home

Self-Defense or Excessive Force?

by TChris

Note: Jeralyn also posts about this here.

If we can launch a preemptive strike against a country that has no weapons of mass destruction simply because (thanks to the administration's propaganda) we feel threatened, why shouldn't we be able to preemptively kill neighbors who seem like they might be threatening? A growing number of states are enacting self-defense laws that eliminate an already eroding common law principle that the use of deadly force in self-defense is permitted only after attempts to retreat from the dangerous situation have failed.

Supporters call them "stand your ground" laws. Opponents call them "shoot first" laws.

Many states have copied a Florida law that permits the use of deadly force, with no duty to retreat, by a person who reasonably believes the force is necessary to prevent great bodily harm or "the commission of a forcible felony." A fear of imminent harm is presumptively reasonable if deadly force is used against a person who forcefully enters the defending person's residence or car. Persons who use deadly force under those circumstances are immune from arrest and prosecution (and from civil liability).

The central innovation in the Florida law, said Anthony J. Sebok, a professor at Brooklyn Law School, is ... in expanding the right to shoot intruders who pose no threat to the occupant's safety.

"In effect," Professor Sebok said, "the law allows citizens to kill other citizens in defense of property."

Is property really more important than a human life? Many states -- mostly in the south, although the trend is spreading -- seem to think so. Adam Liptak's article explores one situation in which the use of near-deadly force was extreme and unwarranted.

"I was in T-shirt and shorts," Mr. Rosenbloom said, recalling the day he knocked on Mr. Allen's door. Mr. Allen, a retired Virginia police officer, had lodged a complaint with the local authorities, taking Mr. Rosenbloom to task for putting out eight bags of garbage, though local ordinances allow only six.

"I was no threat," Mr. Rosenbloom said. "I had no weapon."

The men exchanged heated words. "He closed the door and then opened the door," Mr. Rosenbloom said of Mr. Allen. "He had a gun. I turned around to put my hands up. He didn't even say a word, and he fired once into my stomach. I bent over, and he shot me in the chest."

Allen wasn't arrested. He claimed the shooting was justified because Rosenbloom had a foot in his door.

< States Move to Expand Self-Defense Laws | Condi Rice Makes Vanity Fair's Best Dressed List >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Re: Self-Defense or Excessive Force? (none / 0) (#1)
    by Al on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 11:48:56 AM EST
    Is property really more important than a human life?
    Of course not. This legislation assumes that there is "good violence" and "bad violence". "Good violence" is carried out by "good" people against "bad" people. This moral asymmetry is extended to nations attacking each other, where "good" people means "us".

    Re: Self-Defense or Excessive Force? (none / 0) (#2)
    by roy on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 12:13:02 PM EST
    Allen claims he shot only after Rosenbloom made threats and started to rush him, not merely "had a foot in the door". If that's true, was shooting justified? I say "yes", a 58-year-old man has good reason to fear for his safety in the face of a 30-year-old man who's making threats and rushing in in the face of a gun, but I've already got a list going in my head of who will say "no". Of course, it might not be true anyway. I think I'd have a hard time convincing my local cops (and we can, under certain circumstances, shoot in defense of property here in TX) of such a story. Why don't they think they have probable cause to doubt Allen's story? I suspect it has more to do with Allen being an ex-cop than it does with the recent legal changes. (Between registration and technical problems, I haven't read the stories TChris linked to. This one has about as much detail as any of those I've read)

    Re: Self-Defense or Excessive Force? (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 12:24:59 PM EST
    It's only a matter of time before the no knock laws gets a police officer killed, using the stand your ground defense.

    Re: Self-Defense or Excessive Force? (none / 0) (#4)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 01:06:55 PM EST
    If you cannot protect your property and your life, then freedom is, essentially, worthless.

    Re: Self-Defense or Excessive Force? (none / 0) (#5)
    by eric on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 01:28:03 PM EST
    Many states -- mostly in the south, That really says it all, doesn't it?

