When is it appropriate to use violent force to defend yourself? This question has been debated for decades. Each state has enacted laws determining how one is allowed to react when threatened with bodily harm. But now, this question could be considered on a national scale.
Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) and Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) are introducing the National “Stand Your Ground Act of 2023” in the House of Representatives and Senate, respectively. This bill would abolish the legal duty of retreat when someone is attacked, and codify Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law at the national level. Rep. Gaetz’s legislation is co-sponsored by Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ) and Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ).
The “Stand Your Ground Act” reaffirms that every American has the right to use violent force to defend themselves and their loved ones from an assailant. Sen. Mullin stated that every American should have the right to defend themselves against imminent threats without the duty to retreat.
Gaetz said in a statement:
Every American has the right to defend themselves and their loved ones from an attacker. If someone tries to kill you, you should have the right to return fire and preserve your life. It’s time to reaffirm in law what exists in our Constitution and in the hearts of our fellow Americans. We must abolish the legal duty of retreat everywhere.
Mullin filed the companion National “Stand Your Ground” legislation in the Senate on Friday afternoon, arguing:
States like Oklahoma and Florida recognize that in some cases, the use of lethal force is justified to prevent imminent death or serious bodily harm. Every American should have the right to defend himself or herself against imminent threats to personal safety without the duty to retreat. I’m proud to introduce the Stand Your Ground Act in the Senate to codify these commonsense self-defense protections for all law-abiding Americans.
If one of my constituents in Florida is the victim of an attack, they have the right to stand their ground and defend themselves. But the law in many jurisdictions across the country falls on the side of the attacker.
My Stand Your Ground Act would eliminate the duty to retreat… pic.twitter.com/IUsG3QNROi
— Rep. Matt Gaetz (@RepMattGaetz) May 5, 2023
During a conversation with Fox News Digital, Gaetz noted that the U.S. has “too many states that continue to maintain the duty to retreat if one is attacked outside their home” and that Congress “should supersede that state law because it leaves Americans vulnerable.”
The lawmaker pointed out that a person being attacked in the nation’s capital is forced to make a “split-second” decision about whether they are able to “turn their back and run.”
“And if you miscalculate toward the side of self-defense, you could be under arrest,” Gaetz explained. “If someone is intending to commit a forcible felony on an American, an American right should be meeting that force with comparable force.”
Sen. Mullin told the news outlet “Like Oklahoma and Florida recognize that in some cases, the use of lethal force is justified to prevent imminent death or serious bodily harm.”
The United States has been grappling with the issue of self-defense laws for years, with two primary concepts at the center of the debate: Stand Your Ground Laws and Duty to Retreat Laws. Advocates and opponents of these laws hold strong and often conflicting views, leading to heated debates about the role of firearms in self-defense.
Stand Your Ground Laws, which have been implemented in over 25 states, allow individuals to use deadly force in situations where they perceive a threat to their life or safety. These laws remove the legal obligation to retreat from danger and allow individuals to defend themselves with lethal force if they feel it is necessary.
Proponents argue that Stand Your Ground Laws provide individuals with a sense of security and the ability to protect themselves and their families from harm, even if it means using lethal force. It also prevents criminals from having an unfair advantage over their victims, by allowing those being attacked to fight back.
Opponents of Stand Your Ground Laws argue that they have led to an increase in violent crimes and deaths, particularly among minority communities. Critics contend that these laws promote a “shoot first, ask questions later” mentality that supposedly disproportionately affects people of color. A study by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that Stand Your Ground Laws have increased homicides by eight percent and have been used more often in cases involving white defendants and black victims.
In contrast, Duty to Retreat Laws, which are still implemented in some states, require individuals to retreat from a threat before using deadly force. This concept requires individuals to attempt to escape or avoid danger before resorting to violence. Advocates of Duty to Retreat Laws argue that they provide a non-violent alternative to self-defense and can prevent unnecessary deaths.
Opponents of Duty to Retreat Laws argue that they put individuals in harm’s way and can increase the likelihood of victimization. Critics also contend that Duty to Retreat Laws can be subjective and can lead to unnecessary prosecutions, as individuals may be required to prove that they attempted to retreat before using lethal force. This could easily result in people being incarcerated for defending themselves.
Another question some might have when it comes to passing a Stand Your Ground law at the national level is whether this decision should be left up to the states. On one hand, proponents of states’ rights might argue that the federal government has no business dictating how each state handles self-defense. But on the other hand, some might argue that the federal government has a role to play in this matter because it involves the protection of natural rights. The Constitution clearly indicates that one’s right to life should be protected, and if states are making it illegal to defend one’s life, it could be considered a violation of this right.
Normally, I would say let the states decide. But in this situation, I do not believe any government has the authority to tell us that we do not have the right to defend our lives and property. As someone who carries daily, I do not believe the state should ever put me in a situation in which I might face prosecution even in a clear case of self-defense because it determines that I did not do enough to escape the situation.
Indeed, when I first started receiving training on handling firearms and self-defense, I was told that doing everything I can to avoid a situation was preferable to having to shoot someone. However, it was also emphasized that in a scenario in which there was no reasonable way to escape, the gun should be used as a last resort. The government should not be able to make that determination if someone like myself is being credibly threatened with physical violence.
This is why I could possibly support this type of legislation at the national level. When the state passes laws making it harder for people to defend themselves, they are infringing on our rights. In this case, the federal government has a role to play in making sure the state is not allowed to violate this right.
