Connect with us

2nd Amendment

Basic Firearms Law: What Is The Castle Doctrine?

Gathering in front of the idaho capital a group of people rally for pro gun rights and castle doctrine

If you’re going to be a gun owner, whether you decide to lawfully carry a concealed weapon or not, it’s very important that you know the law. Unfortunately for many firearms enthusiasts, myths and legends abound while actual knowledge is in short supply. 

Indeed, even more experienced gun owners might know more myth than truth when it comes to the law and the Second Amendment. You might think every gun law is an infringement, but none of that will matter when a Soros-backed, far-left, gun-grabbing DA decides to make your case the cornerstone of his re-election campaign and has you looking at 20+ years in the hoosgow.

VNSH Holster

In the interests of having a more informed, educated and thus, ultimately more prepared armed citizenry in the United States, we’re doing a series on gun laws. 

Even if you think you’re familiar with concepts like the Castle Doctrine, we would encourage you to read this article… because what you don’t know can land you in prison. 

What The Castle Doctrine Is Not: Stand Your Ground Laws

One of the most pervasive myths in the Second Amendment community is thinking that there’s some overlap between the Castle Doctrine and “Stand Your Ground” laws. While there are some similarities, when you get down into the nitty gritty of it all, you’ll find that the two are as different as night and day. 

In fact, the Castle Doctrine is far more widespread than Stand Your Ground Laws. You’ll find it even in liberal enclaves like Massachusetts and New York. That’s because the Castle Doctrine has a basis in law almost as older than Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence itself, while “Stand Your Ground” laws aren’t so new as they’re an active attempt by state legislatures to hold the courts to centuries of law. 

The main difference between the Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground is that the latter applies anywhere you have a legal right to be, while the former applies only to your own private domicile, property that you own, sometimes your car depending on the state and, in a few states, your workplace. 

The History Of The Castle Doctrine

Get ready to have your mind blown: The Castle Doctrine goes back before the founding of the United States, even before the Magna Carta, all the way back to the Roman Republic. 

VNSH Holster

However, the “Castle Doctrine” as we know it today is named after the English common law dictum that “a man’s home is his castle.” While this was a common law principle for centuries, it became a matter of statute in the 17th Century thanks to our good friend Sir Edward Coke, an English jurist. 

The Basics Of The Castle Doctrine

So what is the Castle Doctrine?

The basic meaning is that if you’re in your home or other property that you own (check your state laws on this), you don’t have to run away from an intruder (this obligation, where it exists, is known as “duty to retreat”) meaning to do you physical bodily harm. In fact, you can use force, all the way up to deadly force to defend yourself and your family.

Hold up, though. It gets a little more complicated than that. 

First of all, the Castle Doctrine is what’s called an “affirmative defense.” This means that you will likely still stand trial for your actions, but can mount a defense based around the concept that you were in your home, an intruder entered, you feared for your life and you fled.

Note that the Castle Doctrine only applies to home invasion type situations. If some squatters take over your house while you’re on vacation, you can’t simply walk in and start blasting. You have to call the cops and let them deal with it. There are a few states with exceptions to this, but chances are good you don’t live in one, so check those local state laws. 

What’s more, you can’t pursue a subject outside of your home once he has left. Doing this can land you into serious legal hot water. And, as is almost always the case (Texans, save your comments), you can only use a firearm in defense of human life – you cannot use it because you fear for the life of your dog (that’s livestock) or because you really like your television set. 

VNSH Holster

It should go without saying (but we’ll say it anyway) that you cannot use the Castle Doctrine to “defend” yourself from an officer of the law in the course of his legally approved duties. You also can’t stand outside your home provoking people in the hopes that they chase you inside and you get to play Dirty Harry in your living room. 

Finally, as always, appropriate amounts of force are necessary for your affirmative defense to work. You can’t shoot a man because he accidentally walked into your home while he’s mid-apology for the mistake. 