    Re: Self-Defense or Excessive Force? (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 01:33:11 PM EST
    I have to agree with Roy. I think Allen being an ex-cop had more to do with the lack of charges. That "thin blue line" crap. And all LEOs think they're above the law and deserve special dispensation.

    Re: Self-Defense or Excessive Force? (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 01:59:31 PM EST
    The central innovation in the Florida law, said Anthony J. Sebok, a professor at Brooklyn Law School, is ... in expanding the right to shoot intruders who pose no threat to the occupant's safety.
    So if somebody breaks into my home, I am expected to telepathically determine whether or not he "poses a threat to my safety". If I guess wrong, I am dead, in jail, or bankrupted by civil lawsuits. The determination will be made by people with an infinite amount of time and more information than I could ever possibly have. Feh.

    Re: Self-Defense or Excessive Force? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Darryl Pearce on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 02:13:16 PM EST
    JimakaPPJ-- How do you reconcile "shoot the intruder" with the law enforcement "no knock warrant"...?

    Re: Self-Defense or Excessive Force? (none / 0) (#9)
    by roy on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 02:22:02 PM EST
    I have to agree with Roy. I think Allen being an ex-cop had more to do with the lack of charges.
    As much as I enjoy being agreed with, after actually reading the NYT piece, I have to concede that my theory doesn't work so well for Galas's case, about which you can read more here. It doesn't seem reasonable that an unarmed 72-year-old man posed any real threat to a 23-year-old woman, even if he was coming at her. She says she was worried about him getting another gun, which was understandable, but that's a step too far removed from an immediate threat to justify shooting him. She messed up, imho, and should have been able to recognize better options open to her. Whether she should be punished for that lapse of judgement under pressure is another question.

    Re: Self-Defense or Excessive Force? (none / 0) (#10)
    by Punchy on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 02:22:20 PM EST
    It's only a matter of time before the no knock laws gets a police officer killed, using the stand your ground defense.
    Looks like TWO people have beat me to this... This has turned every house into a castle--a castle with guns. And who's got the final say about who threatened who? I'm guessing it's the guy who's still alive, so how can his story be disproven? If I can kill a neighbor, and it's my word against the dead guy, than how can I ever be prosecuted?

    Re: Self-Defense or Excessive Force? (none / 0) (#11)
    by peacrevol on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 02:29:44 PM EST
    It's only a matter of time before the no knock laws gets a police officer killed, using the stand your ground defense.
    How do you reconcile "shoot the intruder" with the law enforcement "no knock warrant"...?
    Good points...It seems to me that it should be that my hom is my home and you stay the hell out of my home unless I know you're coming in. Finding illegal drugs is not reason enough for no knock warrants. If the police continue to do that, they should know that they're taking a big chance if they dont let the occupant know who they are before he has a chance to fire on them. The element of surprise can be startling to people inside the house, but being startled, if it's the wrong kind of person, may not necessarily be a good thing (ie you might not really want to startle some military and ex military personnel who are trained to think fast and shoot faster).

    Re: Self-Defense or Excessive Force? (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 02:37:26 PM EST
    How do you reconcile "shoot the intruder" with the law enforcement "no knock warrant"... This is a very interesting question. I see a felony murder situation. Is self defense a defense. A robber can't shoot his victem and claim self defense can he?

    Re: Self-Defense or Excessive Force? (none / 0) (#13)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 02:38:06 PM EST
    roy, I think Allen being a ex-cop meant he had an interest in and a full understanding of the changes in the law - which may have helped lead to the shooting. Putting myself in Allen's position - deciding whether to pull the trigger on a aggressor standing only a few feet in front of me - I would have to be completely convinced that he had the intention and capability to do me serious harm. Personally, I think I'd have a hard time deciding to pull the trigger, but someone with 26 years of experience with guns and people who really want to do you physical harm may find that decision much easier to make. Regarding the law, while I see where it can be abused (like all laws) I think the weight of the law should be on the side of the one defending his life/home from an aggressor.

