The uproar surrounding 17-year old Trayvon Martin’s death not only ignited racial tensions across America, but also shed light on the increasingly lax gun control laws well-funded interest groups are pushing through at the state level.
George Zimmerman, who fatally shot Martin Feb. 26 in Sanford, Florida, claims his actions were justified under Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, a new form of gun law pushed by the National Rifle Association that allows people to use deadly force instead of retreating if they fear their life is threatened.
States should repeal “Stand Your Ground” laws and the NRA’s increasing political clout at all levels of government must be checked. These new rulings effectively put the law in the hands of the shooter, creating a gray area that complicates the justice system and toughens the prosecution in homicide cases.
In effect, “Stand Your Ground” laws can lead to a sort of vigilantism. The laws provide criminals a defense for their crimes, lead the trigger-happy to misinterpret clues that could result in the use of deadly force and put racial and ethnic minorities at a greater risk to negative stereotypes, according to a 2007 report by the National District Attorneys Association.
In Florida and the 32 other states that have similar laws, “Stand Your Ground” is intended to define the limits of self-defense, but has actually led to deaths that lie in an ambiguous space between self-defense and homicide. Determining what really happened in such cases is difficult because the shooter claiming self-defense is often the only witness — as it is in the Martin case.
The language of these laws makes it easier for defendants to plead self-defense in murder trials. It is no coincidence that since the “Stand Your Ground” law was passed in 2005, Florida has seen the number of self-defense claims triple, from only 12 in 2005 to 36 in 2010, with all but one of those killed unarmed.
The NRA — which was named as the most powerful interest group by lawmakers and congressional staffers in a Fortune magazine survey — spent about $20 million to influence the vote in the 2010 elections. It payed for about 40,000 radio and TV ads in key federal and state races as well as 20 million pieces of mail sent to gun supporters, enough to fill four tractor trailers, according to the Daily Caller.
The NRA also flexes its political muscle to pass laws at the federal and state levels. For example, there’s a reason why the ban on assault weapons ended in 2004 — the NRA opposed it.
In the case of “Stand Your Ground” laws, 32 states took the bait. In Florida, the NRA “wrote the bill,” according to Media Matters for America.
When paired with other negligent gun laws allowing almost anyone to own and carry a firearm, “Stand Your Ground” laws can be deadly. George Zimmerman had an arrest record and a history of violence, yet he was able to strap on a loaded, hidden gun every time he left his house.
Although liberals will not allow a “Stand Your Ground” law to pass in Maryland, the NRA has caused a “political impasse and standstill” on gun issues, preventing any further sensible restrictions on guns, Maryland State Senator Jamie Raskin said.
Gun advocates have gone too far. They have sacrificed public safety at the altar of gun rights. Upholding the right to bear arms does not mean everyone should have a gun and be able to carry it wherever they please. The Second Amendment and common sense can coexist — gun control is reasonable, not unconstitutional.
Trayvon Martin was not all that different from a lot of kids our age. Perhaps the best way to honor his memory is for our generation to stand its ground against senseless gun laws.
CM Punk • Oct 28, 2012 at 11:04 am
Dear Mr./Mrs. Interested Party, the problem with stand your ground is that it’s not about if the person attacks you, it’s that if you feel like someone is threatening to you, you have the ability to pull out your gun, even if that person hasn’t done anything to you. Self defense laws would still apply and allow you to shoot someone if they attacked you first.
interested party • Oct 27, 2012 at 4:49 pm
If I’m attacked, I better be able to pull out my gun and shoot the person that thinks they can take what I have. If I’m attacked. So, I support stand your ground. It would seem that common sense is not so common in the people’s republic of Maryland,
D.Hunter • Oct 3, 2012 at 2:04 pm
I find it rediculous that people belive only police and the Military should be able to own firearms even though in Pre-Nazi Germany the same rifle was used to put food on the table of rural Germans was put into the hands of German soldiers who commited some of the most vile acts in human history. The Firearm is the symbol of freedom, a tool which can elevate even the lowliest serf from under the jackboot of oppression. Look at Libya, at Egypt, at France and even the United States. All exist because of the Firearm. We’re past the times where the warrior caste controls those below them because they have honed the skills to kill alone, we are no longer subjugated by the Knight or the Samurai, bullies who ruled under the sword, but we are free people because the gun gives us the ability to stand for ourselves and protect ourselves from even the strongest foe. It has been missused, and will continue to be, the same as every tool and everything man has ever made. To say we should take the firearms out of the hands of every American is to say that we should turn back to 1776.
Socialist • May 25, 2012 at 1:15 pm
It is not whether Martin killed Zimmerman, but whether people should be able to shoot random people that they feel threatened by. The answer is no. No person without Military training and status should be able to carry and shoot in public. That would greatly decrease arms getting on the streets and more and more people getting killed over some idiots dumb judgement.
CM Punk • May 17, 2012 at 8:26 am
Also, anyone can claim self-defense if the other guy is dead. If it is legitmate self-defense it makes sense but when the worst weapons Martin had were Skittles and an Arizona Ice Tea, I question the judgement of a neighborhood watch captain of a gated community who shouldn’t even have a gun.
Wikipedia Editors • May 17, 2012 at 8:25 am
@Supporter
you’re*, [citation needed], [citation needed], [citation needed]
CM Punk • May 17, 2012 at 8:24 am
@Supporter Please educate yourself on the facts that have been mishandled by both the media and the police.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/17/us/trayvon-martin-case-shadowed-by-police-missteps.html
lester bangs • May 17, 2012 at 7:39 am
@Supporter of “Stand Your Ground.”
Because you like to start your arguments with personal attacks (something I’m far above), let me just say that you’re probably fat [I would like to at this point point out that that was merely humorous and in no way a personal attack, therefore, this post should not be censored]. Now, lets look at what you disagree with. You ramble about the Trayvon case as if Max said Zimmerman was guilty – Max never says this in his article. And Max doesn’t say that people claiming self defense should go to jail, he says that the law creates a “gray area” (as in the Martin case) where the truth is hard to decipher. Is your preferred alternative for anyone who kills someone in “self-defense” to get off scot-free? That is as ridiculous as it is dangerous. But at the same time, we can’t assume they are guilty. That’s why these laws suck – they allow for a form of vigilantism, which allows for a certain implication of guilt to be attached even to the people who used self defense legitimately. So in the end, why stand your ground if you could just run away? If Zimmerman had, Trayvon Martin would still be alive.
Supporter of "Stand your ground" • May 16, 2012 at 11:40 pm
Your a fool, Zimmerman’s life was in danger, as Martin slammed his head against the pavement you can hear on the tape that it is in fact NOT Martin screaming “Help! Help! Help!” But it is actually Zimmerman as Martin is slamming his head against the pavement and breaking his nose. This isnt my theory eye witness testimony supports this, and so does the medical evidence. Travon Martin was far from an innocent boy, targeted by racial discrimination for death, when he was shot, he was currently suspended from school for possession of marijuana. Also, Zimmerman gave up on following Martin once the officer on the phone to stop, the only way this conflict could have occurred is if Martin tracked down Zimmerman and confronted him. Lastly, if your life is in danger, and you think that it is the end and you shoot your attacker, you think you should go to jail. Use some common sense, if you dont stop your attacker, you die, but if you do, you go to jail. Now what kind of policy is that.