Say Anything Blog

Good news, Say Anything readers.  The pressure we brought to bear with the stand your ground bill worked.  It passed the House down in Bismarck with a comfortable margin.

BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) - Opposition from prosecutors and law enforcement officers could not derail legislation giving North Dakotans the right to shoot a burglar or carjacker with protection from criminal prosecution or civil lawsuits if they do.

“This bill is simply a citizen’s version of homeland security,” said Rep. Ron Carlisle, R-Bismarck.

The measure, which the National Rifle Association is promoting in other states, has drawn fierce resistance from police and county prosecutors who say North Dakotans already have the right to defend themselves in their homes and workplaces.

The police and prosecutors are correct that North Dakotans already have a right to defend themselves.  The problem, which this bill solves, is that before North Dakotans can exercise that right they must first try to flee their assailants under current law.  This is how the law reads now:

The use of deadly force is not justified if it can be avoided, with safety to the actor and others, by retreat or other conduct involving minimal interference with the freedom of the person menaced. A person seeking to protect someone else must, before using deadly force, try to cause that person to retreat, or otherwise comply with the requirements of this provision, if safety can be obtained thereby.

Sounds rather confusing, doesn’t it?  And vague?  How does a person put in the midst of an attack from another person supposed to be able to decide if the attack can be avoided easily enough that deadly force is not justified under current law?  And doesn’t this law put us in a great deal of danger by encouraging us to think about fleeing before we think about defending ourselves?  How many of us would be shot in the back when we couldn’t get away?  How many are afraid to use any level of self defense because they’re not sure if they met the criteria for it under current law?

The simple fact of the matter is that North Dakotans shouldn’t, when attacked, be required to do anything but defend themselves and those around them.  We shouldn’t have to run from thugs and criminals.  But for whatever reason the cops and prosecutors don’t feel that way.  Probably because cops have a rather silly inherent distrust of armed citizens, and prosecutors tend to favor laws so vague and convoluted that often the only thing keeping us out of jail in a given situation is their discretion.

Anyway, this is how the law will read once it gets through the Senate:

Deadly force is justified in the following instances:

[...]

b. When used in lawful self-defense, or in lawful defense of others, if the force is necessary to protect the actor or anyone else against death, serious bodily injury, or the commission of a felony involving violence.  An individual does not have the duty to retreat if the individual is in a place where that individual has a right to be.

Just plain common sense isn’t it?  Contrary to the hysterical whining of the “grab the guns” folks this legislation would not give you the right to shoot your neighbors when you’re angry at them or shoot people who come to your home at night for help.  The legislation does not at all change the current criteria for justified self defense.  You are only justified in using it to protect yourself or others from death, serious injury or the commission of a violent felony.  That’s it.  All that’s being removed is the requirement we run first.

And, I think most reasonable people can agree, that shouldn’t be a requirement at all.

This bill is through the House, but it still faces a tough battle in the Senate.  Click here to get the contact information for your particular state Senator and then tell him or her how you feel about this legislation.  It needs to pass.