None of this is legal advice and you should do your own research on relevant state laws and, if necessary or possible, consult with a qualified attorney. 

(Visited 71 times, 1 visits today)

2nd Amendment

Forces of Freedom Push Back Against National Red Flag Laws


The upcoming visit of Vice President Kamala Harris to Florida isn’t just a routine affair; it’s a strategic move to promote yet another assault on our constitutional rights by the Biden administration. The so-called National Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) Resource Center, presented as a tool to prevent violence, is actually a thinly veiled attack on the Second Amendment. Let’s delve into why conservative voices and Republicans are vehemently opposing this Orwellian initiative.

A Closer Look at ERPOs: A Conservative Stand for Freedom

Under the guise of preventing harm, ERPOs grant authorities the power to strip individuals of their firearms based on vague and subjective criteria. Modeled after domestic violence protection orders, these laws trample on the rights of law-abiding citizens, eroding the very foundation of our freedoms.

Erosion of Due Process: A Fundamental Concern for Conservatives

At the heart of conservative values lies a steadfast commitment to due process and the rule of law. ERPOs flagrantly disregard these principles, allowing for the seizure of firearms based on mere allegations, often without the opportunity for the accused to defend themselves in court. This erosion of due process sets a dangerous precedent that conservatives cannot abide by.

Targeting Law-Abiding Citizens: Conservative Opposition

Despite claims of targeting individuals deemed a threat, ERPOs have the potential to be weaponized against law-abiding citizens. By exploiting vague criteria and subjective judgments, authorities can effectively disarm individuals without just cause, infringing upon their constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Conservatives recognize this blatant overreach and refuse to stand idly by as their rights are trampled upon.

A Federal Overreach: Conservative Concerns

Conservatives staunchly oppose the creation of the National ERPO Resource Center as a blatant overreach of federal authority. This centralized bureaucracy threatens to undermine the sovereignty of states and the rights of their citizens. Conservatives believe in the principles of limited government and federalism, and they refuse to allow the federal government to dictate firearm policies that should be left to the states and local communities.

Resistance from the Right: Conservative Leaders Speak Out

Republican leaders have been at the forefront of the opposition to this Orwellian initiative. Voices like Reps. Thomas Massie and Marjorie Taylor Greene have sounded the alarm, urging Americans to resist this assault on their freedoms. Conservatives across the country are uniting to defend the Second Amendment and push back against the Biden administration’s agenda.

Conservatives understand that the true path to safety lies not in surrendering our rights but in upholding the principles of liberty and justice for all. The Biden administration’s relentless pursuit of gun control measures is an affront to these principles, and conservatives will continue to stand united against any encroachment on our freedoms. It’s time to reaffirm our commitment to the Constitution and reject any attempts to erode our Second Amendment rights.

What do you think of the push for national red flag laws? Leave your thoughts in the comments below. 

Continue Reading

2nd Amendment

Federal Judge Rules Second Amendment Protects Gun Rights of Illegals


In a groundbreaking decision, U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman of Illinois has ruled that the Constitution extends Second Amendment protections to illegal aliens who enter the United States illegally. The ruling comes in response to a case involving defendant Heriberto Carbajal-Flores, challenging a federal prohibition on illegal aliens owning firearms.

Constitutional Protection for Second Amendment Rights

Judge Coleman’s ruling, delivered on Friday, asserts that while there exists a federal ban on illegal immigrants possessing firearms, this prohibition is unconstitutional as applied to Carbajal-Flores. Despite the federal law being deemed “facially constitutional,” the court found that there is no historical basis for firearm regulation that justifies denying Second Amendment rights to noncitizens who have not been convicted of violent crimes.

Judge Coleman stated that the statute violates the Second Amendment. Consequently, the court granted Carbajal-Flores’ motion to dismiss the charges against him.

