At common law, a person has the right to use deadly force to protect himself from intruders in his own home. Known as "The Castle Doctrine," this principle is an exception to the general rule that a person is not justified in using deadly force unless retreat isn't possible and the use of force is the absolute last resort - i.e. before popping a cap into a some punk on the street that points a gun at you, you have the duty to first try to plead with your attacker and then to run away. The Castle Doctrine is based on the idea that "a man's home is his castle" and that someone who illegally enters your home leaves you no place to retreat to.

If my recollection serves me, the doctrine has been abandoned pretty much everywhere except in the United States. (e.g. I remember reading a while back that England has done away with it, preferring instead to value all human life, even that of the punk stealing your stereo at gunpoint, above all else. This has led to a great increase in the number of burglaries in England, but that's a topic for another article.)

It's important to note that the Castle Doctrine doesn't give you the right to off anyone that happens to stumble into your humble abode - the intruder still has to attack you, and you still have to be in fear of losing your life or suffering great bodily harm. It just removes your duty to first retreat before resorting to deadly force to defend yourself.

The Florida Legislature has overwhelmingly (94-20) passed a bill that removes the requirement that a person first attempt to retreat before using deadly force to protect themselves outside of their home, basically extending the Castle Doctrine to apply outiside of the proverbial castle. The 'Stand Your Ground Bill,' (HB 249 CS 2005) provides:

(3) A person, not engaged in an unlawful activity, who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be 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, herself, or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. (emphasis added)

Supporters of the bill herald it as an important victim's rights tool. The sponsor of the bill, Republican Dennis Baxley, told the House, "I’m sorry people, but if I’m attacked I shouldn’t have a duty to retreat. That’s a good way to get shot in the back. ... This is about meeting force with force."

I have to agree with Rep. Baxley - I never could swallow the idea that I have a duty to run away from some punk that points a gun at me. It seem to me that when you decide to threaten the life of another, you've made a decision to put your own on the line. In other words, don't sit at the poker table if you can't pay the ante.

Fortunately for Florida residents, soon everyone will be playing with their own chips.

Despite its overwhelming support in the Legislature, the bill has its share of critics as well:

Critics have objected saying it gives gun owners a licence to kill. They also warn that it could lead to racially motivated killings and promote deadly escalations of arguments.

Both of these are terrible arguments - the only people that this bill authorizes the use of force against are those putting others in reasonable apprehension of death or great bodily harm. It isn't a license to kill, it's a license to protect yourself. And it's a warning to thugs and criminals throughout Florida: "The law isn't on your side. Not anymore."