In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
This is another one of those situations that I think would benefit from having ONE and ONLY ONE statute that encompasses the entire nation, rather than this state-by-state mish-mash. In this state, you can do such-and-so, but in this OTHER state, you can do only thus-and-such....And on it goes. What we need is one clear law: If someone breaks into your home, back turned or no, weapon visible or no, he/she/it is fair game if he's inside. You have no idea if the intruder with his back to you isn't pulling out a weapon from the waistband of his pants, do you? And if you don't see anything in his hands right away, how do you know he's not going to pull something out if given the chance? He's forced his way into someone's home---if he was willing to do THAT, then why would anyone assume he wasn't prepared to go further?
Now, what to do about those two-legged predators who are OUTSIDE trying to get in? That, for me, is a bit more nebulous. I'd propose that, unless he/she/it is actively doing something that directly threatens you---like shooting through a window or wall, or trying to set your house on fire---then you can't simply blow them away, because you're inside the house and thus more "protected" from the possible threat. But that's just MY spin on it; I'm curious---how would the rest of YOU draft the law in this case, especially those of you who have had to deal with external intruders?
trstone one shoe does not fit all. Even here. The less federal involvement in our lives the better. I live up north were it is cold and the snow blows, but deal with federal agencies on a regular basis, and I would be concerned that the administration of this would be handed to some wonderfully politically correct person that came up through the ranks the federal way. I support state's rights.
The way that National Organizations handle this is go from state to state and get the state legislatures to pass laws that fit their purpose. Too bad there is not some proactive group that would set some hard fast rule, such as "If you are in a dwelling house and have made entry by breaking a lock or coming in other than invited through the front door, or if you enter at night uninvited,, you are presumed to be upon the premises to do lethal harm to the occupants."
NEVER...attempt too modify a shooting scene....this drag em in the house..is one of those urban legends...
Homicide dick will spot it right off.
If you life is in danger....stop it...matters not where the bad guys falls.
Yes, in CA the law says as long as a threat fitting certain criteria exists, you can shoot to kill. If Johnny * drops the piece and gives up, better make sure the blood splatter pattern is wiped off his piece before calling it in[;)].
My wife is instructed not to retreat out the back door. You never know who is out that exit. And a rreasonable jury would agree. I'll bet half the little old ladies have a revolver in the purse in these parts.
If I was hanging at my friend's store miles from any other store, and some creep made a grab for the friend's 19 yr. old daughter with intent to kidnap or worse, we'd drop him in a heartbeat and bury the slime-head out on the back 25 acres. End of story. And never talk about it again.
I can identify with that 'mental log'..as the years roll on,incidents ever grow. However..without the 'facts'..i.e.,actual incidents..the status quo supporter will not accept your critisism of the system.
Then..even if you do get the facts..a goodly share of folks still will not accept them.
A case in point..for illustrative purposes only,(not trying to start a fight here) when I started hammering the NRA here on this board..I was dealing mostly from memory..and had a weak case.
Then Josey1 went digging somewhere..and found information I never even knew..and I have been watching for a looooong time.He posted it on this board and made my case.
Many on this board will not even read the information..prefering to believe all is well.
As far as where the idea you asked about came from....It comes from the power-mad.They have a vested interest in making dang sure they alone have the power to protect you..that makes you dependent.
I believe the CCW movement has much darker roots then giving you the power to protect yourself.
Plains Scout: I'm in wholehearted agreement about keeping the Feds out of our lives as much as possible, but I have to respectfully dissent with one shoe not fitting all in this instance; I can't see how law-abiding citizens everywhere WOULDN'T benefit from having a consistent set of "rules of engagement" from one state to the next. One simple, pro-occupant, anti-thug set of rules that you don't need to worry about modifying if you move into another state.
What is it my dear old dad tells me? "I'd rather be judged by a jury than carried by pallbearers."
