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.

Taurus Judge & Lawsuits

ruger41ruger41 Member Posts: 14,665 ✭✭✭✭
edited August 2007 in Gun Rights and Constitutional Law
I was in a gun shop yesterday looking at a future carry piece. I moved out of the Peoples Republic of California where getting a CCW is difficult to obtain in most of the state and now live in WA where it is a shall issue place. Next to a S&W 442 which is what I want to get was a Taurus Judge in .410/.45 Colt(which was illegal to own in CA since it is viewd as a sawed off shotgun there)and I thought to myself hmm this might be a nice gun to pack in the car-at close range a couple of rounds of birdshot is unlikely to go through a bad guy and into a crowd. But then I thought it would be just my luck that I'd shoot the guy with a .410 round and instead of killing him, a pellet would find itself into an eye blinding him-which in turn i KNOW said bad guy will find a lawyer to take the case that I was malicious to him by intentionally blinding him eventhough he was trying to end my life first. I know I could get that revolver and only pack .45 Colt rounds in it, but I was also thinking of it for my wife to use in a close range situation. Just curious what you guys think?
· Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Comments

  • WoundedWolfWoundedWolf Member Posts: 1,658 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Hmm, maybe we need a hybrid forum, "Ask the Gun Rights and Constitutional Law Experts".
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • ruger41ruger41 Member Posts: 14,665 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I guess I shouldn't worry about what MIGHT happen but I've read so many stories about people involved in a clean shooting but still get sued by the dead guys relatives-this often happens to cops. I suppose it's better to be alive and worry about a lawsuit later lol
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • WoundedWolfWoundedWolf Member Posts: 1,658 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    There is a saying, "Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6."
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • pickenuppickenup Member Posts: 22,844 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    The scenario you laid out, is a very real concern. In most of the country, if you shoot someone while protecting yourself (or loved ones) you could end up spending a LOT on legal fees. Up to and including, enough to loose your house, etc.

    Many states are enacting a "Castle Doctrine" type of law. Which basically means you can "stand your ground" and do not have to retreat if threatened. (with limitations) Further, many have a clause that protects you from prosecution for shooting the bad guy.

    I don't know about your state, but I don't think it does....yet.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • jpwolfjpwolf Member Posts: 9,164
    edited November -1
    That's the case here in CO isn't it picken?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • ruger41ruger41 Member Posts: 14,665 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    WA is a Castle Doctrine state and at least from what I've been told by people here who have a CCW that you may stand your ground outside of the home if you are threatened as well. Thats the way it should be too. I think it's ridiculous that if your life is threatened by some thug that you have to exhaust all other options before you defend yourself. I belive Idaho is a Flight then Fight state-just silly.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • pickenuppickenup Member Posts: 22,844 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
    That's the case here in CO isn't it picken?

    Yup, Colorado has a Castle Doctrine law on the books.....now. [;)]

    I think it's CRAZY that they actually have to "pass a law" to allow you to protect yourself. But then, I've seen stranger things come out of our government.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
Sign In or Register to comment.