Missouri's Stand Your Ground law has been cited a number of times since the recent shooting of a Missouri teen by a homeowner whose house he went to by mistake. But one expert said the statute is not what authorizes a person to use lethal force when a "legitimate" threat occurs at their home or property.

Ari Freilich, state policy director for the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, pointed out Stand Your Ground laws apply in public spaces, and the Castle Doctrine covers private property.

He said what the two have in common is lowering the legal requirement to avoid using lethal force when possible, by stepping away, or otherwise de-escalating the situation.

"Generally speaking, you cannot use lethal force unless it was objectively reasonable for you to believe that it was necessary to use that amount of force to prevent death or serious bodily harm, or really serious crimes from occurring," Freilich explained.

Freilich noted both the Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground laws fall under the umbrella of homicide laws. He added although every state has variations, the legal system has important protections, independent of the two, in the form of self-defense and justifiable homicide laws.

Freilich stressed although the Castle Doctrine does not require someone to step away or attempt to de-escalate a threat when at home, it has major restrictions.

"That does not authorize someone to use lethal force when there is no reason to believe that someone is unlawfully entering the home," Freilich emphasized. "And also, when there is really no objectively reasonable indicator that the person was a threat to life or safety."

And although de-escalating has historically been the expectation in public spaces, Freilich acknowledged people's understanding of this seems to be changing.

"Stand your ground laws have altered and distorted that and told people they have some vague affirmative right in public spaces -- wherever they might lawfully be present -- to stand their ground and not withdraw, not de-escalate in that way," Freilich said.

Freilich co-authored a study with the Southern Poverty Law Center which concluded Stand Your Ground laws should be repealed, stating, "They encourage a trigger-happy culture of anxious vigilantism that cheapens the value of human life. And they deepen vast and harmful disparities in our legal system."


get more stories like this via email

Connecticut is one state not affected by a recent Supreme Court ruling.

In Garland v. Cargill, the Court overturned a federal bump-stock ban the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives implemented after a 2017 mass shooting. Authorities found most of the shooter's weapons had a bump stock, which enables someone to fire multiple rounds at a rapid pace.

Melissa Kane, board chair and interim executive director of the group Connecticut Against Gun Violence, said federal action must follow the ruling.

"Legislation to ban bump stocks has already been introduced in the U.S. House and Senate," Kane pointed out. "Congress has the power to change the law and ban bump stocks now to keep these kinds of weapons off of our streets and out of our communities but it has to happen."

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has signaled he'll call for a vote on legislation banning bump stocks. The big challenge Kane sees for implementing such a ban is political gridlock. Senate Democrats support Schumer's proposal but GOP senators said they will block the legislation.

Polls from just before the ban was implemented show most Americans support it and attorneys general from numerous states say a federal bump-stock ban is necessary. Although federal gun safety bills often face an uphill battle, some states have not had the same issue.

Kane argued Connecticut can be a model for other states and the federal government.

"Connecticut's is ironclad and I'd like other states to look at the wording of our legislation and know that if your state doesn't have a ban on bump stocks, you can ban bump stocks," Kane contended. "That's important for people to see. They will be able to uphold those in case there are cases that come against them."

Fifteen states and the District of Columbia have bump-stock bans which remain in effect since the ruling covers the ATF rule, not the constitutionality of state bans.

If two Michigan lawmakers have their way, there will be fewer locations in the state where people are allowed to carry firearms.

State Sen. Dayna Polehanki, D-Livonia, and state Sen. Rosemary Bayer, D-Beverly Hills, have introduced bills that would expand gun-free zones within the State Capitol complex.

Both have advocated for stricter gun laws in Michigan.

Senate Bills 857 and 858 would make it illegal to carry a firearm in the State Capitol building, the Binsfeld Senate Office Building, and the Anderson House Office Building - with an exception for legislators.

Ryan Bates, executive director of the group End Gun Violence Michigan, said he believes these proposals are much needed.

"We cannot have a functioning democracy at the barrel of a gun," said Bates. "So, it's incredibly important that we protect our legislators and protect our democracy from people who want to do it harm by bringing guns into the places where our laws are made."

If the gun-free zone bills become law, violators could face up to 90 days in jail, and or be fined.

During the highly publicized Oxford High School shooter trial, Polehanki took to social media to warn parents that if their child discharges a firearm and causes harm to themselves or others, the parent is going to jail.

Longtime firearms instructor and gun-rights advocate Rick Ector said he's all for responsible gun ownership - but not gun-free zones.

He argued that having law-abiding citizens carrying firearms in more places would inherently make these areas safer.

"People who have a concealed pistol license, who are primarily the people we're talking about," said Ector, "they are statistically more law-abiding than the law enforcement community, and they've gone through all the required, statutorily specified training."

Both bills have been assigned to the Senate Committee on Civil Rights, Judiciary and Public Safety.




get more stories like this via email

Two years ago today, a teenager killed 19 students and two teachers at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde. The families of those shot and killed have agreed to a $2 million settlement with the city, which equals the entire amount of the town's insurance policy.

Attorneys for the group say they worked with city officials for more than a year after leaders reached out and asked what could be done to ease the families' pain.

Javier Cazares, who lost his daughter in the shooting, said justice and accountability are his main concerns.

"It's been an unbearable two years," he said. "We all know who took our children's lives, but there was an obvious failure out there on May 24. The whole world saw that. We've been let down so many times. The time has come to do the right thing."

The mass shooting garnered international attention and questions after 376 law-enforcement officers waited 77 minutes before going into the classroom to stop the shooter. Family members are disappointed that no disciplinary action has been taken against any of the officers involved, although Uvalde Police Chief Daniel Rodriguez resigned amid questions over how the incident was handled.

In addition to the $2 million settlement, the city of Uvalde has agreed to "restorative justice" policy changes that include establishing an annual day of remembrance on May 24, mental-health services for all families in the community, and addressing public safety risks and the burden of gun violence on police officers.

Although families have settled with the city, said attorney Josh Koskoff, they are filing additional lawsuits including one against the state of Texas, "which has done nothing but burden this town before the shooting by not giving them the resources they need, preventing these families from getting the information they need, and then blaming the city, as if they didn't have how many police officers there? 98? As if they didn't know how to shoot somebody."


get more stories like this via email