    Re: Self-Defense or Excessive Force? (none / 0) (#14)
    by roy on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 03:43:20 PM EST
    suo,
    ...I think the weight of the law should be on the side of the one defending his life/home from an aggressor.
    Agreed, but it's a bit of a trick to figure out whether somebody who claims to be defending his life/home is honest about and reasonable in his belief that he is doing so. Maybe that's OK, though. Convicting people is supposed to be hard, what with "innocent until proven guilty" and "reasonable doubt" and all.

    Re: Self-Defense or Excessive Force? (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 03:59:26 PM EST
    This is really not a problem. I have never seen a case where someone shot an intruder, reasonably believing they were in danger, and then went to prison. Never, I should say, except for a few cases where the circumstances surrounding the killing (or wounding) were really bizarre. If someone climbs through your bedroom window and you shoot them in the face, you won't go to prison. In my opinion it's the immunity from civil suit, and the abolition of the duty to retreat (which also rarely comes in to play anyway) that make these laws dangerous. You never have to flee your home--in fact, in many states you can defend someone else's home as if it were your own--and it's incredibly unlikely that a jury would send someone to prison for fighting off a car jacker and, in the process, killing him. *Not legal advice, obviously*

    Re: Self-Defense or Excessive Force? (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 04:04:34 PM EST
    I applaud this law.

    Re: Self-Defense or Excessive Force? (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 04:11:09 PM EST
    TL, Just read your post on the earlier thread and I really disagree with your analysis there. In my experience juries are VERY sympathetic to the citizen who fights off a mugger, or the business owner who shoots a perp during a hold up. Do you just think they (those who defend themselves) just shouldn't have to go through the stress of dealing with the criminal justice system? I don't hate these laws, I just worry that you're going to get a lot of cases where deadly force is inappropriately used and nothing can be done about it.

    Re: Self-Defense or Excessive Force? (none / 0) (#18)
    by HK on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 04:17:33 PM EST
    I find all this intriguing. It is illegal for citizens to have guns here in the UK now. Back when it was legal, though, my father had handguns. It was a legal requirement that the guns were kept locked in a suitable safe at all times unless they were being transported to a range or competition. Once, when I was a teenager, a drug user with a history of muggings (street robbery) and burglary broke into our home in the night. My father successfully pursued him, semi-clad and armed only with a martial arts stick. When my father caught the burglar on the next road, he told him to get into his car and drove him to the local police station. Not only did my father use a lack of force that both friends and police officers expressed surprise over, but he didn't even think about going for his guns. If they had been to hand, it might have been a different and, I imagine, an altogether less savoury experience. Of course, if the burglar had been more violent, things would have been unpleasant. But as a person who actually likes guns, I think that in heated situations it is often better if they are not available. A gun is only as useful as the person who is using it. In Switzerland, I believe that it is compulsary for adults to own guns and to undergo training about how to use them. Violent crime there is extremely low.

    Re: Self-Defense or Excessive Force? (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 04:38:01 PM EST
    See, that's something you can't do, HK; pursue. If your father had hunted this guy down and hurt him in some way, he would then be the aggressor, and would be charged appropriately. I think you can pursue in Germany as well, and maybe even lie in wait for someone if you think you they're going to steal from you (feel free, anyone, to correct me if I'm wrong). I like the non-pursuit rule because I think it cuts down on vigilantism, and probably saves lives. What happens if you pursue someone, lose them, and then mistake another for the perp?

    Re: Self-Defense or Excessive Force? (none / 0) (#20)
    by Che's Lounge on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 08:52:08 PM EST
    In my experience juries are VERY sympathetic to the citizen who fights off a mugger, or the business owner who shoots a perp during a hold up. Also rather cut and dried scenarios. The question remains, what will those juries think about someone who shoots a cop executing a no knock search warrant? How would the current SCOTUS decide? ("Paging officer Alito, officer Alito".) One potential inherent danger is that the cops will be more likely to KILL so as to avoid legal challenges (as if they need more reason). Don't get me wrong. I'm all for home defense. It's the no-knock warrants that are illegal. It seems the law types are really dropping the ball on this. You can't have the wild west all over again. But there are larger forces (fear mongering) at work that drive these kinds of actions. A clear trend of a developing fascist state.

