The following dialogue is from Dan Rather Reports.

Marion Hammer, executive director of Unified Sportsmen of Florida, representative of the Florida chapter of the NRA: When you are prosecuting law-abiding people for defending themselves against criminals, it’s wrong and it has to be fixed. And the castle doctrine laws fixed that.

Gregory Hicks, an attorney in Warren City, Florida:

I believe in protecting one’s property. I believe in the fact that your home is your castle. But I don’t believe you have the right to use that kind of deadly force on a prank. I’m sorry, that’s not the way an ordered society acts.

Dan Rather: To shoot or not to shoot? For even the most seasoned police officer, it’s the ultimate dilemma. A split-second choice that could prevent a violent crime or be a fatal mistake. But it’s no longer just police who are deciding whether or not to pull the trigger. There’s a new breed of laws that’s expanding the rights of civilians to use deadly force. They are called the “castle doctrine” laws, and since 2005, they’ve been passed or proposed in more than 35 states.

The new laws are not about the right to bear arms, but the right to use them. The National Rifle Association says the castle doctrine is restoring a tradition of self-defense that dates back to medieval England, when a man’s home was considered his castle. But others say these laws are ushering in a violent new era where civilians may have more freedom to use deadly force than even the police. (Rather 2009).

• After reading about the castle law cases in this section, would you say the new castle laws are a right to defend or a license to kill?