Castle Doctrine

The article “Shootings Test Limits of New Self-Defense Law” by Ralph Blumenthal tells the story of Joe Horn, a man in Texas, who shot two men in what he claimed was self-defense under the recently instated “castle doctrine.”

​In his book ‘Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America,’ Wrinkler tried to present an unbiased view towards the second amendment in the light of historical events and landmark cases that has tried to challenge or obtain the court’s interpretation. One of such cases is the ‘District of Columbia v. Heller’ case, which was argued and decided in 2008 (Supreme Court of the United States). For several instances, the provision in the Second Amendment that pertains to the right of an individual to bear arms has been contested. In fact, the clause, which states that “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”, is perhaps the most misconstrued clause in the American constitution (Supreme Court of the United States). Adding to the significance of this highly debatable clause is the fact that a flurry of gun related incidences has happened in the United States in the past that has taken many lives including that of children. Among the most significant authors that has attempted to answer the question or at least laid out the possibilities regarding the second amendment is Adam Wrinkler. In light of Winkler’s arguments as well as with other sources, this paper will examine the historical

In the book everything took place in “the new world” or as what we now know as the United States of America. The main states that were involved in the book of “The Common Defense” were New York, Virginia, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania. The major battles and war took place in those states. The time period in which was discussed in the book was from the sixteen hundredths to the late eighteen hundredths. Britain came over to North America to build colonies and get land.

The research you provided on Kansas is very detailed in nature. Majority of the states throughout the United States have implemented the “Castle Doctrine and the Stand Your Ground” laws for the protection of their state residents. I realize that some people are against these two laws because of the shooting incidents that have occurred over the course of five years or more. With that in mind, home invasions and arm robberies have been on the rise for the last ten years or so. However, as a victim of an arm robbery incident, I know both of these laws are very beneficial to ensure the safety of the general public, as well as their homes.

The Defense of the Realm Act was created in 1914 in order to govern the lives of people in Britain during World War One. As the war continued its transition, more things would be added to the act as a result. In this act, it would list everything that the people of Britain was not supposed to do while the country was in a time of war. When the war changed, the Defence of the Realm Act would change right along with it.

They say majority rules and that couldn’t be more true in our society today. In order for the minority to be protected by the majority the U.S Constitution was written. Amendments in the constitution were put together to protect the U.S citizens. Federalist papers were written by James Madison, go through what responsibilities the government has to take on for its citizens.

Stand your Ground law states that a person may use deadly force in self-defense without the duty to retreat when faced with a reasonable perceived threat. When Stand your Ground laws were advocated in Florida and other states, their proponents marketed them as a reestablishment of a natural right, arguing “the duty to retreat has not always been a part of the common law”. The historical context may be misleading, allowing self-defense only when reasonably necessary, and a duty to retreat when attacked outside one’s home. The National Rifle Association seek to influence the Stand your Ground Law as a away for people to protect themselves. Though opponents who were against this law worried it would encourage the use of deadly force. For example, a 2004 case James Workman, a seventy-seven year old retiree who was sleeping in his RV, where an intruder busted into the trailer. James shot the intruder and had to wait months for the verdict. Prosecutors then decided the shots he

Recently, a dispute has arisen over the validity of Stand Your Ground laws. The shooting of 17 year old Trayvon Martin, in 2012, by George Zimmerman, has drawn attention to these laws, especially in Florida. Each state interprets the law differently, case by case, dependent on the facts. With each state having a diverse law in its book, there is seemingly no collective self-defense rule. Many argue that the Stand Your Ground laws are just and necessary, while others argue that the laws are merely an excuse for cold-blooded murder. Stand Your Ground laws are seen as a scapegoat for those willing to commit murder.

It appears as though the repetitive and unfortunate tragedies of mass shootings have become incorporated into the everyday life of American culture. We are forced to live in a heightened degree of fear, skepticism, and hesitation concerning our public safety. This phenomenon could reasonably occur in response to the vast ineffectiveness of the country’s current gun laws. Time after time similar misfortunes arise, yet few major changes are implemented to prevent them from reoccurring in the future. We cannot let this trend continue any further. Though some claim that increased gun control is useless and infringes upon the Second Amendment, it limits civilians’ weapons grade, obstructs those deemed unfit to wield such lethal weapons, and insures a greater level of security, thus it should be executed.

