The Freedom Bulletin

More and more facts are coming out about the Trayvon Martin shooting case. Some support the account of George Zimmerman, who says he killed Martin in self-defense. Others make it look like Martin’s shooting was unprovoked and unjustified. And some could go either way.

But no matter what happened in the case, I support the Stand Your Ground law that many are (incorrectly) blaming for what happened to Trayvon. The law passed in Florida in 2005 simply allows someone to use deadly force “if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm.” In other words, Stand Your Ground gives people the right to defend themselves, whether at home or in a public place, and ensures that no one can be punished for defending themselves against an aggressor. According to State Rep. Dennis Baxley, who helped to create the law, ”there’s nothing in this statute that authorizes people to pursue and confront people.” And former State Senator Durell Peaden said about Zimmerman, ”When he said ‘I’m following him,’ he lost his defense.”

That’s why I am glad to see that a similar law just might be coming to Massachusetts. State Senator Stephen Brewer (D-Barre) introduced a Stand Your Ground bill, saying:

“Quite honestly, we’re Americans and we ought to be able to stand our ground. We stood our ground in Concord and Lexington, and we seem to be losing that.”

Rep. Shaunna O’Connell (R-Taunton) is one of 30 co-sponsors so far of the proposal, called the Common Defense Bill. It is currently before the Joint Committee on the Judiciary, which is expected to vote by the end of April.

I don’t know what happened on February 26, when neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman fatally shot 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida. Probably the only person who knows exactly what happened is Zimmerman himself. Whether Zimmerman acted out of fear for his life (and therefore in self-defense) or out of racism has been widely debated. Zimmerman claims that Martin punched him, and various witnesses have said that they saw him with a bloody nose and lying on his back on the ground. On the other hand, because Martin was black (and Zimmerman part white and part hispanic), numerous people and organizations assume that Martin was shot because he was black. If Zimmerman decided that Martin looked suspicious because of his race, pursued him, and provoked a confrontation, then that would not only be racist of him, but would likely be murder. But if Zimmerman is telling the truth, then he acted in self-defense and did nothing wrong.

It’s always great to debate the facts known about a case and form opinions about what happened. But the New Black Panther Party went too far when they handed out flyers that read, “Child killer of Trayvon Martin wanted dead or alive.” And Minister Mikhail Muhummud, a regional director of that organization, went too far by saying that Zimmerman “should be afraid for his life.” It is wrong to call for someone’s death when you don’t know all the facts about a case.

It’s also wrong to demonize “Stand Your Ground” laws such as the one passed by the Florida legislature in 2005, giving people the right to use deadly force if they reasonably believe that their safety is threatened, whether they are in their homes or in public places where they have a right to be.

The Martin family’s lawyer criticized this law, saying, ”You can’t go pick a fight with somebody and then say, ‘Oh, self-defense.’” But that’s not what the law allows. CNN legal analyst Sunny Hostin said, ”If you’re the first aggressor, if you are pursuing, you cannot avail yourself of this self-defense claim.” Florida Rep. Dennis Baxley said, “Nothing in Stand Your Ground’ authorizes (you) to pursue and confront.” And Governor Jeb Bush added, ”Stand your ground means stand your ground. It doesn’t mean chase after somebody who’s turned their back.”

Stand Your Ground laws give people the right to defend themselves with deadly force when someone aggresses against them, instead of having a duty to retreat. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. If you aggress against someone, you forfeit your rights, and no one should ever be punished for defending themselves against an aggressor.

Whatever happened to Trayvon Martin, whether George Zimmerman is at fault or not, is undoubtedly tragic, but it is not the fault of Stand Your Ground laws and is not a reason to chip away at the right to self-defense.

From USA Today:

“Legislatures in a dozen states are considering laws that would eliminate requirements that residents obtain permits to carry concealed weapons.

Gun-control advocates view the efforts as part of a long-range strategy to eventually weaken gun laws across the country. But supporters say armed, law-abiding citizens prevent crime.”

I am all in favor of this. Any step towards more freedom to bear arms is a good thing in my book.

Yup, a New Hampshire man named Dennis Fleming was arrested for doing exactly what the title of this blog post says.

“Dennis Fleming, 61, of Farmington, was arrested for reckless conduct after the Saturday incident at his 19th century farmhouse. The single grandfather had returned home to find that his home had been burglarized and spotted Joseph Hebert, 27, climbing out of a window at a neighbor’s home. Fleming said he yelled ‘Freeze!’ before firing his gun into the ground, then held Hebert at gunpoint until police arrived.”

