Frequently the name bestowed on something reveals much about those doing the naming.

Officially it's House Bill 1319 and the description is "a bill for an act … relating to the use of and liability for deadly force …"

Those who like the bill call it the "stand your ground bill" or the "shoot first" provision. A bit more neutral but still with connotations is the "castle doctrine bill." One's home is one's castle - home and family are entitled to security, even if it means employing the fiercest defense.

"The deadly force bill." That term may not indicate total opposition but certainly means that those who call it that are soberly aware of what's at stake.

Ultimately it can be a matter of legally killing someone in self-defense, defense of others, even killing an intruder in a workplace or one posing a threat to the occupant of a vehicle.

But current law in the Century Code already recognizes that the use of deadly force may be justifiable and legal.

The proposal to alter the law, having passed in the House and now lodged in a Senate committee, is faulty. It's not needed. It's a solution that creates its own problem.

Law enforcement people generally have come out in strenuous opposition. So have prosecuting attorneys.

The fundamental flaw - not much the focus of debate in the House - is that the proposal would create prior immunity, also called indemnity, for an act that may or may not be a crime. Prior immunity tends to be bad law.

If a gun-wielding citizen reacts to a situation of dire conflict, perhaps a rapidly escalating one, with the feeling that he or she has the permission and protection of the law to draw down and kill someone, without even trying to avoid the action in any way, that's dangerous.

Yes, the law would continue to say that he or she "is not justified in using more force than is necessary and appropriate under the circumstances." But that's from current law. No change needed.

The issue is how much a shooter feels the state sanctions and protects a free and quick trigger finger. The proposal says the user of deadly force may not be arrested by law enforcement unless it's determined there's probable cause that the permissions of Section 12 were violated.

Who's going to review Section 12 of the Century Code mentally before pulling the trigger - if the law is changed or, for that matter, as it stands now? Come on, none of us. But now we have to take responsibility afterward. If the proponents get their way, there's also the bonus of immunity from civil suit.

That is horribly out of character in a country of laws.

North Dakota isn't Florida, thank heavens. People don't get prosecuted here for using deadly force in legitimate self-defense. State's attorneys are not that overzealous.

Florida was the first state to pass a shoot-first law designed by the National Rifle Association. It already has had effect. Police in Clearwater could not arrest a man who fatally shot his neighbor after an argument over how many bags of garbage the neighbor had put out to be hauled off. Garbage, a fight and a dead man.

Colorado and several other states have adopted laws modeled on Florida's, and the NRA wants the law in every state. Montana legislators are struggling with the issue right now. You can't call Montanans gun-control nuts. Neither are North Dakotans.

But we don't need a "Make My Day" law like Colorado's. Our senators should reject HB1319 decisively.