Iowa moves to add castle doctrine

Iowa is one of the states that requires you to pretty much be cornered to use deadly force. Yesterday, the legislature made steps to correct that lunacy. The state House Public Safety Committee passed House File 573 by a 14 to 7 vote. The legislation will now be sent to the House floor for consideration.

House File 573 would remove a person’s “duty to retreat” from an attacker, allowing law-abiding citizens to stand their ground and protect themselves or their family anywhere they are lawfully present. It would create a presumption that an individual who unlawfully or forcefully enters your dwelling, place of business or employment, or occupied vehicle is there to cause serious bodily injury or death, so the occupant may use force, including deadly force, against that person. HF 573 also would expressly enhance the protections against criminal prosecution and civil lawsuits when justifiable force is used.

Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Iowa moves to add castle doctrine

  1. Laura Wade says:

    I say yes to HF 573. It’s about time that law abiding citizens are able to defend themselves & others from criminals. I would also add that any intruder breaking into the premises be considered dangerous and a threat. They are breaking the law by breaking into your home, car, etc. I am for the stand your ground provision.

  2. Boomer Qureshi says:

    Because of my health issues, im not going to get very far when trying to save myself. I have no choice but to reach for my weapon.

  3. Notamobster says:

    Boomer qureshi? Exploding (Mohammed was a qureshi) very clever.

  4. RJ says:

    yee haw…aint it grand when pols see the light.

  5. Daniel Young says:

    I support “House File 573”
    Hide Details


    Daniel Young


    Message flagged
    Tuesday, February 28, 2012 1:20 AM
    Dear Sir;

    As one who exercises his rights to bear arms not only as an American and Iowan citizen, but as a human being entitled to the preservation of life – be it my own or those whose lives are at risk (namely, my family), I wish to communicate my support in the passage of “House File 573” for the sole reason that the right to bear arms is a right that isn’t ‘given’ by the enacting of any law by man (as in it isn’t a privilege), but rather it is a right that we are born to.

    Just as the U.S. Constitution didn’t give us our rights as federal and state citizens by it’s ratification, but rather the document being drafted in recognition of these already preexisting right so to bring heed and to protect them, I find that any law passed that restrict these rights simply inexcusable. Though I would have it encouraged among all who partake in exercising this right to be absolutely the last measure taken in assuring their lives, I can’t fathom one facing prosecution for doing what anybody would want to do when faced with danger that they had interpreted as life-threatening, what any ‘average’ man would deem life-threatening. (I hereby declare the breaking into my home as being interpreted ‘life-threatening’, and I would not want to pursue necessary dictations as scripted by current law in a most adrenaline-pumping scenario to first verbally warn and then attempt to dissuade the perpetrator from further ingression as I believe the visible displaying of my gun in my hand as saying enough – literally non-verbally speaking – “get the fuck out!” (pardon my usage). What more needs to be said? “Oh, I won’t shoot you. I’ll just wait for the police to get here before you potentially rape me, beat me, sodomize me, steal my valuables, or simply scare me beyond comprehension because you’re an intruder. That being said, are you going to let me use my phone?”)

    Furthermore, should a prosecution of any magnitude attempt to strip such a person of their rights and means to life (not their actual life but freedom unto self) for the actions they took to ensure their life, could not and would not the person’s countering-actions to the provocation caused by the prosecution justify that persons countering-act in furthering ensuring their rights to life (and therefore the rights to bear arms so to further preserve their lives) by whatever means necessary? I think so, for such a provocation is unmerited and is cause for one to interpret said prosecution as a continuing threat to their livelihood. (Of course, this is the high-extreme, and the more diplomatic approach to such a threat would be to sue. I simply state this to show what is observably justifiable, as any threat against a man who is in the right, what anybody would know to be of one who is in the right, regardless of the threat being within the confines of law or not (as man laws don’t always apply), gives that man the right to act accordingly. We know this to be true for nations have been doing this for millenniums.)

    I staunchly reiterate my support of “House File 573” simply because of what History has to teach us: that no man wishes for his life to be in the hands of another but his own, or God’s, if he prefers.

    Daniel C. Young

  6. Lyun says:

    “The right to bear arms, but not use them”….seems illogical.

    How many people are so good with a hand gun that while attempting to defend themselves by shooting for his knee caps they blow his brains out instead….they don’t come back after that.

    When I lived in South Africa in the 60’s I always slept with a gun under my pillow….it was that kind of place then.

  7. notamobster says:


    I am GOOD with a pistol in CQB and a rifle in more indirect, distance related shooting.

    I have been trained by the best to do the same no matter which situation I find myself in…


    Whether shooting at a distance, or in a close-quarters-battle situation, I shoot for center of mass… no knee-caps. If I feel threatened enoughed to use deadly force, I shoot to stop. Not to handicap.

    You fucking Aussie’s are so self-righteous – you bragabout your moral superiority but conveniently neglect your holocaust against the aborigines. You brag about your civility, while being completely enslaved to your government. Just try to change your tax system. I DARE YOU! TRY to pay less in taxes…

    Try to tell your masters that you disagree with anything they tell you is now the law of the land.


    The monopoly of force that they possess will SHOW you otherwise.

    You aren’t enlightened or free… You are a slave. A slave purchased on the cheap for a few generations of those who want nothing more than food, housing, and medical attention.

    You are sad and unbefitting the free human race.

    You make me sick.

  8. Heretic says:

    If someone breaks into your home, while you’re there, violent intent is implied. If it’s my home, I will plant three. An old man told me once, if they don’t have a gun on them when you shoot them, make sure they have one when the cops get there.

  9. R.D. Walker says:

    An update here. The Democrats in the Iowa legislature walked out of the State House yesterday on this bill. The GOP waited patiently and, when they returned today, passed it. Every Republican voted for it. Every Democrat voted against it save one.

    I know my legislator personally – Democrat – I will be asking him why he thinks I should have to run away from someone who breaks into my home.

    It is off to the Senate now. The Iowa Senate is an even split.

    From NRA-IA

    Yesterday was an eventful day in Des Moines for pro-gun advocates that began with the House Democratic caucus’ mass exodus from the state capitol in protest of the scheduled consideration of two NRA priority pro-gun bills. Despite the fact the Republican majority had a quorum and could have passed legislation without the Democratic caucus, action was delayed until the caucus returned late in the afternoon. Once normal order was restored, gun owners in the Hawkeye State saw the Right to Keep and Bear Arms state constitutional amendment amended to the original NRA-supported language and passed. Gun owners then saw the passage of Stand Your Ground legislation. Both of these bills will now be sent to the state Senate for committee assignment and consideration.

  10. Josh says:

    We should have our “stand your ground” even if it doesn’t pass I will still stand my ground! I will not let someone hurt my wife family or me. I don’t go looking for trouble or try going to areas with trouble know to be there (like drake area).

    Whats always funny is the people that are againt “stand your ground” are the first one to say if I had a gun I would of shoot him and iowa has not truned into the wild west like the so called “experts” predicted it would when theres how many states with laws like ours or states that allow class 3 premints.

    Anymore a days the so called experts say whatever you what them to say when you give the right amount of $$$$.

  11. Manon says:

    Crimes against lawful citizens happen everyday and we are defenseless against thugs , rapists, murders and elected officials. And the biggest crime is these officials tell all these animals that we have staked lambs for you to attack enjoy your selfs they are defenseless. If this bill is not passed we must remove their butts from office . Our 2nd amendment rights were given to all of us long before we were born for this reason and to protect us from our government who is out of control…