Read the rest at Fox News.

February 23 update: The charges were dropped; a just outcome in my opinion. Full story at Fox 25.

In September of last year, Ryan Jerome, a jeweler from Indiana, traveled to New York with $15,000 of gold that he planned to sell to a refinery on Long Island. He checked a website about gun laws to make sure it was okay to bring his gun, for which he had a concealed carry permit. He interpreted the site as saying it was okay, so he took along the .45 caliber Ruger to protect himself and his gold. He and his girlfriend stayed in New York longer than they planned in order to ride out a dip in gold prices. One day they visited the Empire State Building to pass the time, where he asked a ticket seller what he should do with his gun and was directed to the security office to check the weapon. When he did that, however, security called the police, who charged him with illegal weapon possession and threw him in jail for two days before he was released on bail. He now faces 3 and 1/2 to 15 years in prison. The problem? Jerome’s Indiana concealed carry permit was not valid in New York.

To punish a person who did not hurt or even endanger anyone, who took precautions to make sure he wasn’t breaking the law, and is a Marines veteran to boot, is clearly unjust. As his lawyer said, ”Ryan Jerome is neither a criminal nor someone with an illegal gun.”

Jerome’s supporters are trying to get Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance (whom you may remember from the DSK case)  to dismiss the charges. Visit their Facebook page to learn more and support him.

The TSA has gotten some (deserved) bad publicity in the past few days due to a couple of very questionable airport security decisions.

On Thursday, a teenage girl was stopped and ordered to check her purse because it had a gun design on it:

“A teenage girl’s sense of style got her in trouble at the airport.

Vanessa Gibbs, 17, claims the Transportation Security Administration stopped her at the security gate because of the design of a gun on her handbag.”

The agents said that it could be considered a replica weapon, which have been banned on airplanes under federal law since 2002. It’s bad enough for governments to trample on people’s right to bear arms…but now they ban gun designs, too? Ridiculous.

In somewhat related news, an elderly lady is claiming that TSA agents strip searched her at JFK Airport in New York:

“An 85-year-old woman said Saturday that she was injured and humiliated when she was strip searched at an airport after she asked to be patted down instead of going through a body scanner, allegations that transportation security officials denied.

Lenore Zimmerman said she was taken to a private room and made to take off her pants and other clothes after she asked to forgo the screening because she worried it would interfere with her defibrillator. She missed her flight and had to take one 2 1/2 hours later, she said.”

It’s worthwhile to point out that the TSA is denying these allegations…but if they are true, then this is just another example of security gone way too far, at the expense of liberty.

Last week federal judge Marcia Cooke overturned the Firearms Owners’ Privacy Act, a Florida law restricting doctors from asking people about guns unless there is a compelling medical reason.

The debate over this law involves an interesting conflict between the First and Second Amendments. The founding philosophy of America (and one that I strongly believe in) is that people have the right to live their lives however they please, as long as they don’t interfere with anyone else’s right to do the same. The right to bear arms is part of this and is specifically protected in the Bill of Rights, and so is freedom of speech. One person’s right to free speech should only end when another person’s liberty begins. But where exactly do you draw the line?

In my opinion, speech designed to pressure another person into acting as you want them to violates that person’s right to live their life as they please. Doctors, motivated by the desire to make people healthier, are one of the biggest culprits of this. When doctors ask people questions, or tell them what to eat, how much to exercise, or what medical tests to have, they are not using physical force, and people are not obligated by law to comply. But I still believe that this is coercive and therefore should not be protected by the First Amendment. Due to doctors’ elevated status in our society, it is difficult, if not impossible, especially for shy people, to refuse to answer a doctor’s questions or to decline medical procedures that a doctor firmly instructs them to have. Doctors need to treat their patients more like customers, only performing the medical procedures that the customers indicate they want and only giving advice when it is asked for. This might sound like a radical proposition, but a customer’s gun ownership is not a doctor’s business, nor are their eating habits, exercise, emotional state, sex life, drug use, or really any aspect of their life. What we need are more laws restricting doctors, however well-intentioned, from using their authority to pressure people into giving up their privacy rights or their freedom to live as they choose.

The Firearms Owners’ Privacy Act doesn’t even go as far as the laws that I would support – it still allows doctors to ask about guns if there is a compelling medical reason, and it doesn’t outright ban such questions but merely says that doctors “should” refrain. It was wrong to overturn this law. Florida Governor Rick Scott is appealing the decision, and I hope he prevails.