My grandson was shot to death, unarmed (neither gun nor knife nor club) out in Oklahoma, in mid-December of 2007. Although this happened just five days before his court date as a prosecution witness, the District Attorney - a woman - called it self defense as defined under the Oklahoma Castle Law (Statute 1289.25)! The DA refuses to consider that the one who killed my grandson also stalked him at his own home beforehand, and there are eyewitnesses who can testify about those situations. The killer opened the door to my grandson. Moreover, the Oklahoma law is not supposed to cover cases where a "child or grandchild" is in the home where the shooting took place, and that was the exact situation - my grandson's own one year old daughter was present when he was shot (she had to be pulled off of his dying body!). This was just ignored. After reviewing the transcripts in those drug-related trials that my grandson was to testify in, I can see that one of the defendants benefited from his death - he'll probably get off. Put this in the record of the possible ways for the defense laws to be misapplied: lawyers, including district attorneys, will find ways to pervert them. Our loss of a grandson is just one example of how the poorly written and thought out "Castle Laws" will fail, and this kind of thing plays right into the hands of the anti-gun proponents.

I'm not some wild-eyed liberal, and I even have a carry permit. I grew up in Arkansas, where I hunted small game from a very young age. I also served a military tour of duty, and I still practice to keep my marksmanship at an acceptable level. But having a gun should not be an excuse to go looking for a fight. As for my reaction to all of this, I prefer the original laws, and an assailant will have to break my door down or crash through a window before I start shooting. And I might die for hesitating, but I intend to voice a warning before I pull the trigger.