ATLANTA – Instead of embracing a citizen's "duty to retreat" in the face of a physical attack, states may be taking cues from the days of lawless frontier towns, where non-deputized Americans were within their rights to hold the bad guys at bay with the threat of deadly force.
First enacted in Florida last year, "Stand Your Ground" bills are now being considered in 21 states including Georgia, according to the National Rifle Association and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. The South Dakota senate approved one just last week.
These new measures would push the boundaries beyond the self-defense measures already on the books. Twelve states already allow citizens to shoot intruders in their homes, and 38 states permit concealed weapons in public places. The "Stand Your Ground" laws would allow people to defend themselves with deadly force even in public places when they perceive a life-threatening situation for themselves or others, and they would not be held accountable in criminal or civil court even if bystanders are injured.
Laws putting more judgment in an individuals hands stem from people's increased concern about crime in their communities. Proponents say it helps shift the debate from gun control to crime control, and that these laws are part of the rugged individualism of Americans.
"These laws send a more general message to society that public spaces belong to the public - and the public will protect [public places] rather than trying to run into the bathroom of the nearest Starbucks and hope the police show up," says David Kopel, director of the Independence Institute in Golden, Colo.
Exactly. Of course, the critics don't agree.
Some critics say such "Wild West" laws are vigilante justice, and commonplace confrontations and more likely turn to violence.
"You don't just broadly paint a new statewide law saying, if you're in doubt, go ahead and shoot and kill the other person," says Peter Hamm, spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence in Washington. "It's anathema to peace and calm in our communities."
This sort of hyperbole from the anti-gun crowd is pretty typical. These same sort of comments - painting the law as a sort of blank check to indiscriminately open fire whenever you feel like it - were prevalent around the time Florida passed the first law of this kind. Unfortunately, these people aren't being 100% accurate when describing the laws.
Citizens who open fire when threatened will still face a review of their actions by law enforcement after the fact. The threat any given citizen uses as their reason for fighting back will still have to meet the legal threshold of what is appropriate to make self-defense warranted.
People have always had a right to defend themselves, their family and their property in this country. Unfortunately, in the last several decades politicians have made it a requirement that a citizen must first try to flee their attacker before they can fight back. Which is total nonsense. Why should you first have to flee before you can turn and fight?
I think these laws are a great idea. If we can get them passed, and then encourage private gun ownership among citizens, I'm sure we'd see a drastic drop in the crime rate. After all, its hard to be a violent thug when all of your targets are gun-toting citizens with the power to fight back.