or forced sexual intercourse. Other states already have similar laws.

Christensen also has introduced several bills that concern the Republican River Basin, including one that clarifies the use of an occupation tax on irrigated acres and another that cancels the repayment of the $9 million loan natural resources districts borrowed last year from the state.

LB 862 would allow NRDs to use the occupation tax if regulatory metering is done in its district. A current occupation tax allowed by LB701 and used by the NRDs is now being challenged in District Court as unconstitutional.

A property tax in the same law was declared unconstitutional by the Nebraska Supreme Court.

It was first challenged in Lancaster County District Court, which found it illegal because the tax was levied on only a certain number of property owners, creating a closed class.

On appeal, the Supreme Court ruled the tax was unconstitutional as it was levied for a state purpose, in this case the Republican River Compact.

The Compact allocates use of the river between Nebraska, Kansas and Colorado. Kansas has alleged that Nebraska used more water allowed during the dry years of 2005-06.

Christensen said new language in the bill eliminate the closed class designation and could apply to all or none of the other NRDs in the state. Other senators are in favor of the bill as long as the bill doesn't apply state-wide, he said. As written now, the occupation tax would apply to the three NRDs in the Republican River Basin as well as a portion of the Twin Platte region.

In LB 932, Christensen wants the state to forgive a $9 million loan that Basin NRDs borrowed from the state last year. The money was used to pay farmers who sold their water to the NRDs in 2007. That water was sent to Kansas to keep Nebraska in compliance with the Republican River Compact.

LB 932 asks that loan be cancelled and argues that as the Nebraska Supreme Court stated that the compliance with the compact is essentially a state responsibility, that the state should pay the cost of complying with the compact.

Christensen admitted that the bill faces an uphill battle, with many in the Legislature unsympathetic with water woes in the western part of the state.

"I've got NRDs in my district. .. with an $8.7 million debt with no way to pay it back," he said.

Earlier in the meeting, Christensen said working with the Legislature can be frustrating, as the common response he's heard to water issues is to either shut down irrigation or severely curtail pumping allocations.

"I can ignore these issues and shut the door, or work with the body and figure out the next best thing," he said.

Comments
View 8 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • Good Morning from Okinawa,

    I am glad to see Nebraska is finally closing the gaps in personal security of family and property. The larger cities on the eastern end of the state know this bill/law represents many headaches for them.

    All this law is mainly about is not allowing those who break in to a residence or their next of kin to sue the home-owner if fatally shot or wounded.

    Hopefully the residents of Nebraska don't allow the eastern end of the state dictate how the rest of Nebraska protects their family.

    Very Respectfully

    Tyler Hayes

    -- Posted by DocBonesaw on Thu, Jan 14, 2010, at 3:16 PM
  • About time Nebraska decided to make it ok to protect your life and property instead of worrying about the criminals. Always way behind in these areas Nebraska was about the last to pass a concealed carry law. Stats show that crime goes down when CCW laws are passed and castle doctrines are passed.

    -- Posted by Chaco1 on Thu, Jan 14, 2010, at 6:32 PM
  • I finally agree with something Chris is trying to do. Forget the eastern part of the state, or at least the ones who make noise such as the newspapers, I'm sure most of the citizens in the eastern part like the law too.

    -- Posted by geewhiz on Thu, Jan 14, 2010, at 10:24 PM
  • Seems to me that the group most opposed to this would be the criminal class and their supporters. Makes you wonder about Newspapers and politicans who oppose these kinds of laws dosen't it?

    -- Posted by Chaco1 on Fri, Jan 15, 2010, at 10:15 AM
  • Sounds like another politician trying to impress the public, "HOW GREAT I AM." Has this happened in Nebraska before.

    He states that nearly 100 % support this bill, But if the newspapers in Lincoln & Omaha have "HAMMERED" him. I guess I don't understand the percentages!!!

    Maybe he better go back to his "Castle" and try to figure out LB701 that hes been working on for several years, seems it keeps getting worse.

    Talk is cheap but doing it is different!!!!

    Maybe McCook should name the Airport after him.

    -- Posted by Just a reader on Mon, Jan 18, 2010, at 1:24 PM
  • Sorry Just a Reader, the airport is going to be named after an older more senior politician. Ok 99.9%, that accounts for a couple of newspaper editors and their ACLU supporters.

    -- Posted by Oh what a wonderful day on Mon, Jan 18, 2010, at 1:55 PM
  • So I am confused just a reader, do you suppot this bill or not? If you don't like Christensen so be it but what about the subject of the article?

    -- Posted by Chaco1 on Tue, Jan 19, 2010, at 10:24 AM
  • Thanks to Senator Christensen for LR191. There are many supporters for this Resolution in Eastern Nebraska. Reference Martha Stoddard's 2 January article in the Omaha paper covering Nebraska's Legislature '10 regarding self-defense and the Castle Doctrine.

    Ms. Stoddard's story seemed somewhat biased against the Castle Doctrine which would give residents better protection in self-defense cases in criminal and civil liability courts. The way the article started set the tone when it opened with "It's been dubbed the 'make my day' bill" ... and "others have called it a new version of Nebraska's 1969 shoot your neighbor law." The Lancaster County attorney stated "Changing the law so people shoot without hesitation could lead to people killing a family member coming home late or a person pounding on the door in the middle of the night seeking help." Honestly, I do not think the people of Nebraska are so naive to believe such hogwash. The attorney also said "In Colorado this year, a drunken man was shot and killed outside a home he tried to enter, apparently believing it was his own. His home was a block away." The attorney failed to mention in this case that the drunken man went to the back of the home, broke a window, then reached in to open the deadbolt lock while a man and his girlfriend were home watching television. This is far from the impression that some drunk was shot while fumbling with keys trying to open a door. Lastly, the attorney stated "Any time you skew the law in favor of someone so that you don't have to think about what you are doing, it's going to lead to an unjust result." Would adopting the Castle Doctrine suddenly cause people not to think? I commend Senator Christensen for initiating this Bill, his comments in the article and I am confident that our State Legislators will come up with the right language that will pass the majority litmus test.

    -- Posted by AFRET on Sun, Jan 24, 2010, at 10:29 AM
Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: