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Freilich co-authored a study with the Southern Poverty Law Center which concluded Stand Your Ground laws should be repealed, stating, "They encourage a trigger-happy culture of anxious vigilantism that cheapens the value of human life.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

More than 1,300 Arizonans died by gun violence in 2021 according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

While mass shootings get widespread media attention, shootings can take place in many locations, including inside homes. A new study looks at the impacts children and adolescent survivors of gun violence face after being shot. The study found a year after being shot, younger survivors experienced higher rates of pain disorders, psychiatric disorders and an almost 150% increase in substance use disorders.

Kelly Drane, research director at the Giffords Law Center, said gun violence can have devastating effects on children and their families.

"One study found that they actually earn less money as adults if they've experienced gun violence as a child," Drane pointed out. "Because they kind of make choices and have a harder time learning in school and it impacts the kinds of careers that they have later in life."

Drane argued it is important to note the toll gun violence has on children does not stop with the bullet, but continues on and can last for generations. Studies and experts recommended enacting extreme risk laws to block those who pose a danger to themselves or others from obtaining a firearm. Additionally, secure storage laws would require people to store guns safely and prevent unsupervised access.

Drane recognized gun rights can be a very polarizing topic across the United States, but added there is consensus no one should feel afraid to go to the grocery store or fear their child might hurt themselves in a home where a firearm is present. She added people want safe communities and a majority support what she calls "common sense gun safety policies." Drane hopes things will improve.

"We are at a really interesting inflection point in our country," Drane observed. "Gun violence is at this really severe crisis point, but we also are seeing more states than ever really step up and pass the kind of laws that are necessary to combat this crisis. That is not to say that we don't need more, or that we are doing enough, but I think we are definitely seeing signs of progress."

Drane added as elections approach, she encouraged voters to get educated on where candidates stand on the issue and suggested Arizonans build what she calls a "safer culture," around firearms while preserving the Second Amendment right by using secure firearm storage practices.

New Mexico wants to curb gun violence by getting firearms off the street, and while recent gun buyback events drew lots of attendees, some experts say they haven't been found to reduce gun violence.

The New Mexico State Police hosted events in three cities, offering participants gift cards worth $200 for handguns and $300 for long guns.

Mark Anderson, professor of economics at Montana State University, helped prepare a 2021 study by the National Bureau of Economic Research. He said it found "no evidence" gun buyback programs reduce gun crime.

"We tried to collect data on as many gun buyback programs as we could identify in cities that also have firearm-related crime data available," Anderson recounted. "It was the largest-scale analysis of gun buyback programs in the United States."

Anderson believes other measures, such as safe-storage ordinances requiring firearms in the home be kept in a locked container or secured with a locking device, could be more effective than gun buybacks. He speculated people who voluntarily turn over firearms are not those who pose the greatest threat to society.

The events allowed any participant turning in a firearm to remain anonymous in exchange for a gift card. But after some turned in as many as 60 guns, the gift cards were gone quickly, and some went home without.

Anderson stressed while well-meaning, such programs may not be the solution.

"I think about the opportunity costs and the resources that are used to implement them," Anderson emphasized. "Could they be used elsewhere more effectively? And I think the answer to that is probably, yes, so I think about it as not an all-or-nothing type thing I think about it as more of a, 'maybe we should pivot and do something else.'"

In September, Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham declared gun violence a public health emergency after an 11-year-old boy was shot to death in Albuquerque while returning home from a basketball game.

Georgia lawmakers are proposing a bill that would facilitate teachers carrying guns in schools.

Lt. Gov. Burt Jones, and Republican Sens. Clint Dixon and Max Burns, introduced the Georgia School Safety Initiative that would provide state-funded firearms training and include a $10,000 stipend to teachers who choose to carry. It is an extra layer of protection they say would improve the safety and well-being of students, but some teachers don't agree.

Lisa Morgan, a kindergarten teacher and president of the Georgia Association of Educators, said the proposal could make schools more dangerous.

"We do not enhance the safety of our children by introducing more weapons into the school setting. I think about what happens if the teacher is attacked and their weapon is taken away from them, and then other educators, other students are then harmed, " Morgan said.

She added this is a community-wide problem and doesn't believe gun violence can be solved in the school alone. Morgan suggests lawmakers should consider investing in resources like mental health services and social workers that can address issues comprehensively.

Backers of the initiative say it was modeled after Texas's recent proposal to offer teachers $25,000 to complete mental health and firearms training to carry weapons on campus.

Morgan noted another side to this issue is that there are problems hiring and keeping teachers in their profession. She added that, based on feedback from educators, many feel burned out or express that their plate is overflowing.

"More responsibilities are added all the time, and nothing is ever taken away. And now we want to add the responsibility of being security and being armed," she continued. "That is not how we retain our current educators and that's certainly not how we recruit new educators to our profession."

The proposed bill - which would allow teachers to opt out - is set to be introduced in the 2024 legislative session. House Bill 60, also known as the Guns Everywhere Bill, already allows school boards to decide who can carry concealed weapons on school property, but only three out of 180 districts have allowed it.


get more stories like this via email