Stand Your Ground: Constitutionality \'Stand Your Ground\'

¶ … Stand your ground: Constitutionality

'Stand your ground' is not a new doctrine, according to the laws of the land. Its strongest support can be found in the case of Beard v. United States (1895). In the case of Beard, the court found that a "man assailed on his own grounds, without provocation, by a person armed with a deadly weapon and apparently seeking his life is not obliged to retreat, but may stand his ground and defend himself with such means as are within his control; and so long as there is no intent on his part to kill his antagonist, and no purpose of doing anything beyond what is necessary to save his own life, [he] is not guilty of murder or manslaughter if death results to his antagonist from a blow given him under such circumstance" (Beard v. United States, Justia).

In the Beard case, during a dispute over a cow, the home owner was challenged on his premises by someone claiming ownership. The court acknowledged "this great law of self-defense commands him at all times to do that which he can do under the circumstances, to wit, exercise reasonable care to avoid the danger by getting out of the way of it, or by exercising less violence than that which will produce death, and yet will be equally effective to secure his own life" (Beard v. United States, Find Law). But supporting the notion that 'a man's home is his castle,' the court found that he had no obligation to back down. Every man was found to have the right to defend his home against a potential invader as well as the right to self-defense when confronted. No citizen had to take additional measures, including turning and fleeing that could result in further risk to his or her person or property under Beard.

Much more recently, in D.C. v. Heller (2008), the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a District of Columbia law banning all forms handgun possession except in the case of a police chief issuing 1-year licenses to approved petitioners. When Heller was denied a permit, he appealed the DC law based upon his Second Amendment rights. The Court struck down all provisions of the DC law, including those mandating that firearms be "kept nonfunctional even when necessary for self-defense" in the home (D.C. v. Heller, Cornell University Legal Information Institute). In Heller, the Court stated unequivocally that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm in a manner unconnected with service in a militia, and stated that a citizen can be ready and able to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

One of the arguments against Heller was that of United States v. Cruikshank, a 1876 case which had stated exactly the opposite, that the Second Amendment did not, in the Court's interpretation, "provide any individual right to keep and bear arms; it only guaranteed a state's right to maintain a militia" (United States v. Cruikshank, Shmoop). This finding was affirmed yet again in Presser v. Illinois (1886) which prohibited the creation of personally-run militia, given that the Second Amendment specifically stated that only well-regulated militias were protected under the Amendment.