Author Archives: RobTheLawyer

About RobTheLawyer

Robert Louis Williamson, Esq. a/k/a 'Rob, the Lawyer' a/k/a 'RTL' a/k/a 'The Most Interesting Lawyer in the World" specializing in all forms of Personal Injury Litigation throughout the State of Mississippi - The worst lawyer joke is you with a bad one... - Never Settle For Less Than You Deserve

Public or Federal?

The controversy seems to center around what public areas the federal government has “federalized.”  The argument that bans all weapons on federal lands is not correct in that weapons can be carried through national parks under regulation so the federal goverment restriction appears to be a “use” issue rather than a boundary issue.
Where concurrent jurisdiction exists between state and federal for unrestricted access, i.e. a highway through a national park, I think there is a strong argument that the feds cannot abrogate state law.  As such the public areas of a post office must be considered open for general public access and hence federal property restrictions would only apply where access is restricted, i.e. not open to the gerneral public.  The line blurs for example in a building where the Justice Department and private businesses both reside.  Is the lobby restricted?…, hallways?…  elevator?…
The matter has yet to be decided by a court as to the full application of the statute and CFR’s.  Remember, it took until 2008 for the supreme court to explicitly recognize an individual right to bear arms even though such right existed in fact prior.  The feds will extend the reach of federal intervention as far as the courts will let them, so it is just to say the “constitutionality” of any such provision is the real crux of the debate.
The pendulum, appears to be swinging now in favor of individual liberty (about time!) given the recent groundswell of opposition by federal judges to interrogation tactics, secret wiretaps, and detention in violation of due process, so some federal judges may be ripe to opine on the side of the public.  Add to that that CFR’s, unlike statutes, are not promulgated by the legislature; they are instead purely executive orders simply given the standing of law by incorporation and hence, have no legislative input.  Such an abscence of checks and balances often prompts the judicial branch to intercede where the legislative is excluded by design.
All interested in this issue should mark well any judicial opinions of federal courts either acknowledging or abrogating application of the statute; and if you hear of any, please let the rest of us know.  Any statute testers out there willing to openly tote in a Post Office, get arrested, and give us some clarity?…  )I suspect there is no line forming for that job…)

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

What is the Castle Doctrine?

The Castle Doctrine was a common-law legal defense that said that a man’s home is his castle.  This meant that you had the right to use deadly force in defending your “castle.”  However, you were then open to a civil wrongful death suit by the family of the robber that you used deadly force on when he invaded your castle.  You also had a duty to retreat if you could safely do so before using deadly force.  Even in your own home.

In 2006, the Mississippi Legislature, following Florida’s lead, codified the Castle Doctrine into law.  It is Mississippi Statute 97-3-15, and it states in part that:

(1)  The killing of a human being by the act, procurement or omission of another shall be justifiable in the following cases:

(e) When committed by any person in resisting any attempt unlawfully to kill such person or to commit any felony upon him, or upon or in any dwelling, in any occupied vehicle, in any place of business, in any place of employment or in the immediate premises thereof in which such person shall be;

(3)  A person who uses defensive force shall be presumed to have reasonably feared imminent death or great bodily harm, or the commission of a felony upon him or another or upon his dwelling, or against a vehicle which he was occupying, or against his business or place of employment or the immediate premises of such business or place of employment, if the person against whom the defensive force was used, was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, occupied vehicle, business, place of employment or the immediate premises thereof or if that person had unlawfully removed or was attempting to unlawfully remove another against the other person’s will from that dwelling, occupied vehicle, business, place of employment or the immediate premises thereof and the person who used defensive force knew or had reason to believe that the forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred. This presumption shall not apply if the person against whom defensive force was used has a right to be in or is a lawful resident or owner of the dwelling, vehicle, business, place of employment or the immediate premises thereof or is the lawful resident or owner of the dwelling, vehicle, business, place of employment or the immediate premises thereof or if the person who uses defensive force is engaged in unlawful activity or if the person is a law enforcement officer engaged in the performance of his official duties;

(4)  A person who is not the initial aggressor and is not engaged in unlawful activity shall have no duty to retreat before using deadly force under subsection (1) (e) or (f) of this section if the person is in a place where the person has a right to be, and no finder of fact shall be permitted to consider the person’s failure to retreat as evidence that the person’s use of force was unnecessary, excessive or unreasonable.

(5) (a)  The presumptions contained in subsection (3) of this section shall apply in civil cases in which self-defense or defense of another is claimed as a defense.

(b) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant acted in accordance with subsection (1) (e) or (f) of this section. A defendant who has previously been adjudicated “not guilty” of any crime by reason of subsection (1) (e) or (f) of this section shall be immune from any civil action for damages arising from same conduct.

The “new” Castle Doctrine law also added civil immunity when you used deadly force within your house or motor vehicle.  This means that if you are forced to shoot someone that is breaking in your house, you cannot be then sued civilly by his family.  The law also removed the duty to retreat before using deadly force.  You no longer have to prove that you retreated, from your own house, before you can lawfully use deadly force in protecting yourself and your family from imminent harm.

Now, it’s not completely clear as to where your “Castle” begins.  Obviously, if you are in your house, it most likely applies.  But if you see someone walking across your property and they aren’t threatening you in any manner, it probably won’t apply to that.

Leave a comment

Filed under Castle Doctrine

New Law Firm Website

We are pleased to announce the debut of our new law firm Website. The site address has moved! The new site address is If you miss the attorneys radio show on WJNT 1180 AM on Fridays from 5:00pm to 6:00pm, visit our new site and stream the show anytime. The weekly radio shows will be archived in the streaming media section of our new site.  As always, for immediate contact anytime day or night, our 24/7 phone number is (800) 281-1628. Call today! Remember, Knowlege is your best Defense.

Leave a comment

Filed under Firm Update

Knowledge is your best Defense.


Leave a comment

Filed under Arrested by Hinds, Arrested by JPD, Arrested by Madison, Arrested by Rankin, DUI Felony, DUI Misdemeanor, Federal Court, Indictment, Possession with Intent, Probation Violation