Summary — SCR 91 (Alvarado‑Gil) — “Stand Your Ground” / Agricultural Land (Concurrent Resolution)
Status: Introduced June 9, 2025. Reported from AEN (Stand. Com. Rep. No. 1188) with recommendation of referral to JDC. Ultimately adopted by the Legislature and chaptered as Res. Chapter 181, Statutes of 2025 (filed with Secretary of State Sept. 18, 2025). Primary sponsors: Senators Gabbard, McKelvey, Richards.
Purpose and intent
- SCR 91 is a concurrent resolution urging the Legislature to develop and support statutory changes that would reduce or eliminate the duty to retreat for people defending themselves on agricultural land.
- The resolution frames the request as a response to the 2024 fatal shooting of rancher Cranston Duke Pia and to perceived vulnerabilities faced by agricultural workers in remote locations.
- It cites the historical precedent of King Kamehameha I’s Law of the Splintered Paddle and notes that “stand your ground” style laws have been enacted in 26 other states.
Key provisions (what the resolution asks the Legislature to do)
- Urges the Legislature to advance legislation and policies that:
- Affirm an actor is not required to retreat when on agricultural land where the actor has a right to be;
- Confirm the actor has the right to “stand their ground” and may justifiably use deadly force in self‑protection in those circumstances;
- Require that the actor be not engaged in criminal activity and not be the original aggressor in order for the justification to apply.
- The resolution is advisory/urging in nature — it does not itself change criminal law or create new statutory authority.
Who would be affected
- Primary beneficiaries targeted by the resolution: individuals in the agricultural community (ranchers, farmworkers), their families, employees and caretakers, and livestock/property owners on agricultural land.
- Indirectly affects law enforcement, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and courts if implementing legislation is introduced and enacted.
Potential impact and considerations
- If followed by enabling legislation, changes could expand legal defenses for use of force on agricultural property, potentially affecting prosecution of deadly‑force incidents, civil liability, and trespass enforcement.
- Raises policy tradeoffs: proponents cite deterrence of violent trespass and protection of remote agricultural workers; opponents may raise concerns about increased use of deadly force, public safety, and the need for clear statutory limits (e.g., definition of “agricultural land,” scope of “right to be,” and exceptions for aggressors).
- As a concurrent resolution, SCR 91’s immediate effect is to recommend action and signal legislative intent; substantive change would require introduction and passage of implementing bills.
Procedural notes
- Reported favorably by the Senate Agriculture, Energy & Natural Resources (AEN) committee with a recommendation for referral to the Judiciary (JDC).
- The resolution requests certified copies be transmitted to the Governor and legislative leadership for consideration.
