Sure as shootin’

Stand-your-ground bill tamer, still troublesome

Sen. Bob Ballinger of Ozark is standing his ground as he aims to loosen up Arkansas’ selfdefense laws.

By “loosen up,” we mean creating more room within Arkansas law to declare one’s use of physical force — even deadly force — justified. Namely, Ballinger is continuing his efforts, unsuccessful in the past, to create a “stand-your-ground” law that removes any duty to retreat, if retreat is possible, before using such force.

The physical force most often associated with such laws in other states is shooting someone. The language of Ballinger’s proposal doesn’t mention that, but perhaps the presence of the state director of the National Rifle Association in the chair next to Ballinger at last week’s Judiciary Committee hearing on Senate Bill 24 is informative.

It appears Ballinger believes 2021 is the year he’ll succeed in convincing lawmakers to pass the measure — and he just might be right. A Senate Judiciary Committee built to be favorable to such measures voted 5-2 last week to send SB24 to the full Senate for consideration.

It’s hard to tell though. In a move of either supreme confidence or a lack thereof, Ballinger in quick-draw fashion attempted to suspend the Senate’s rules so the full Senate could consider the measure last Thursday. The rush, according to Ballinger, was to spare lawmakers from having “all weekend to deal with emails and telephone calls” on the bill.

Heaven forbid legislators hear from constituents on such matters.

Fortunately, only 20 of the 35 senators were willing to suspend normal procedures and that’s wasn’t enough.

If the bill’s sponsor stays on target, it might be considered this week and, if approved, will move over to the House for consideration.

Two years ago, a similar bill failed. It was opposed by police chiefs, prosecutors and sheriffs as an unnecessary change to Arkansas self-defense laws. It never got out of committee after state Sen. John Cooper, a Republican from Jonesboro, voted against the bill with three Democrats. That put Cooper in the political cross-hairs of the NRA in last year’s Republican primary. Cooper lost that election to a candidate the NRA backed.

Ballinger has spent the last two years redrafting the bill to whittle away language that law enforcement and prosecutors did not care for. This year, the Arkansas Prosecuting Attorneys Association has shifted from opponent to neutral, although at last week’s hearing the group’s representatives awkwardly took the stand for questions. It appeared to us they didn’t much want to be there or be mistaken as advocates for the bill. Indeed, it seems they’ve stepped aside only because it’s not as bad a bill as it once was, but they don’t want to say it’s a good bill, either.

Rather, this is the latest example of what a lawmaker, determined to pass a bill few others see the need for, can do when he’s devoted to putting another NRA notch in his gun belt. Does that mean the bill he’s proposes is meaningless? He doesn’t think so. Nor do we.

Critics of SB24 call it “shoot first, ask questions later” legislation. Rep. Denise Garner of Fayetteville termed it a “white man’s law,” suggesting it will be applied differently, as in unfairly, depending on the race of the person who supposedly acts in self-defense.

What is sure as shootin’ is that nobody has offered up any cases in which an Arkansan forced to defend himself was prosecuted but wouldn’t have been if only the state had a “stand-your-ground” law. Arkansas prosecutors, who are elected every four years, too, can generally recognize self-defense and have a pretty good record of treating such cases with common sense. Ballinger last week suggested the reason Arkansas lacks any cases on point is because the state has good prosecutors. So why not rely on them?

Some folks who like to carry guns for self-defense believe they need, in state law, some assurance that if they shoot an aggressor, they won’t have to go to the trouble of defending their actions in court. A stand-your-ground policy is perceived as such a measure.

This bill, if approved, isn’t a guarantee. Indeed, communities depend on local, elected prosecutors to apply sound judgment in determining whether lethal force is justified or whether a judge and jury ought to render a verdict. Prosecutors do that today, without the existence of a stand-your-ground policy.

The result of the proposal will be to muddy the waters in court when a prosecutor decides a shooter does deserve prosecution. It will be an additional tool for the defense, this argument over whether the person had some duty to retreat. Some will view that as a good thing. We can easily imagine scenarios where it’s not.

We agree with the NRA’s spokesman that the change isn’t likely to turn Arkansas into the “wild west.” The average gun owner isn’t eager to draw a handgun against anyone. Few people want to kill someone, ever. But as we see too often in local and national protests, there are belligerent souls willing to push their gun rights to the absolute fullest extent of the law. Telling those people they can “stand their ground” when they perceive a threat is inviting a tragic outcome.

Hopefully, the fact the prosecutors are no longer opposing the bill means they still believe state law will give them room to pursue charges against someone who unreasonably and unnecessarily responds with deadly force. That pursuit would likely be easier without stand-your-ground.