Weapons, Personal Protection and Use of Force - Essay Example

? Weapons, Personal Protection and Use of Force No: Roll No: Weapons, Personal Protection, and Use of Force Introduction The legislative body of the United States of America in the year, 1791 introduced second amendment according to which in 1791 “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." (Gutmacher, 2006) In the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, in the year 2008, the Supreme Court of US held that the second amendment empowers a person to have a gun for personal use. It allows individuals to keep loaded gun for personal safety and security. In the case of McDonald v Chicago in the year 2010, the Supreme Court admitted the rights of states and the federal government (Gutmacher, 2006). Weaponry Laws of the US In the United States of America the sale, purchase and possession of firearms and their use come under the purview Weapons laws. State laws of each state differ from each other and are not dependent on federal firearms laws. However, sometimes they are wide and sometimes they are narrow in terms of its scope. Take the example of some of the states which have put ban on assault weapon which are similar in nature of federal assault weapons bans. There are 44 States wherein state constitutions are identical to the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The names of those states are California, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, and New York. The statutory civil rights of the New York are similar to the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. In the McDonald v Chicago it was held by the Supreme Court that the protections of the Second Amendment are applicable against state governments (Lott, 2010). The owners of the fire arms are to abide by the laws of state where they live in. It has nothing to do with their place of temporary or permanent residence. The weaponry laws vary from state to state. The State of Florida allows an individual to carry concealed weapons and firearms. In many states, an individual is not allowed to carry out firearms therefore, it is necessary to check the state laws of weapons where one intends to visit (Lott, 2010). In so many states of US, firearms laws are restrictive and have no comparison with federal firearms laws. However, the state and local police are not legally bound to comply with federal weaponry laws (Lott, 2010). Personal Protection Eligibility Criteria In order to possess firearms for personal safety and security, the US citizen has to meet the following requirement (Eligibility Requirements for a License to Carry Firearms): legal resident 21 years of age No outstanding warrant No current restraining order / suspension / surrender order No confinement for drug addiction or for use of alcoholism. In case of cured for addiction / alcoholism, submit registered physician certificate No confinement to hospital for mental illness. On rehabilitation, an individual has to submit a certificate from registered physician that now he or she is fit for use of firearms in his or her self defense Permanent disqualifiers are those offenses who are punishable for more than 2 years of imprisonment. Personal protection as per US law is a complex right. On the one hand, it gives honors to the inherent rights of a citizen to keep and use firearms for personal safety and security. The provision of firearms to each and every citizen has shaken the faith and confidence of the citizens in the rule of law. The issuance of firearms license means that the states or federal government absolved from its first and foremost responsibility to maintain law and order in their administrative jurisdiction. By virtue of given right, one can take his or her revenge from any other person or to intimidate someone with the use of firearms to settle his or her score (Mauser, 1996). However, use of firearms for personal protection can be differentiated from all other reasons of using firearms. Personal protection in the broader spectrum is to protect life and property of self and others. Personal protection is culminated on those acts that are intended to protect someone’s physical safety or property or to protect the safety or property of others who are near and dear. Morally and legally, an individual has to justify the use of force to protect oneself or his or her family member from dangerous animals. The situation, condition and compelling reasons that justify the use of force or deadly force in defense of his / her / family defense should be visible. However, use of firearms to take revenge does not fall under the ambit of personal protection. Therefore, the desire of an individual to punish or to take revenge does not justify the use of force or deadly force against criminals (Mauser, 1996). Use of Force According to Hickman and Reaves in the book, Local Police Departments, (2001), Police Officers, Security Incharge and Armed Forces use weapons of different kinds for the implementation of law and for safeguarding people on local, national and international levels and are answerable for handling emergency conditions (pp. 62). The people associated with others’ safety make use of force to put into effect the law and to maintain discipline in a society. These people are also in need of personal protection equipment along with the artillery so that, they can make certain their as well as others’ security. Police utilizes the weapons against criminals, wrongdoers and lawbreakers so that, the citizens of a locality do not face any hardships in terms of their physical wellbeing. Police is installed in the locality to eradicate any possible evils present in a society. According to Hickman and Reaves in the book, Local Police Departments, (2001), police department also performs functions such as bomb disposal, search and rescue, tactical operations, underwater recovery, animal control, civil defence and harbour protection (pp. 67). As the tasks related to police force are too many, so are the hazards. They are subject to occupational injuries, illnesses and fatalities. Hickman and Reaves in their book, Census of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies (2002), inform about Security Incharge who uses force to bring to an end any illegal and criminal activity in the area of his charge. They are also responsible to check safety measures and to provide relevant guards for any problematic situation (pp. 52). As far as Armed Forces are concerned, they are responsible for the security of their country. According to Clarke and Zak’s book, Fatalities to Law Enforcement Officers and Firefighters, 1992–1997,” Compensation and Working Conditions, (1999), they are allowed to use force to exterminate any intruder who enters the area without governmental permission. They also wear a uniform that is supportive for their hard task but they should use PPE to make themselves secure (pp.7) The use of force for personal protection or in self-defense to counter the move of enemy, who intends to harm the life or property amounts to use of rights of self defense. It provides legal justification for the user of firearms in times of danger (Mattingly, 2007). Use of