This must be “Stand Your Ground” day at the Tennessean [newspaper] with a whole host of op-eds on the recently passed legislation allowing you to defend your home and self.

Against the relaxing of rules requiring you to prove you were in imminent danger, defense attorney David Raybin says:

The new law erodes the concept of necessity so that “forced entry” into any residence, building, or vehicle allows those within to fire at will. Where before there was a requirement of some actual danger, the new law is nothing less than shoot first and ask questions later.

The recent legislation makes one immune to both criminal and civil liability under this new, greatly expanded definition of righteous gunplay. We have all but done away with government sponsored executions but now allow our citizens the right to impose capital punishment on a trick-or-treater who bangs too loudly at the door. This new “taking-the-law-into-your-own-hands” mentality has manifested itself into a legislative reaction that our police and prosecutors can no longer protect us. I reject that idea.

Yeah, well, I’ll keep that in mind next October 31st, but if they’re six-foot-two, wearing a mask, coming in the back door with a crow-bar, and holding a firearm, I’ll assume they aren’t looking for the candied-apples.

On the side of common sense, the NRA’s Chris Cox says:

. . .Now, if attacked, this “castle doctrine” law will allow you to defend yourself and your loved ones without fear of criminal prosecution or civil litigation. This law also eliminates any “duty to retreat,” thereby providing crime victims with more legal life-saving options. While we lead the fight for the rights of the victim, some, including the gun-control lobby, seek to maintain the status quo. They provoke lawmakers and the news media with sensational but bogus monikers like, “shoot first laws” in an effort to defeat practical victim’s rights measures.

Separating fact from fiction, one will find that castle doctrine laws only apply when victims are attacked in a place where they have a legal right to be and when they fear bodily harm or worse. These laws in no way preclude investigation or review by law enforcement or prosecutors. Crime victims do not have the luxury of time when confronted by a criminal. Law enforcement, good intentions notwithstanding, cannot be everywhere every time. If victims believes their only hope for survival is to stand their ground and fight, then they ought to have that option.

Back again to the “anti-” side of the issue, the Tennessean itself chimes in with an editorial listing one extreme example of what could happen (and I note that it happened before the new law went into effect. Then, they haul out this canard:

The law may result in more criminals getting their hands on guns. That’s especially true if more citizens seek permits to carry guns in their vehicles and those vehicles are broken into.

So their argument here is that if more people have guns, some of those guns could be stolen. I think this is a ridiculous argument (should we ban laptops so they can’t be stolen?) and is completely off-topic to the rights of people to protect themselves.

Back on the “pro-” side, the sponsor of the legislation, Rep. Curry Todd explains:

This year, I sponsored House Bill 411, which has been more commonly referred to as the “Castle Doctrine.” We did pass a version of this, expanding the circumstances under which the use of force is presumed justified. I felt this measure was vitally important; our citizens should be able to defend themselves.

I believe it to be a very important right for people to be able to defend themselves in their homes, their cars, and their businesses. This year we extended that to “curtilage” as well, which refers to the area around your home. I have always supported the use of deadly force — if you, your loved ones, or your co-workers feel that your lives are threatened, you should be able to defend yourself.

There are also letters to the editor about all of this. While the paper’s own editorial clearly shows where they stand on the issue, I’ll give them credit for seeking out two proponents’ op-eds in favor of the bill. That’s all we can ask of media; present both sides of the argument. That’s something the New York Times, Washington Post, and a few others could learn a lesson about.