In November of 2007, a man living in the Houston, Texas area pulled a shotgun out and killed two men he believed were robbing a neighbor’s home. The 61 year old man called 911 and asked the operator to dispatch police to capture the two men. The operator warned the man to stay inside, but he responded to the operator stating, “I have a right to protect myself too, sir. The laws have been changed in this country since September the first, and you know it.” In the previous months, Texas legislature had passed a version of the Stand Your Ground law that removed a

Though each state that has enacted this law has its own interpretations and specifications, the Stand Your Ground Law generally permits the use of deadly force when a person feels a threat of death, serious bodily harm, rape, kidnapping, and robbery in most states, even if there is an option of retreat. The current Stand Your Ground Law, passed by legislation in 2005, applies to public settings; the Castle Doctrine is basically a Stand Your Ground Law that applies to the defense of oneself in a private abode or home. States currently enacting this law include Florida, Alabama, Michigan, Indiana, Nevada, Utah, and 17 others. Stand your ground law provides legal protection for protecting oneself and property at all costs and prevents civil lawsuits.

Heller, the court ruled that “the Second Amendment protects a pre-existing individual right to keep and bear arms…including, ‘the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation’” (National Rifle Association, 2011 par 4). Although the Constitution gives individuals the right to bear arms, it does not exclude “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places…or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of firearms,” (Romano & Wingert, 2011 par 13). In recent years here has been much discussion among the nation’s lawmakers and their constituents as to whether or not the Second Amendment is still constitutional; the question is whether or not the Second Amendment should be revised, to prohibit the sale of firearms to those who do not meet certain conditions and qualifications, or even removed from the constitution. According to a national survey of 1,005 high school students, conducted by Vittes, Sorrenson and Gilbert, “63.7 percent of high school students believe that regulating the sale of guns does not violate the constitution” (2003, pg 12). In the same survey, 64.6 percent responded that they would support stricter laws addressing the sale of firearms, and 82.2 percent of those surveyed, believe that the government should make and enforce laws making it more difficult for

Shortly after the terrorist attack on the united states on September 11, 2001, president at the time George W. Bush enacted the USA Patriot Act. George bush has been quoted Stating “Terrorism against our nation will not stand” (Jones 2) a message which was hit home by the enactment of the USA Patriot Act. The Patriot Act gives law enforcement agencies increased powers enabling them to apprehend terrorist. The USA Patriot Act was enacted by congress on October 26, 2001, with the idea that it would help a crippled nation combat terrorism. The act of terrorism which is described as the act of using violence to gain political ground. According to James A. Morone author of the text “By the People Debating American Government” “The USA Patriot Act gave police and security personnel far more latitude to monitor, search, and detain suspects both abroad and at home” (Morone 683). The USA Patriot Act forfeits certain constitutional rights afforded by the constitution in an attempt of keeping the United States free of terrorism, On may 26, 2011 current president Barack Obama signed the Patriot Sunset extension act of 2011. The Patriot Sunset Extension Act of 2011 is a four year extension of three important provisions of the USA Patriot Act which has proved effective when combating terrorism. The extension extended the three of the most controversial aspects of the Patriot Act. Wiretaps, searches of public records and the conduction of surveillance of individuals suspected of

Although, when people think of self defense they tend to think that means killing someone if they were to break into their home, but the castle doctrine specifies that, a person may not use deadly force upon another person unless: he or she reasonably believes that such deadly force is necessary to protect himself or herself or another against death, serious physical injury, rape, sodomy or kidnapping or serious physical injury through robbery, burglary or arson or any forcible felony (Senate). You may use excessive force if a person who illegally enters, remains after illegally entering, or attempts to illegally enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle legally occupied by such person. A resident does not have to retreat from his or her home or vehicle when a burglar is breaking and entering.

Self-defense is described in the dictionary as; “the act of defending one 's person when physically attacked, as by countering blows or overcoming an assailant” (“self-defense,” n.d.). The concept of self-defense appears well-defined; however, the tactics allowed to protect oneself have evolved just as America has. As technology and weaponry advance, the need for clearer laws pertaining to the actions allowed by an individual need to be reevaluated and clearly communicated. Starting in early colonial times and moving through history, there is a great deal of differences between the self-defense that was once permitted and what is acceptable and tolerated today.