Maine’s legislature held a public hearing on Monday for a bill from Rep. Chad Perkins (R-Dover-Foxcroft) that would expand Mainers’ right to self-defense, removing requirements for potential victims to either retreat or surrender property before defending themselves.

“Removal of the duty to retreat is not new, it’s not radical, and it surely is not without precedent,” said Rep. Perkins, presenting his bill to the Committee on Criminal Justice and Public Safety.

“Duty to retreat laws subordinate the liberty interests of the law abiding person to the wishes of unlawful actors,” he added.

Perkins supported his position with citations from multiple court cases, including the 1877 Runyan v. State case, in which the Indiana Supreme Court ruled that no law could require a duty to retreat because the right to self-defense is founded in natural law.

“The (Indiana) court wrote that the ability to stand and defend oneself was founded on the law of nature, and was not, nor can it be, superseded by any law of society,” said Perkins.

He also pointed to two U.S. Supreme Court cases, Brown v. United States and Beard v. United States, that appeared to contradict duty-to-retreat laws.

Perkins argued that the current duty-to-retreat laws could be used to compel other actions from the victim, such as requiring them to comply with commands to “stay here or I will kill you.” If a victim ignores the command and defends himself with deadly force, he could possibly face prosecution.

Maine is one of only 12 states that currently impose a duty to retreat on victims in a self-defense scenario, Perkins said. Those states include New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Delaware, Connecticut, Maryland, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, Hawaii, and Wisconsin.

The duty to retreat itself increases the risk of harm or death for the victim, Perkins reasoned, because, under the current law, the individual in danger would be forced to decide whether they can retreat or not, preventing them from reacting quickly to a threat.

Numerous members of the public and organizations testified on the bill. While a few testified in favor, the vast majority opposed it, often claiming that it would lead to an increase in killings and endanger police officers executing no-knock warrants.

Many opponents of the bill suggested that repealing duty-to-retreat laws would grant homeowners an absolute right to open fire on anyone simply knocking on their door, with no provocation whatsoever.

“Should he [her grandson] be a Cub Scout, I expect he’ll ask me why we can’t knock on people’s doors to ask them to buy Cub Scout popcorn. How sad that I may have to answer ‘because it is not safe’ even as I’m thinking ‘because Maine lawmakers gave them the right to shoot you, no questions asked,” said Margot Donnis of South Portland.

Despite the scenarios raised by Donnis and others, the bill would only apply in self-defense situations, when someone is facing a credible threat, and would not impose an unrestricted open season on door-to-door salesmen or Girl Scouts selling cookies.

The Maine branch of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)—a prominent, often liberal advocacy group—joined Donnis in opposing Perkins’ bill.

“Such a law would likely lead to increases in vigilante justice, loss of due process, and a rise in racial disparities when juries determine who is entitled to a Stand Your Ground defense. We urge you to reject this bill,” said the ACLU in its written testimony.

“The racial justice implications of Stand Your Ground laws are so severe that in its report on violence against African Americans in the United States, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights included Stand Your Ground laws as laws that should be eradicated,” the ACLU added.

The Maine chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) also opposed the bill, suggesting that it would somehow pose a danger to children.

“In Florida, the Stand Your Ground law has had the largest negative impact on neighborhoods that initially had the lowest homicide rates before the law took effect,” said the AAP.

“To protect the lives of Maine children and adolescents, and to keep our communities safe environments where children can grow and thrive, the Maine AAP urges the committee to vote ‘Ought Not to Pass,’” the group added.

A few Mainers, such as Richard Ples of Mount Vernon, broke with the majority of those testifying and supported the bill.

“Why should anyone be forced to run from a threat if they’re cornered and have no viable means of escape? Why should anyone be forced to retreat into danger, putting their own lives at greater risk,” asked Ples.

“Mainers should never be forced to choose between becoming a victim or being prosecuted for defending themselves,” he added.

“This is common sense legislation. In the split second a person is threatened with severe bodily harm or death, tries to reason whether they can safely escape the threat or not, that inaction may cause their death. Which will make more victims in this state,” said Simon Cavilla of Skowhegan.

The bill, LD 486, drew support from nine Republican co-sponsors. The fiscal note suggested that it will accrue minor savings along with a minor revenue decrease.

As written, the bill does not add any new language to existing law but simply strikes provisions requiring someone in a self-defense situation to retreat if that can be done safely and removes the requirement for a victim to heed demands to refrain from some lawful action if threatened.

No work session has yet been scheduled for the bill.