I hate all federal gun laws. the Anti-federalists were right. Even this seemingly friendly law is nonetheless federal gun control and should be roundly rejected. If the federal government wanted to buy every man 16 to 46 an AR15 and pay for proper equipping and training that would be the only constitutional federal gun law acceptable under the 2A.

The Feds should stay out of state business. I promise you, they will make things worse with qualifiers, and limits because that’s what government does. All federal laws oppose individual, local, and state liberties. Even if the law is sound, once it’s done, they can later restrict self-defense by modifying it. It’s for that same reason among others that I’m against national reciprocity.

We told you last month about how the Washington Post was trying to resurrect the debate over “Stand Your Ground” (SYG) laws even when the example the newspaper focused on wasn’t even a case involving SYG. What those anti-gun “journalists” at the Post didn’t realize was that their resurrection of the “debate” topic has fueled a fire on the other side of the gun-control movement, with two strongly pro-freedom federal lawmakers now planning to introduce a national Stand Your Ground measure in Congress.

Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Oklahoma, and Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Florida, plan to introduce the measure soon. If passed, it would allow the use of deadly force to prevent “death or great bodily harm” without the duty to retreat that is still on the books in some states.

“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,” Sen. Mullin said in a news release announcing the measure. “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 common-sense self-defense protections for all law-abiding Americans.”

The legislation specifically states: “A person is justified in using, threatening, or attempting to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using, threatening, or attempting to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses, threatens, or attempts to use deadly force in accordance with this paragraph does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using, threatening, or attempting to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.”

It will probably fail which is fine. More at the link.

Opinion on South Carolina Stand Your Ground, Source:

As a martial artist, I am passionate about the right of people to defend themselves. And in my years of teaching the martial arts, I have had a number of students tell me about how they have had to use force to protect themselves and loved ones from harm. But they always tried to avoid using force, because martial artists know how precious life is — even the life of an aggressor.

Martial artists believe that one should always walk away from conflict, if possible. This is why we only use force reluctantly and only as a last resort.

Also, if force must be used, we know we should use only the amount of force necessary to end the threat and allow us to get to safety.

These principles are dear to me, which is why I oppose stand-your-ground laws.

These laws allow those who use deadly force to be exempt from criminal prosecution, even if they could have easily and safely retreated from what they perceived to be a threat.

Before Florida passed the first stand-your-ground law in 2005, the United States legal tradition already protected the right to self-defense, but only after a person had done all that he or she could to avoid conflict, including backing away from the aggressor and attempting to retreat to safety.

Using deadly force to defend oneself in a public space was only allowed after one first tried to retreat or if retreat was simply not possible.

Stand-your-ground laws differ from what is known as the castle doctrine, which applies to people dealing with an intruder in their home. I do not believe anyone has an obligation to retreat from a home intruder.

The author uses a lot of the word but after claiming to believe in armed self-defense. His argument is, in one way, correct. Avoidance is always the best choice; avoiding crowds is solid advice. But he goes on to wrongly claim a difference between Castle Doctrine and self-defense anywhere. If you have the right to defend yourself in your home, you carry that right anywhere. It’s your right and does not belong to a location. Locations don’t have rights people do. We acknowledge here that the home has a degree of expected sanctuary in the Bible, but men also have to defend their life right anywhere they may be, thus the right.

The object of self-defense is to get the assailant(s) to disengage. If not being where you shouldn’t solves a threat problem, don’t go. If leaving solves that, then leave. Nothing in the Stand Your Ground Doctrine allows the offensive use of weapons or tactics, which is the argument against Stand Your Ground that always shows the ignorance of the man making the case. His opinion, as stated in this piece, is no different.

And he makes the proportional use of force argument. There’s no way to know what would have happened if X or Y, or Z. Proportional use of force is an impossible standard that will get people killed. But the evidence of either murder or self-defense can be determined. Proof is required, not a would have-should have. Arguments against Stand Your Ground also wrongly assume that turning your back is wise. It’s not; never turn your back on a threat.

Again, getting the assailant to disengage is the proper self-defense training standard to teach.