# data[].attributes.body
more gun facts

# data[].attributes.body
gun control laws

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Recent events involving the use of deadly force by private individuals have brought the so-called "Castle Doctrine" and "stand your ground" laws under intense public scrutiny. Both based on the universally acknowledged right of self-defense, what are these increasingly controversial legal principles?

"Stand your ground" laws allow people who believe they face a reasonable threat of death of great bodily harm to "meet force with force" rather than retreat from their attacker.

Similarly, "Castle Doctrine" laws allow persons who are being attacked while in their homes to use force-including deadly force-in self-defense, often without the need to retreat.

Currently, more than half of the states in the U.S. have some forms of Castle Doctrine or "stand your ground" laws.

Castle Doctrine Theory

The Castle Doctrine originated as a theory of early common law, meaning it was a universally accepted natural right of self-defense rather than a formally written law. Under its common law interpretation, the Castle Doctrine gives people the right to use deadly force to defend their home, but only after having used every reasonable means to avoid doing so and trying to retreat safely from their attacker.

While some states still apply the common law interpretation, most states have enacted written, statutory versions of Castle Doctrine laws specifically spelling out what is required or expected of persons before resorting to the use of deadly force.

Under such Castle Doctrine laws, defendants facing criminal charges who successfully prove they acted in self-defense according to the law may be fully cleared of any wrongdoing.

Castle Doctrine Laws in Court

In actual legal practice, formal state Castle Doctrine laws limit where, when, and who can legally use deadly force.

As in all cases involving self-defense, defendants must prove their actions were justified under the law. The burden of proof is on the defendant.

Even though the Castle Doctrine statutes differ by state, many states utilize the same basic requirements for a successful Castle Doctrine defense. The four typical elements of a successful Castle Doctrine defense are:

The defendant must have been inside his or her home when attacked and the building must be the defendant's regular place of residence. Attempts to apply the Castle Doctrine to defend the use of deadly force during attacks that happen in the defendant's yard or lot, but outside the home, typically fail.

There must have been an actual attempt to illegally enter the defendant's home. Merely standing threateningly at the door or on the lawn will not qualify. In addition, the Castle Doctrine does not apply if the defendant had allowed the victim into the home, but decided to force them to leave.

In most states, the use of deadly force must have been "reasonable" under the circumstances. Typically, defendants who are unable to prove they were in actual danger of physical injury will not be allowed to claim defense under a Castle Doctrine law.

Some states still apply the common law Castle Doctrine edict that defendants have some level of duty to retreat or avoid the confrontation before using deadly force. Most state castle laws no longer require defendants to flee from their homes before using deadly force.

In addition, persons claiming the Castle Doctrine as a defense cannot have started or have been the aggressor in the confrontation that resulted in the charges against them.

The Castle Doctrine Duty to Retreat

By far the most-often challenged element of the Castle Doctrine is the defendant's "duty to retreat" from the intruder. While the older common law interpretations required defendants to have made some effort to retreat from their attacker or avoid the conflict, most state laws no longer impose a duty to retreat. In these states, defendants are not required to have fled from their home or to another area of their home before using deadly force.

At least 17 states impose some form of duty to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense. Since the states remain split on the issue, attorneys advise that persons should fully understand the Castle Doctrine and duty to retreat laws in their state.

"Stand Your Ground" Laws

State-enacted "stand your ground" laws-sometimes called "no duty to retreat" laws-are often used as an allowable defense in criminal cases involving the use of deadly force by defendants who literally "stood their ground," rather than retreating, in order to defend themselves and others against actual or reasonably perceived threats of bodily harm.

In general, under "stand your ground" laws, private individuals who are in any place they have a lawful right to be at the time may be justified in using any level of force whenever they reasonably believe they face an "imminent and immediate" threat of great bodily injury or death.

Persons who were engaged in illegal activities, such as drug deals or robberies, at the time of the confrontation are typically not entitled to the protections of "stand your ground" laws.

In essence, "stand your ground" laws effectively extend the protections of the Castle Doctrine from the home to any place a person has a legal right to be.

Currently, 28 states have legislatively enacted "stand your ground" laws. Another eight states apply the legal principles of "stand your ground" laws though courtroom practices, such as citation of past case law as precedent and judges' instructions to juries.

Stand Your Ground Law Controversy

Critics of "stand your ground" laws, including many gun control advocacy groups, often call them "shoot first" or "get away with murder" laws that make it difficult to prosecute people who shoot others claiming they acted in self-defense. They argue that in many cases the only eyewitness to the incident who could have testified against the defendant's claim of self-defense is dead.

Prior to passage of Florida's "stand your ground" law, Miami police chief John F. Timoney called the law dangerous and unnecessary. "Whether its trick-or-treaters or kids playing in the yard of someone who doesn't want them there or some drunk guy stumbling into the wrong house, you're encouraging people to possibly use deadly physical force where it shouldn't be used," he said.

The Trayvon Martin Shooting

The fatal shooting of teenager Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman in February 2012, brought "stand your ground" laws squarely into the public spotlight.

Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch captain in Sanford, Florida, gunned down the unarmed 17-year-old Martin minutes after reporting to the police that he had spotted a "suspicious" youth walking through the gated community. Despite being told by police to stay in his SUV, Zimmerman pursued Martin on foot. Moments later, Zimmerman confronted Martin and admitted to shooting him in self-defense after a brief scuffle. Sanford police reported that Zimmerman was bleeding from the nose and back of the head.

As a result of the police investigation, Zimmerman was charged with second degree murder.