"...hit your enemy in the belly, and kick him when he is down, and boil his prisoners in oil- if you take any- and torture his women and children. Then people will keep clear of you..." -Admiral of the Fleet Lord Fisher, speaking at the Hague Peace Conf
Some great and interesting responses from a lot of people and I thank you for it. Just remembered possibly one almost personal example of how you have to be careful in using force against the bad guys. I was working armored transportation night shift in K.C. and we had only two routes out. It was about 10:30 PM on a Friday night and my partner and I were in the Northern part of the Metro K.C. area. Our company dispatcher had gone home and the only communciation each route had was two-way radio from vehicle to vehicle or stop and use a pay phone (this was 1990 and cell phones weren't verywhere as now). The other route was out in the Southern edge of the metro K.C. area and suddenly my partner and I received a frantic call from the other route (a good friend of mine) yelling they were being held up. As it turns out, that route had just picked up a bank deposit from the Glenwood theather on Metcalf and headed to the bank to make a night deposit. When the courier got out of the truck to access the night bank drop, a 21 year old Westport bartender jumped out of the bushes with a rubber vampire Hollween mask on and a loaded 9mm semi-auto pistol and came after the courier. The courier was caught by surprise and in an attempt to get away, started "dancing" backwards away from the robber. Therobber followed and just as the robber's pistol was being brought up into a firing mode, the courier drew and fired (still dancing backward) his .38 special revolver and shot robber in the middle of his forehead effectively killing the robber instantely. (I truely believe that under stress, you wil shoot and hit wwhat you are looking at). So even with all this agression on the part of the robber, both driver and courier were taken to the Overland Park Police Station and questioned for several hours. But the part of the story and the reason for me telling this is that the police kept the courier's revolver. And when he got it back it was disassembled. My feeling is that if the police had found that, for example, the courier had filed the trigger to be a "hair" trigger the courier might have been in trouble with the police because they would claim that he accidently shot the robber. Why else would the police disassemble his revolver other than to try and find fault with the gun or the courier?
When guns were invented everything changed. For the first time in the history of the world a frail woman had a chance to sucessfully defend herself and home. My dream is that one of the anti-gun nuts will need a gun for defense and be unable to have one because of their own actions.
Comments
Now, what to do about those two-legged predators who are OUTSIDE trying to get in? That, for me, is a bit more nebulous. I'd propose that, unless he/she/it is actively doing something that directly threatens you---like shooting through a window or wall, or trying to set your house on fire---then you can't simply blow them away, because you're inside the house and thus more "protected" from the possible threat. But that's just MY spin on it; I'm curious---how would the rest of YOU draft the law in this case, especially those of you who have had to deal with external intruders?
The way that National Organizations handle this is go from state to state and get the state legislatures to pass laws that fit their purpose. Too bad there is not some proactive group that would set some hard fast rule, such as "If you are in a dwelling house and have made entry by breaking a lock or coming in other than invited through the front door, or if you enter at night uninvited,, you are presumed to be upon the premises to do lethal harm to the occupants."
Homicide dick will spot it right off.
If you life is in danger....stop it...matters not where the bad guys falls.
My wife is instructed not to retreat out the back door. You never know who is out that exit. And a rreasonable jury would agree. I'll bet half the little old ladies have a revolver in the purse in these parts.
If I was hanging at my friend's store miles from any other store, and some creep made a grab for the friend's 19 yr. old daughter with intent to kidnap or worse, we'd drop him in a heartbeat and bury the slime-head out on the back 25 acres. End of story. And never talk about it again.
I can identify with that 'mental log'..as the years roll on,incidents ever grow. However..without the 'facts'..i.e.,actual incidents..the status quo supporter will not accept your critisism of the system.
Then..even if you do get the facts..a goodly share of folks still will not accept them.
A case in point..for illustrative purposes only,(not trying to start a fight here) when I started hammering the NRA here on this board..I was dealing mostly from memory..and had a weak case.
Then Josey1 went digging somewhere..and found information I never even knew..and I have been watching for a looooong time.He posted it on this board and made my case.
Many on this board will not even read the information..prefering to believe all is well.
As far as where the idea you asked about came from....It comes from the power-mad.They have a vested interest in making dang sure they alone have the power to protect you..that makes you dependent.
I believe the CCW movement has much darker roots then giving you the power to protect yourself.
God,Guts,& GunsHave we lost all 3 ??
Jon
"...hit your enemy in the belly, and kick him when he is down, and boil his prisoners in oil- if you take any- and torture his women and children. Then people will keep clear of you..." -Admiral of the Fleet Lord Fisher, speaking at the Hague Peace Conf
When guns were invented everything changed. For the first time in the history of the world a frail woman had a chance to sucessfully defend herself and home. My dream is that one of the anti-gun nuts will need a gun for defense and be unable to have one because of their own actions.