    Re: Self-Defense or Excessive Force? (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 04:49:48 AM EST
    Very good points Che's. I purposely didn't address the cop getting shot scenario because it's much more problematic. In my very limited (in the case of cop-intruder) experience, juries can go either way. Usually it seems to break along class/race lines. Have a criminal record? Black? Well, then the officer was probably justified in kicking in your door at 6am anyway. I haven't worked on any of these cop-intruder cases, but colleagues who have haven't had a good time of it. Honestly, I'm not sure I've seen a black man get off after shooting a police officer he reasonably believed to be a dangerous intruder. I'm sure someone can hop on Westlaw and prove me wrong. I'm just saying I haven't seen it. We have to do away with no-knocks. They put everyone at risk. Especially when the police execute them at the wrong residence. Off topic, I know, but important and tangentially related.

    Re: Self-Defense or Excessive Force? (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 06:54:01 AM EST
    Seems to me that we, as a nation, have had the experience, re: "stand your ground" or "protect your property" in the past. It began at the when the first colonists set foot on our shores and pretty much ended with the "Old West" when the nation realized that if we are going to claim to be "civilized" and truly prosper, the old law of "Might Makes Right" would have to be superseded by civilized (read controlled by law) behavior. It has only taken a century for the nation to revert to the old ways. What is old is new again, evidentially.

    Re: Self-Defense or Excessive Force? (none / 0) (#23)
    by chuckj on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 09:14:13 AM EST
    If you cannot protect your property and your life, then freedom is, essentially, worthless.
    Well said, and that is the basis of this movement. Puting scenarios aside, such as "no knock", these laws favor the rights and lives of law abiding citizens over those of criminals. There are a million "what-ifs", but that is not the proper way to judge a law. The right of a person to defend his life and property go far above the rights of criminals.

    Re: Self-Defense or Excessive Force? (none / 0) (#24)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 09:57:25 AM EST
    Guess that Cheney decided that one of those quail was his "property", that's why he shot Harry Whittington in the face. He spearheaded the movement to legalize shooting people, who even think of messing with your "propery", with a bang. Hey, if you can't shoot someone in the face, what is freedom good for anyway.

    Re: Self-Defense or Excessive Force? (none / 0) (#25)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 10:57:28 AM EST
    What if I beat the intruder to death? I do not own any guns so I couldn't shoot them, but what if I freaked out and in my fear induced rage killed the intruder?

    Re: Self-Defense or Excessive Force? (none / 0) (#26)
    by Peaches on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 11:54:34 AM EST
    Jonathon, Or, since I also own no guns, what if I open the door and looming over the intruder said in a booming voice, What in the F$&% do you plan on doing with that small caliber handgun. I will crush you before you could get off a second round. at which he collapses in a heap due to fright and dies of a heart attack? What then?

    Re: Self-Defense or Excessive Force? (none / 0) (#27)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 11:58:51 AM EST
    Peaches-
    at which he collapses in a heap due to fright and dies of a heart attack? What then?
    His or her estate will sue you for all lost income the robber would have made (and paid taxes on) in his or her working lifetime.

    Re: Self-Defense or Excessive Force? (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 12:26:32 PM EST
    Yeah, And the judge would die laughing before throwing it out.

    Re: Self-Defense or Excessive Force? (none / 0) (#29)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 12:43:19 PM EST
    Seems to me that killing an intruder with a gun is acceptable, but beating them to death or stabbing them 11 times would not be. What if you beat them half dead and on your way to call 9-11, they pull a jason or freddie krueger on you and get you from behind and kill you? What if you shoot them in the back? I mean, 3 a.m. someone is in my house and i sneak up on them and say, "turn around slowly" or something like that? If we are going to allow a law that legalizes murder as a deterrent to home invasion than let's not pussy foot around and say you can "shoot them". Let's say it. You may beat them until you see brain matter on your carpet.

