Shoot First, Regret Legislation Later

Despite my liberal credentials as a Volvo-driving, pro-choice, gay-marriage-supporting urban dweller, I admit to an inner conflict when it comes to guns. I grew up surrounded by firearms and the boys who loved them. My father is a bona fide hunting nut who threatened to buy my son a lifetime membership to the National Rifle Association for his first birthday. I myself have mowed down a variety of defenseless woodland creatures. I used to be a decent shot with a pistol, and once during the Clinton years, I spearheaded an outing of lefty political scribes for a round of skeet shooting.

But while I appreciate guns, I also appreciate the need for gun laws. Without them, Dad's quip--"A well-armed society is a polite society"--holds true only if your idea of "polite" is something akin to HBO's Deadwood or the Sunni triangle. Which is why I'm perturbed by the Florida legislature's decision to pass a bill, signed into law by Governor Jeb Bush last week, allowing virtually anyone who feels threatened at any time and in any place to whip out a gun and open fire. The law decrees that a person under attack "has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."

"Stand his or her ground"? "Meet force with force"? Wow. It's as if the text of a real bill somehow got transposed with dialogue from a 1970s Dirty Harry paean to vigilantism. I can picture a stressed-out Tampa soccer mom drawing a bead on an approaching panhandler and shrieking, "Go ahead, make my day!"

Gun-control advocates are distraught over this development, predicting a rise in everything from road-rage episodes to gang violence. Gun toters may wrongly assume they have "total immunity from prosecution," said Miami police chief John Timoney. The law's supporters dismiss such concerns as liberal hysteria and extol the bill's passage as a victory for law-abiding citizens. Wayne LaPierre, the N.R.A.'s excruciatingly macho executive vice president, crowed, "[This will] make criminals pause before they commit their next rape, robbery or murder."

I don't buy it, Wayne. The Florida courts, like those elsewhere, have long acknowledged that shooting someone in self-defense is, on occasion, a tragic necessity. It's just that, until now, most states have held to the notion that lethal force should be avoided whenever a reasonable alternative, like running away, is safely possible. The recognized exception is when a person's home has been invaded, at which point the homeowner may shoot first and ask questions later--a provision commonly referred to as the "Castle Doctrine." But the N.R.A. and Florida lawmakers apparently felt the definition of one's "castle" needed broadening to include pretty much anywhere a person might happen to wander. Some drunk spoiling for a fight at your favorite bar? Don't "retreat" to another barstool. Flash the .44 Magnum in your shoulder holster and ask the punk if he feels lucky.