Become part of the movement for unbiased, accessible election information. Donate today.
Oregon Resident Self-Defense Against Intruders Initiative (2014)
| Not on Ballot |
|---|
 |
| This measure was not put on an election ballot |
| Voting on Law Enforcement |
|---|
|
| Ballot Measures |
| By state |
| By year |
| Not on ballot |
| Local Measures |
The Oregon Resident Self-Defense Against Intruders Initiative, also known as Oregon Castle Doctrine Act, did not make the November 4, 2014 ballot in Oregon as an initiated state statute. The measure would have expanded laws allowing defensive use of deadly force and eliminate liability for adult trespasser's injury or death in such cases.[1][2][3]
Background
Castle doctrine laws can be found as part of state laws regarding self-defense across the country, and have often been intertwined with "stand your ground" laws. This has led to their being embroiled with controversy. The doctrine, which sometimes called castle law or defense of habitation law, asserts that a person's residence is a place where certain protections are afforded. Commonly, this applies to the right to defend oneself with deadly force in the case of an intruder in one's home, place of work or even a car.
Research fellows Mark Randall and Hendrik DeBoer described the doctrine in an OLR Research Report, saying,
| “ | Typically, deadly force is considered justified homicide only in cases when the actor reasonably feared imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to oneself or another. The doctrine is not a defined law that can be invoked, but is a set of principles which is incorporated in some form in the law of most states.[4] | ” |
| —Mark Randall and Hendrik DeBoer[5] | ||
While stand your ground and castle doctrine laws are common throughout the country, at the time of this measures proposal, they had not been widely subjected to direct democracy measures. Only since the 2010's have such measures been subject to the vote of the people. In fact, a very similar proposed initiative was discussed in Oregon in 2012, but it did not make the ballot.
Text of measure
Ballot title
The certified ballot title reads as:[1]
| “ | Expands laws allowing defensive use of deadly force; eliminates liability for adult trespasser's injury/death[4] | ” |
Support
The primary supporter of this measure was Common Sense For Oregon.
Supporters
- Common Sense For Oregon
- Oregon Anti-Crime Alliance
Arguments
Common Sense for Oregon argued that,
| “ | If someone is trying to break into your home or office, you ought to be able to use whatever force is necessary to stop the intruder, without having to worry about being sued afterwards. At least 35 states do have such laws, and it is high time for Oregon to do the same.[6][4] | ” |
The Oregon Anti-Crime Alliance's argument for the Castle Doctrine was as follows:[7]
- "[You] have a right to defend yourself, your loved ones, and your friends against intruders, at your home and at your workplace."
- "Any force you use against an intruder is appropriate."
- "Prosecutors generally will not prosecute a person who is engaging in self-defense or defense of another person."
- Therefore, the Castle Doctrine is needed to "protect the civil liabilities of someone who protects in their home or place of business."
Kevin Mannix argued similarly in an article for Lane Solutions, that people who are committing acts of self-defense should not be subject to lengthy and expensive civil suits that could be brought against them if they injury or kill a criminal intruder.[8]
Path to the ballot
In order to qualify for the ballot, supporters were required to collect a minimum of 87,213 valid signatures by July 3, 2014. The proposed initiative was filed on March 28, 2013 and approved for petition circulation on May 22, 2013.[1] Supporters did not gather sufficent signatures by the deadline.[9]
See also
Castle doctrine
Similar measures
External links
- Full text of proposed initiative 10
- Certified ballot title and summary for proposed initiative 10
- Common Sense for Oregon website (dead link), Facebook profile for Oregon Castle Doctrine
- Oregon Anti-Crime Alliance
Additional reading
- Ohio State Bar Association, "'Castle Laws' Change Self-Defense Rights," March 4, 2014
- South Source, "CASTLE DOCTRINE FROM STATE TO STATE," July 2011
- Missoulian, "Missoula teen's killing could test 'castle doctrine'," April 29, 2014
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Oregon Secretary of State, Elections Division, "Detailed Information For : 10/2014," accessed June 6, 2014
- ↑ Oregon Secretary of State, Elections Division, "Certified ballot title and summary for proposed initiative 10," May 6, 2013
- ↑ Oregon Secretary of State, Elections Division, "Full text of proposed initiative 10," March 29, 2013
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Connecticut General Assembly, "THE CASTLE DOCTRINE AND STAND-YOUR-GROUND LAW," April 24, 2012
- ↑ Common Sense for Oregon, "The Oregon Castle Doctrine Act," January 14, 2014
- ↑ Oregon Anti-Crime Alliance, "What is the Castle Doctrine?" accessed June 6, 2014
- ↑ Lane Solutions, "The Oregon Castle Doctrine Act: Protecting Your Family," October 16, 2013
- ↑ Oregon Castle Doctrine, "Homepage," accessed July 3, 2014
 |
State of Oregon Salem (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