physical force in self defense is considered legally valid move to counter immediate threats of violators. It can be armed or unarmed keeping in view the demand of the situation. In both scenarios, chances of success depend on the preparation of defender according to the gravity of the situation (Mattingly, 2007). In a few countries of the globe carrying weapons with them meant for self defense is legal. However, in some of the countries this may be considered illegal. This requires license from the concerned department to carry weapons. To confine an individual to use weapons for personal protection is the source of controversy. In the US, someone uses daily usable objects like base ball bats for personal protection (Nourse, 2001) In the United States of America, personal stun guns are treated non lethal weapons, whereas in other countries it considers lethal weapons for personal protection. The range of pepper sprays as per calculation comes approximately 5 to 20 feet which may cause eye soaring, interim blindness and runny nose because of the contents of chemical used in it. Handy stun guns prove to be useful weapon against the violator in self defense (Fletcher, 2000). Case Laws One of the US states, the New York, whose laws relating to section 35.15 of defines that Penal Law section 35.15 that: "A person may... use deadly physical force upon another person" as and when required to the extent of gravity of the situation. In case of forcible rape, sodomy, kidnapping firearms can be used to defend themselves from the attacks of offenders. Take the scenario of a bar or night club where a person challenge another person to fight. Using deadly force instead of leaving fight cannot be treated a fight in self defense (Fletcher, 2000). We have studied the cases of America and some of its states where the concept of self defense is confined to the requirement of threat. The pre emption in respect of self defense is in fact the first hit on the offenders in a situation where the defender reached the point of no return. Many self defense moves, where defenders deal with the situation with an iron hand, had an edge over the offenders in an unavoidable circumstances (Fletcher, 2000). The defender should not offer justification for their act that took place in self defense. Many states of US allow use of firearms to engage the offenders that leads to his or her arrest. Victims of rape and sodomy can claim his or her use of force in self defense. However, act of revenge cannot be considered as self defense in view of the nature of offense. In many states of the US, use of deadly arms against the robbers and burglars having stolen items cannot be taken as self defense. In this regard, we should refer common law and the model penal code which creates distinction between the thieves and robbers. In many states of America, application of Common law justifies the efforts of private persons to use deadly force just to arrest violent criminals (Mattingly, 2007). Section 35.30 of New York Penal Law entitled "Justification; use of physical force in making an arrest or in preventing an escape", provides: "A private person acting on his / her own account may use physical force, other than deadly physical force, upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes such to be necessary to effect an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of a person whom he reasonably believes to have committed an offense and who in fact has committed such offense; and he may use deadly physical force for such purpose when he reasonably believes such to be necessary” (Nourse, 2001). The deadly firearms can be used in the following situations: a) defend from the invasion of a third person by using deadly physical force and b) ensure the arrest of a culprit, committed the offense of murder, robbery, rape or sodomy by force (Nourse, 2001). It has come to the conclusion that the Law of Justification has always been considered as a matter of states rather than federal government. The recent judgment of Supreme Court of America in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago held Common Laws concerning “self-defense" as fundamental rights. It further opined that the Second and the Fourteenth Amendments protect the right of a citizen to possess firearms at his or her place of residence meant for self protection. There cannot be two opinions regarding self-defense which is the focal point of self protection. The American Constitution is very much clear on the point of right to keep and carry arms for self-defense. In the case of Frank v. Maryland, the Supreme Court was in favor of incorporating the Rights that are the birth rights of self defense in the Constitution (Nourse, 2001). Conclusion We have examined US states laws and federal laws that relate to personal protection and use of force / deadly force in retaliation of offenders who have their own axe to grinds. In many states of the US, keeping fire arms and using it for self defense in accordance with law is allowed. Conversely, in other states of the the US keeping fire arms and carrying it meant for self defense is not permissible. Further, many states of the the US are seldom care of federal laws in keeping and carrying fire arms for self protection. Keeping licensed weapons with oneself, in fact, is a great responsibility in terms of using it in times of need. Therefore, one should be careful in selecting the weapon for using it in specific circumstance for protection of life and property. Here, we are referring the Florida laws, one of the states of the US, which justifies the use of deadly force under the mentioned scenario: To protect a person from another person that leads to death or serious body injuries To prevent a person from a forcible attempt of rape, sodomy, robbery, burglary and kidnapping. Apart from cited situation, showing of handgun in Florida State by licensed holder of weapons could be tried in the competent court of law. References Clarke, C., and Zak, M. J. (1999). “Fatalities to Law Enforcement Officers and Firefighters, 1992–1997”. Compensation and Working Conditions. USA: Bureau of Labor Statistics, pp. 3–7. Eligibility Requirements for a License to Carry Firearms. n.d. Retrieved April 14, 2012 from http://206.40.161.218/FORMS/INST-LTC-051706-CURRENT.pdf Fletcher, George P. (2000). Rethinking Criminal Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gutmacher, Esq., Jon H. (2006). "Qualifications for Purchasing or Possession of Firearms". Florida Firearms Law, Use & Ownership. Florida: Warlord Publishing. Hickman, Matthew J., and Reaves, Brian A. (2001). Local Police Departments, 1999. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics. pp. 45-78. Lott, John R. (2010). More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-Control Laws. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Mattingly, K. (2007). Self-Defense: Steps to Survival. New York: Human Kinetics. Mauser, Gary A. (1996). Armed self defense: the Canadian case. Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 24, No 5, pp 393-406. Nourse, V. F. (2001). "Self-Defense and Subjectivity". The University of Chicago Law Review 68 (4): 1235–1308. Read More