Missouri State Representative Randy Dunn has proposed House Bill 1940 which is intended to modify the current state statute commonly referred to as the Castle Doctrine, specifically 563.031, RSMo. The proposed bill was analyzed in conjunction with the proposition set to be voted upon by the house and senate later this year. One significant change to the Castle Doctrine imposes a duty to withdraw or retreat from the location where the doctrine is invoked. The other major change includes opening up civil liability to anyone who invokes this doctrine. While the bill expands on a fairly ambiguous concept, it runs the risk of subjecting common citizens to scrutiny of the law typically reserved for law enforcement professionals. Missouri Representative Randy Dunn has sponsored a proposed change (HB 1940) to the current Castle Doctrine as represented in part by 563.031, RSMo (2007). The Castle Doctrine as it currently stands allow Missouri residents the ability to defend themselves in their dwelling, residence or vehicle with force up to and including the use of lethal force. This use of force is based upon self-defense against a person imposing or threatening to impose physical force or violence against the resident. Residents protected by this doctrine have rights under this provision against civil and criminal scrutiny. House Bill 1940 proposes clarification to what constitutes a last resort for residents placed in a situation of potentially invoking the Castle Doctrine. This clarification includes that, whenever possible, there has to be an effort to evacuate, escape or evade the threat posed within the dwelling, residence or vehicle. It continues to place the burden of justification upon the resident utilizing force to provide adequate defense to his or her actions as the current doctrine does, but this doctrine may still be subject to civil suit even if legally invoked. This bill was originally developed in response to concerns arising from legal ambiguity in other states such as the Florida case involving the infamous Stand Your Ground law. This law came under nation-wide scrutiny after a highly-protested decision where, during discussion of Stand Your Ground, George Zimmerman was acquitted for murder charges after fatally shooting Trayvon Martin in 2012. This proposed bill will likely be influenced by a myriad of organizations but the biggest influencing organization likely would not be classified as a true special interest group. That impact would by way of resistance from the Tea Party, a conservative group based on grass-roots constitutionalism. The idea of Tea Party opposition is based on their overall conservative views that base gun rights for self-protection as a constitutional cornerstone. It has the potential to catch resistance from the National Rifle Association as well for its implied limitations on the use of firearms in home defense. Some of that resistance has already come from within the house. Representative Joe McGaugh has already filed a bill (HB 2126) that would not only combat HB 1940, but also further extend rights and protection under the Castle Doctrine to certain authorized persons given authority by the homeowner. HB 1940 contains key concepts that are imperative to any use of deadly force; that is, it is a last resort use of force. This concept was not overly clarified in the original text and left considerable room for interpretation. It also allowed that intruders who were attempting to disengage were still subject to lethal force covered by this doctrine. Conceptually, it prevents ambush tactics and emphasizes that all efforts to prevent the taking of life have been expended. If it is proven that the resident was placed in imminent danger, it is the burden of the state to prove it unlawful. HB 1940 subjects residents to application of force only after they attempt to evade the home and safe shelter that they had previously been able to defend. That implies that a homeowner should simply get up and leave when an intruder enters the home and allow him or herself to immediately become victims. This surrender of protective domain may open additional opportunities for the resident to be further victimized. It eases the burden of the intruder and provides additional legal protection to the intruder. Passage of this bill opens the resident up to civil liabilities that, at a minimum, can cause further victimization or, in more extreme circumstances, may make them hesitate in a critical situation when timing is essential. The current doctrine may be lacking in structure and interpretation, but the passage of HB 1940 is detrimental to the welfare of society. It deprives the rights of law-abiding citizens to feel secure in their homes and effects. Protection under the Castle Doctrine should not mean that upon intrusion, owners should abandon their castle. This bill has rightfully met with abrupt criticism and scrutiny.