    Re: Self-Defense or Excessive Force? (none / 0) (#30)
    by Peaches on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 01:19:47 PM EST
    Sorry Jlv, I see where you are going. I couldn't help myself, so I threw in my funny. I can sympathize with the feeling that one should be allowed to protect one's life and property from intruders. At the same time, accidents and unintended consequences of reacting with violence whenever threatened does not make a democracy either. So, when Jim says,
    If you cannot protect your property and your life, then freedom is, essentially, worthless.
    He is right only in the sense that democracy is aligned with natural rights to ownership. Of course, a modern societies can only operate effectively when there are laws and rules protecting ownership. And individuals in society need to have some sense of security and trust that they will not be victims of violence or harm by others. The problem is in determining where to draw the line. Giving property owners the right to resort to lethal responses whenever they feel threatened is either too draconian or a symptom that we are growing less trusting of our neighbors and fear of the unkown has grown to such great extents that we can no longer function as a society of individuals where freedom is a tangible and valued ideal.

    Re: Self-Defense or Excessive Force? (none / 0) (#31)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 01:29:32 PM EST
    c-law-
    Yeah, And the judge would die laughing before throwing it out.
    Sounds like the Judge's estate would be able to sue the robber's estate in that case.

    Re: Self-Defense or Excessive Force? (none / 0) (#32)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 01:32:24 PM EST
    Squeaky, Yeah, and then you'd have a real problem. Those earning potential calculations add up.

    Re: Self-Defense or Excessive Force? (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 02:05:16 PM EST
    Bob Sakowski said:
    Seems to me that we, as a nation, have had the experience, re: "stand your ground" or "protect your property" in the past.
    It began at the when the first colonists set foot on our shores and pretty much ended with the "Old West" when the nation realized that if we are going to claim to be "civilized" and truly prosper, the old law of "Might Makes Right" would have to be superseded by civilized (read controlled by law) behavior. It has only taken a century for the nation to revert to the old ways. What is old is new again, evidentially.
    Seems to me you need a history lesson, and have a rather strange sense of what it means to be "civilized". First, the "Old west" wasn't as violent or anarchaic as you seem to think it was. Dodge City, while real was more of the aberration than the norm. Secondly, most of the US's restrictions on firearms didn't occur until the 1960's or later - almost one hundred years after the "wild west " period, though if you want to do as some do and end it in the 1890's, you have a "mere" 70 year gap. I have comic books that I picked up at second hand places from the fifties and many of them advertise bb and shotguns through the mail. Indeed, the only prohibitions I can think of on firearms prior to the 60's were the federal ban on owning machine guns (not to be confused with semi-automatics)and jim crow laws that applied to former slaves. Thirdly, as many states have begun passing "shall issue" laws, the predicted bloodbaths have failed to occur. Most gun deaths in America still take place between people involved in the drug trade, and mostly in the poorer parts of large and major cities. Your definition of "civilized" is also suspect. I suppose in a perfect world there'd be no need for citizens to defend themselves as crime would not exist. Barring this utopia, and realizing that police - even in a police state- can't and shouldn't be everywhere at once, it seems to me that civilized adults should be trusted to carry weapons for defensive purposes. The issues is trust: how much of it the citizens should have for the government and vice-versa. As for your inability to trust your fellow citizens to defend themselves responsibly, that is something you will have to clear up with on your own, hopefully with introspection and education.

    Re: Self-Defense or Excessive Force? (none / 0) (#34)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 02:18:11 PM EST
    No offense taken Peaches. I believe in the right to protect one's home as well as the right to bear arms. The line here is not static and i am relatively certain that beating someone to death in your home would result in charges but shooting them would not. A baseball bat to the head 8 times probably would do the job, would someone be prosecuted for the last 7 hits? If they shoot them in teh head point blank it would seem to me that would not be charged. I don't get it.

    Re: Self-Defense or Excessive Force? (none / 0) (#35)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 02:42:29 PM EST
    Well it is pretty fuzzy. The thing about the beating is that at some point you become the aggressor; you're no longer defending your home, you're just turning your (righteous) anger into violence. Same reasons you can't pursue, basically. Still, I think that as long as your lawyer stayed awake at trial you would probably get off claiming that you reasonably feared for your safety (A bench trial would be ill-advised. You want a jury). The civil litigation would be another matter. You'd probably lose there.

