The Second Amendment and Castle Laws

Gun rights in the U.S. have become a hot-button issue once again in the wake of the highly publicized shooting of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman. Zimmerman was acquitted in line with Florida’s “stand your ground” law, which permits self-defense with deadly force. Similar laws, also known as castle laws, can be found across the U.S. Proponents of castle laws argue that American citizens should readily act on their Second Amendment rights and obtain guns to keep their home, family, and property safe, while detractors claim that such laws incorrectly interpret the amendment. Addressing these laws has opened the floodgates for a nationwide discussion on firearms regulation in the U.S.

Brian Farrington’s cartoon, depicting a home intruder and his victim, directly addresses castle laws by having the victim wish she’d retired to a “stand your ground” state as she feebly fires a popgun. This is in line with the notion that having a gun in the home means that home is safe; an idea clung to by those who believe that there is too much gun regulation in the U.S. This viewpoint stems from what some perceive as a shifting interpretation of one’s right to self-defense, even with the use of deadly force. Beyond the media circus surrounding the trial of George Zimmerman, two recent Supreme Court decisions – District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago – better illustrate how the Constitution is currently interpreted regarding this issue. Based on these cases, we can infer that the right of an individual to have and carry a weapon for self-defense is upheld, with the caveat that said right is subject to regulation (Merkel, 2013, p. 1818). Modern castle laws became popular in 2005, after the passage of a Florida statute that kick-started legislative action nationwide. Two years after the Florida law’s passage, at least fifteen states enacted castle laws (Levin, 2010, p 532-533). Castle laws became popular because they gave Americans a reason to exercise their right to bear arms, and because they allow people to take the law into their own hands by mandating that there is no duty to retreat when threatened with bodily harm. This is directly reflected in Farrington’s cartoon version of America, where anyone with a gun and an enemy to defend themselves against can remain safe.

Castle laws have brought the twin issues of the Second Amendment and gun regulation back into the limelight on a national level. Those in favor of castle laws have historically supported less government regulation of firearm usage sales, while people opposed to the laws tend to believe that regulation should increase. As previously mentioned, the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment after Heller and McDonald promotes the rights of individuals over the rights of states on this issue. Additionally, in his plurality opinion for McDonald, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that through incorporating the Second Amendment with the Fourteenth Amendment, the law “is fully binding on the States and thus limits (but by no means eliminates) their ability to devise solutions to social problems that suit local needs and values” (Williamson II, 2011, p. 226). These decisions from the Supreme Court can be interpreted differently depending on one’s stance regarding castle laws. Those favoring such laws equate losing the ability to possess a gun in one’s home with the loss of other inalienable rights (as defined by the Constitution), such as one’s right to free speech or to counsel (Levy, 2008, p. 203). In the eyes of Second Amendment advocates, castle laws should be handled similarly to the related issues of mandatory background checks or automatic weapons bans: do whatever it takes to ensure that people’s rights are not infringed upon, and keep the government out of private life. From a philosophical standpoint, organizations like the National Rifle Association frame guns as a method of protecting one’s own rights from other people seeking to infringe upon them. This viewpoint takes into account the notion of inalienable rights for all individuals, but also creates a clear dichotomy between those with guns who do good, and those with guns who do bad. This selective framing of the issue also paints gun owners at large as law-abiding citizens, which explains why the NRA and similar organizations have put so much effort into lobbying in favor of less regulation; it’s unreasonable to enact laws that negatively affect lawful citizens (Levin, 2010, p. 536-537). On the other hand, gun control advocates see the Second Amendment as enforceable in a similar manner to the First Amendment. Since the judicial system has previously found cause to restrict a citizen’s First Amendment rights based on the content of one’s speech and its potential impact on government interests, it has been argued that gun regulation should be handled similarly and that doing things like banning automatic weapons for public sale are acceptable on the basis that such decisions create a greater public benefit. Gun control advocates also argue that the tactics of the NRA are needlessly over-the-top, provoking unnecessarily violent imagery to promote the sale of guns, while simultaneously engaging in fear-mongering to make gun owners believe that both their guns and their rights are constantly at risk of being stripped from them (Levy, 2008, p. 214-215). This side does not see gun control as restrictive or infringing, but rather as a method for keeping the public at large safe from the inherent, very real dangers of guns, and keeping them out of irresponsible hands. They believe that there are other ways to stop a bad guy with a gun than simply relying on a good guy with a gun. Gun control advocates have protecting their families in mind just as much as the gun rights advocates do, but have different views on how to protect them.

Farrington’s cartoon effectively captures the hot-button issue of “stand your ground” laws while also hinting at the larger national political issue of the balance between gun regulation and Second Amendment rights. Farrington brings renewed scrutiny to the issue, and while he is certainly on the side of the old woman wishing she’d retired elsewhere, not all his readers will be. Bridging that divide and finding compromise is key to America’s future.

References

Levin, B. (2010). A defensible defense?: Reexamining castle doctrine statutes. Harvard Journal on Legislation, 47, 523-553.

Levy, R. A. (2008). Second Amendment redux: Scrutiny, incorporation and the Heller paradox. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 33(1), 203-216.

Merkel, W. G. (2013). Uncoupling the constitutional right to self-defense from the Second Amendment: Insights from the law of war. Connecticut Law Review, 45(5), 1809-1840.

Williamson II, J. J. (2011). Staring down the sights at McDonald v. City of Chicago: Why the Second Amendment deserves the Kevlar protection of strict scrutiny. Legislation and Policy Brief, 3(2), 219-245.