I hate all federal gun laws. the Anti-federalists were right. Even this seemingly friendly law is nonetheless federal gun control and should be roundly rejected. If the federal government wanted to buy every man 16 to 46 an AR15 and pay for proper equipping and training that would be the only constitutional federal gun law acceptable under the 2A.

The Feds should stay out of state business. I promise you, they will make things worse with qualifiers, and limits because that’s what government does. All federal laws oppose individual, local, and state liberties. Even if the law is sound, once it’s done, they can later restrict self-defense by modifying it. It’s for that same reason among others that I’m against national reciprocity.

We told you last month about how the Washington Post was trying to resurrect the debate over “Stand Your Ground” (SYG) laws even when the example the newspaper focused on wasn’t even a case involving SYG. What those anti-gun “journalists” at the Post didn’t realize was that their resurrection of the “debate” topic has fueled a fire on the other side of the gun-control movement, with two strongly pro-freedom federal lawmakers now planning to introduce a national Stand Your Ground measure in Congress.

Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Oklahoma, and Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Florida, plan to introduce the measure soon. If passed, it would allow the use of deadly force to prevent “death or great bodily harm” without the duty to retreat that is still on the books in some states.

“States like Oklahoma and Florida recognize that in some cases, the use of lethal force is justified to prevent imminent death or serious bodily harm,” Sen. Mullin said in a news release announcing the measure. “Every American should have the right to defend himself or herself against imminent threats to personal safety without the duty to retreat.

“I’m proud to introduce the Stand Your Ground Act in the Senate to codify these common-sense self-defense protections for all law-abiding Americans.”

The legislation specifically states: “A person is justified in using, threatening, or attempting to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using, threatening, or attempting to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses, threatens, or attempts to use deadly force in accordance with this paragraph does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using, threatening, or attempting to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.”

It will probably fail which is fine. More at the link.