    Re: Self-Defense or Excessive Force? (none / 0) (#36)
    by Lww on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 02:59:28 PM EST
    Civil litigation will go through the roof with these new laws. Good for "us"! Just hope I'm on the right end of the barrel...

    Re: Self-Defense or Excessive Force? (none / 0) (#37)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 03:06:07 PM EST
    LWW-
    Civil litigation will go through the roof with these new laws.
    Really? Wouldn't they drop? Or at least, wouldn't the judgements diminish?

    Re: Self-Defense or Excessive Force? (none / 0) (#38)
    by Sailor on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 03:30:50 PM EST
    Most gun deaths in America still take place between people involved in the drug trade
    I call BS, please provide links.

    Re: Self-Defense or Excessive Force? (none / 0) (#39)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 03:35:51 PM EST
    Well, maybe if you expand "people invloved in the drug trade" to anyone who has ever used, sold, or been around drugs...

    Re: Self-Defense or Excessive Force? (none / 0) (#40)
    by chuckj on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 05:14:38 PM EST
    According to the Bureau Of Justice Statistics, 56% of gun deaths are suicides and 2/3 are drug or suicide related. http://www.tincher.to/deaths.htm The fact is, people kill people, not guns. Do we say that when a drunk driver kills another driver that a chevy killed him? No, we say a drunk driver killed him. Guns are tools just like knives and automobiles and are no more responsible for killing than the steak knife in my kitchen.

    Re: Self-Defense or Excessive Force? (none / 0) (#41)
    by Dadler on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 05:26:26 PM EST
    Cib, Is the notion of a civilized nation, peaceful nation really UTOPIAN to you? You sound more than a tad cynical. I prefer skepticism.

    Re: Self-Defense or Excessive Force? (none / 0) (#42)
    by Sailor on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 06:41:56 PM EST
    Secondly, most of the US's restrictions on firearms didn't occur until the 1960's or later
    I call BS once again: 'The carrying of firearms strictly prohibited,' was a standard reminder of towns in the 1880's.

    Re: Self-Defense or Excessive Force? (none / 0) (#43)
    by roy on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 08:22:02 PM EST
    I call BS once again: 'The carrying of firearms strictly prohibited,' was a standard reminder of towns in the 1880's.
    Link, please? From what I can tell with 3 minutes of half-arsed research, relevant Old West gun laws were focused on carrying concealed guns, not guns in general. And that particular phrasing is unique to Dodge City, KS. But I'm no expert in Old Westology.

    Re: Self-Defense or Excessive Force? (none / 0) (#44)
    by Sailor on Wed Aug 09, 2006 at 09:08:59 AM EST
    In 1813, Kentucky enacted the first carrying concealed weapon statute in the United States. The Kentucky Court of Appeals struck down the law in 1822 as a violation of the state constitutional protection of the right to keep and bear arms.
    In 1837, Georgia completely banned the sale of pistols, with the exception of larger pistols known and used as "horsemen's pistols" and other weapons. The Georgia State Supreme Court overturned this law in Nunn V. State (1846).
    Indiana, Alabama and Arkansas all had concealed carry laws in the early to mid 1800's. [...]
    Wichita and Dodge City, also had their own versions of gun control; the "dead-line." Cross that line carrying a gun and you could wind up dead. [...] In 1911 New York City passed the Sullivan Act.
    The 1920's and 1930's saw many states imposing "A Uniform Act to Regulate the Sale and Possession of Firearms," which prohibited unlicensed carrying and possession. The National Firearms Act was imposed in 1934; it required a $200 tax on each fully automatic firearm or silencer. Over the years, the tax was also applied to short-barreled rifles and shotguns, and a few other classes of weapons."
    The Federal Firearms Act of 1938 began the firearm dealer licensing system.
    and
    As historians have documented, the American frontier was tamed through the westward movement of farmers, ranchers, businesspeople, tradesmen, and other populations who, when towns and cities were formed, demanded and imposed strict gun controls as a necessary first step toward the establishment of public safety.