In a recent discussion about the constant attacks on our constitutional rights we discussed the importance to challenging every measure. We cannot afford to let even the slightest of attempts go unchallenged.
For instance, a new proposal by Democratic Garret Coleman of Houston, TX limits to restrict the use of deadly force to those instances you can’t safely retreat. In all fairness they did exclude situations within your own home, but that is irrelevant. If you were to really look at this message, it says you can only use lethal force if you cannot retreat. This goes against many common sense theories, but more importantly the real question we need to be asking is “why”?
Facts & data
Why did Rep Coleman propose this change to our law? We really need to understand the basis for this change to an existing law. Was their a rash of incidents that brought into question this new proposal? I for one would like to know why, there is no reason this information should not be public. More importantly, this is the information that is used to form the basis for our counter points. He points to an “uptick” in shootings in states with Stand Your Ground laws. Perhaps, the better question is not the increase of shootings, but the reason behind the shootings. If you are committing a crime it should be irrelevant. If you are breaking the law and committing a crime that should be the focus of attention. I believe that laws are broken, that criminals will prey on victims and if you are the subject of a criminal attack your duty should be first and foremost in protecting your life and the life of your family and loved ones. Period…
Lethal force justification
If we can force the politicians who propose these types of laws to stand their own ground and explain why they feel the need they may get a bit leery of these efforts that amount to a waste of tax payer’s money. In this case, this is the second such attempt by this politician. They will probably counter with the need to protect human life and that it is the duty of the “victim” to retreat. I think it is important to put their proposal into context. In this case, there is a victim who is being attacked. It doesn’t really matter the specific details. What matters is the justification for lethal force has been met. At that point it shouldn’t matter, what should matter is the victim should be fully entitled and protected by law in employing lethal force. There should be no grey area here, if lethal force justification was meet then that is it. No duty to retreat, no obligation to be nice; just the simple right to life. Your right to life should not have any constraints.
If you as a politician propose these types of laws that would limit the rights of the victims, limit their fundamental right to life then call it what it is; criminal sympathizer. Someone one who is more concerned for the well being of the criminal than the victim. If a criminal places so little value on another human being, that human being should be able to unequivocally protect his or her own life. If the politician can support their proposal with facts and data, that is one thing. However, I have yet to see any of this evidence provided that would substantiate their claims. So, without the data to support a change to the law, why would we allow the law to be changed?
It really doesn’t cost a politician much to propose “anti-gun” legislation. Frivolous and wasteful legislation are just that.
"The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil constitution, are worth defending against all hazards: And it is our duty to defend them against all attacks." Samuel Adams, Governor of Massachusetts and Founding Father