I reported yesterday that HF 573 was introduced in the Iowa House of Representatives as HF 2215. This is the Iowa Family Defense Act, or the “Stand Your Ground” legislation. HF 573 was originally introduced last year by Representative Windschitl. Since Iowa's legislative sessions run in a two-year cycle, it was still alive this year. Rep. Windschitl worked on the bill with the NRA and IFC to come up with a carefully worded bill that provides protection for citizens who find themselves needing to use deadly force, but does not protect criminals who resort to using deadly force to practice their trade. I've had a chance to look through both HF 573 and HF 2215, and here are the main differences that I see between the two bills.
The first difference deals with the “duty to retreat” portion of the bill. In HF 573, removal of duty to retreat was part of a description of when “reasonable force” may be used by citizens. In HF 2215, the removal of duty to retreat is given its own subsection, and it is further restricted to only those who are not engaged in illegal activity in a place where they are lawfully present. The new subsection also prohibits law enforcement officers, or any other “finders of fact” regarding a use of force case, from considering the possibility of retreat when determining reasonable force. Taken together, this totally removes any requirement that a citizen must consider retreating before the use of any force (including deadly force) and nobody investigating the circumstances behind the decision to use force may consider the possibility of making a retreat first.
In other words, citizens are free to stand their ground and are not forced to flee criminals from anywhere they (the citizens) are legally present.
A new section to be added to the Iowa Code, 704.2A, deals with the “Justifiable use of deadly force.” Under HF 573, a criminal who entered a home, business, or other lawfully occupied area needed to do so by force. There was no mention of someone entering by non-forceful, or “stealthy” means. HF 2215 corrects this oversight, and allows for deadly force even if the criminal entered by means of stealth. This is a good and needed correction. Criminals do not always enter occupied areas by means of force. They very often prefer to be silent, not wishing to draw attention to themselves. Yet it is still just as important that citizens are permitted to use whatever level of force is necessary to defend themselves and their loved ones from the quiet criminals as it is from the “forceful” ones.
Another tweaked section added one word to a description of when deadly force is justified. Under HF 573, the following circumstance was present:
Attempting to remove or has removed another person against the other person’s will from the dwelling, place of business or employment, or occupied vehicle of the person using force.
If this wording was taken as is, it could interfere with a law enforcement officer's official duties. A citizen being placed under arrest could claim that he was being removed from his residence against his will and by force. HF 2215 fixes this by adding the word “unlawfully” in key places, so it now reads:
Unlawfully removing or is attempting to unlawfully remove another person against the other person’s will from the dwelling, place of business or employment, or occupied vehicle of the person using force.
This should satisfy any possibility of misuse by criminals.
The last major change in HF 2215 calls for the repeal of Iowa Section 707.6. This code section removes civil liability for the use of force. Since that is already covered in what is proposed to be the new Section 704.4A, 707.6 is superfluous.
Several other sections were reworded slightly to better highlight the intent of the legislation, but there were no major shifts of meaning. It has been said that this bill would allow criminals to use deadly force whenever they wanted and get away with it. Nothing could be further from the truth. A rewording of proposed 704.2A, subsection 2 paragraph a, reads:
The person using defensive force is engaged in a criminal offense, is attempting to escape from the scene of a criminal offense that the person has committed, or is using the dwelling, place of business or employment, or occupied vehicle to further a criminal offense.
This clearly states, along with all other supporting sections of this legislation, that a criminal cannot use deadly force during the commission of a crime and expect to be held not liable for his actions. Any reports to the contrary are completely incorrect.
It should be noted that an amendment to HF 2215 has already been filed by Representative Rick Olson. Rep. Olson is traditionally an opponent of the restoration of firearms rights to Iowa citizens, and this amendment is no different. H-8004 would remove all protections from the right to stand your ground. The only thing his amendment would provide is the removal of a duty to retreat. This overly simplifies the matter, and does not provide any of the protections that HF 2215 affords.
HF 2215 and the concept of "Stand Your Ground" is not a firearms related topic. It is a matter of your civil right to defend yourself and your loved ones without having to run from criminals and without having to fear prosecution for your decision. Law enforcement officers are trained to quickly estimate a situation and use the correct amount of force necessary to de-escalate the problem or neutralize the threat. Because of the training they receive, they are rightly held to a higher standard regarding the use of force at any level.
Althought private citizens do not have that level of training, that does not mean that their desire to defend themselves is any less valid. HF 2215 is legislation that restores their civil right to self-defense. Legislators who do not support this legislation out of fear of escalating gun violence are ignoring the true intent of the bill and coloring it with the broad anti-gun brush that many of them use when it suits their needs. In reality, since this bill aims to restore civil rights, not firearms rights, it is legislation that should be easily supported on both sides of the aisle.
Comments