Legal Precedent and Constitutional Interpretation

In reaching her decision, Judge Coleman referenced the landmark Supreme Court ruling on Second Amendment rights, emphasizing the absence of a historical tradition allowing the government to deprive noncitizens of their constitutional right to bear arms. This interpretation underscores the fundamental principle that the Second Amendment applies not only to citizens but also to noncitizens residing within the United States.

Implications and Future Proceedings

The ruling by Judge Coleman carries significant implications for the legal landscape surrounding gun rights and immigration. By affirming that the Second Amendment protects the rights of non-citizens, the decision challenges existing federal laws and sets a precedent for future cases involving similar circumstances.

Moving forward, the decision is likely to spark debates and legal challenges regarding the intersection of immigration status and constitutional rights. As the case progresses, it will be closely monitored by legal experts, advocacy groups, and policymakers alike, shaping the ongoing discourse on gun rights and immigration policies in the United States.


Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman’s ruling represents a significant development in the ongoing debate over Second Amendment rights and immigration laws. By affirming that noncitizens, including those who enter the country illegally, are entitled to constitutional protections, the decision highlights the importance of upholding fundamental rights regardless of citizenship status. As the legal proceedings continue, the implications of this ruling will reverberate throughout the legal and political spheres, shaping future policies and interpretations concerning gun rights and immigration in the United States.

What do you think of the federal court’s ruling? Leave your thoughts in the comments below. 

Continue Reading

2nd Amendment

South Carolina Embraces Permitless Carry: Strengthening Second Amendment Rights


In a resounding affirmation of Second Amendment principles, South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster has signed permitless carry into law, making it the second Republican-led state in as many days to adopt constitutional carry gun laws.

Governor McMaster’s Stance on Permitless Carry

Governor McMaster hailed the new legislation as a crucial step towards enhancing public safety and ensuring that law enforcement agencies possess the necessary tools to combat illegal gun use and possession by criminals. Speaking on the significance of the law, Governor McMaster emphasized its role in enabling law enforcement, prosecutors, and judges to keep career violent offenders behind bars, thereby safeguarding innocent South Carolinians from harm.

The NRA-Backed Bill: Key Provisions


Backed by the National Rifle Association (NRA), the permitless carry bill allows eligible citizens aged 18 and older to carry a firearm in public without the need to obtain approval and a permit from the government. This legislation represents a significant departure from the previous regulatory framework, which required individuals to undergo a permitting process before carrying a firearm in public spaces.

Bolstering Public Safety

Proponents of permitless carry argue that it enhances public safety by empowering law-abiding citizens to exercise their inherent right to self-defense without bureaucratic impediments. By removing the requirement for a government-issued permit, permitless carry ensures that individuals can protect themselves and their loved ones promptly in critical situations.

Legislative Approval and Support


The bill garnered substantial support in both chambers of the South Carolina legislature, with the state Senate passing the legislation in a 28-18 vote and the state House approving it with a vote of 86-33. This bipartisan support underscores the broad consensus among lawmakers regarding the importance of upholding Second Amendment rights and promoting individual freedoms.

Addressing Concerns and Misconceptions

Critics of permitless carry have raised concerns regarding potential risks associated with expanded firearm access. However, proponents assert that responsible firearm ownership, coupled with stringent penalties for criminal misuse, mitigates these concerns and promotes a safer environment for all citizens.

South Carolina’s embrace of permitless carry represents a significant victory for proponents of Second Amendment rights and individual liberties. By enacting legislation that empowers law-abiding citizens to exercise their inherent right to bear arms, South Carolina reinforces its commitment to upholding the principles enshrined in the United States Constitution. As the national discourse on gun laws continues to evolve, the passage of permitless carry in South Carolina serves as a beacon of hope for those who champion individual freedoms and the preservation of constitutional rights.

Leave your thoughts about the victory of the Second Amendment in South Carolina in the comments below. 

Continue Reading


Copyright © 2024 Guncountry. All Rights Reserved