At trial, Zimmerman was acquitted based on the jury's finding that he had acted in self-defense. After reviewing the shooting for potential civil rights violations, the federal Department of Justice, citing insufficient evidence, filed no additional charges.

Before his trial, Zimmerman's defense hinted that they would ask the court to drop the charges under Florida's "stand your ground" self-defense law. The law enacted in 2005, allows individuals to use deadly force when they reasonably feel they are at risk of great bodily harm while engaged in a confrontation.

While Zimmerman's lawyers never argued for a dismissal based on the "stand your ground" law, the trial judge instructed the jury that Zimmerman had had a right to "stand his ground" and use deadly force if reasonably necessary to defend himself.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
An Overview of the 'Castle Doctrine' and 'Stand Your Ground' Laws

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Recent events involving the use of deadly force by private individuals have brought the so-called "Castle Doctrine" and "stand your ground" laws under intense public scrutiny. Both based on the universally acknowledged right of self-defense, what are these increasingly controversial legal principles?

# data[].attributes.body
facts for gun control rights

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Comprehensive and meticulously documented facts about gun control. Learn about ownership rates, crime, background checks, accidents, politics, and more.

# data[].attributes.body
pros on police gun control

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Skip to content

Your browser is not supported by this site.

Please update to the latest version, or use a different browser for the best experience.

Current events and related legal developments have a significant impact on the decisions you make every day. Now there's a single access point you can rely on for comprehensive information and expert analysis to help you stay informed and up to date on what's affecting your practice area.

A dedicated team of attorney-editors monitors each practice area to ensure you see the most important updates of the day

Get exclusive practice area-focused content and expert analysis, including Westlaw Daily Briefings, Reuters Legal, Wolters Kluwer, CQ Roll Call, and more

Seamlessly access your Alerts on Westlaw to inform you promptly of new developments relevant to your practice area or matching your customized search

Select a Practitioner Insights page to be your Westlaw Start Page so you can start each day "in the know"

Try out Practitioner Insights free

Start your day in the know with up-to-the-minute legal developments in your practice area.

Start your free trial

See how Practitioner Insights works

Click the orange buttons to explore the Practitioner Insights interface.

Our attorney-editors keep a constant eye on your law practice area to ensure you see the most important legal updates of the day.

Legal Practice areas

Antitrust

Bankruptcy

Capital markets

Corporate counsel

Corporate governance

Data privacy

Employment

Energy & environment

Finance & banking

Health law

Immigration

Insurance

Intellectual property

Mergers & acquisitions

Products liability

Securities enforcement
& litigation

Tax

Jurisdictions

Practitioner Insights and analysis from top legal news sources

Westlaw Daily Briefings - original expert analysis from Thomson Reuters attorney-editors

Reuters News - Legal news stories

Select Wolters Kluwer Daily Reports

CQ Roll Call Washington Briefings

The Hill and Practitioner Insights commentaries

The largest collection of litigation content

Use your alerts on Westlaw to inform you promptly of new legal developments in your practice area or from your customized search.

If you like alerts on Westlaw, you can even set up daily email summaries. You're also able to add colleagues to the email list to receive alert summaries.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Skip to content Your browser is not supported by this site. Please update to the latest version, or use a different browser for the best experience. Current events and related legal developments have a significant impact on the decisions you make every day.

# data[].attributes.body
cons on police gun control

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
There is a considerable difference of opinion between police officers and their high-level supervisors on the topic of gun control. A survey of 15,000 cops by PoliceOne.com, an online resource for law-enforcement officers, reveals strong disagreement with just about every aspect of gun control orthodoxy.

Among the more significant findings, 99 percent of police officers favored policies other than an "assault weapons" ban to prevent mass shootings; 96 percent said banning magazines that hold over 10 rounds would not reduce violent crime (and 68 percent said such a ban would negatively affect them personally); 70 percent opposed creating a national registry of legal gun sales; and over 60 percent said President Obama's gun control proposals would not improve the safety of police officers. In fact, digging into the poll internals, only about 12 percent thought there would be any benefits to officer safety from the President's proposals, while 24.6 percent thought they would have a negative impact on officer safety.

What measures would these police officers prefer? They're strongly in favor of increased mandatory sentencing, without plea bargains, for those who use guns in the commission of a crime. 91 percent of the officers responding to the poll supported this idea.

They're also great believers in the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms. 91 percent of the officers polled supported Right to Carry laws, 76 percent said armed citizens were important to reducing crime, and 76 percent favored allowing trained and qualified teachers to carry guns for the protection of themselves and their students.

On the topic of preventing mass shootings, the ideas drawing the most support were more permissive concealed-carry permits for civilians (29 percent), more aggressive institutionalization of mentally ill persons (20 percent), and improved background screening to determine the mental fitness of gun buyers (14 percent.)

One surprising result from the poll was the officers' response to the question, "Should citizens be required to complete a safety training class before being allowed to buy a gun?" Only 42 percent said "Yes" for all weapons, while another 14 percent said "Yes, but only for certain weapons."

The majority of the poll respondents were field officers, sergeants, lieutenants, and detectives, although some higher-ranking supervisors also responded.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Police officers disagree with gun-control orthodoxy | Human Events

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There is a considerable difference of opinion between police officers and their high-level supervisors on the topic of gun control. A survey of 15,000 cops by PoliceOne.com, an online resource for law-enforcement officers, reveals strong disagreement with just about every aspect of gun control orthodoxy.

# data[].attributes.body
cons on police gun control thoughts

# data[].attributes.body
pros on police gun control thought