Concealed Weapons Good Or Bad?

Docsknotinn · Jan 14, 2004

Yes that is correct /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif I don't know how many times I watched that movie before that finally sunk in ( duh) lol.
Carrying a gun, concealed or not, hunting or shooting clays brings a great deal of responsibility. I should always hope all who partake observe the laws. I really believe the vast majority do. No doubt we have slobs and idiots but I see far more of those every time I drive than at the range or in the woods. Not really any quick or easy answers on my part. I have to respect Tres Crows opinion. I mean he is just straight up about his comfort level. Clearly there are many who have the same beliefs. For myself I have never been a hand gun fan. My wife owns several and has a concealed permit. She has a valid reason to carry. I do not so I just avoid the hassle. My only fear is that of progressive enforcement until we reach the point we have no rights left. I think there are many others like me. We are more staunch simply do to fears of loosing our right to hunt or enjoy the shooting sports. I guess my core belief is that we can not govern our selves into being kind, courteous good citizens. That has to be a conscious choice to be a good citizen. Dave

TresCrows · Jan 15, 2004

Someone mentioned Open Range the movie. Yep, it was good /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif, looking forward to getting it on DVD. I cannot say how many times I have watched Quigly Down Under and Tombstone. Probably almost as much as the Sienfeld reruns /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif. Those idiots are probably examples of persons who we would not want to be owning guns /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif.

(Johnny Ringo---)I ain't got no quarrel with you Doc. (Doc---) I beg to differ Jonny Ringo, we started something that needs to be finished. Well allright then, lunger, let's do it.

You know, what is amazing about the whole story and the movie is how very close to what really happened it really is. It does not have anything to do with guns but I have to recommend the movie Seabiscuit. I suggest if you are lacking something to do some rainy afternoon watch these movies---Black Stallion, Return of the Black Stallion, Horse Whisperer and then follow up with Seabiscuit and the Seabuiscuit documentary. Also based on a true story is the soon to be released movie "Hildalgo" . Might be good. J

r0GuE · Jan 15, 2004

( I watched about a 1/2 hour of Pulp Fiction and I thought it was a piece of crap,some of the worse language I have ever heard in a film,the movie went nowhere. )

I was in Seattle waiting to take the red eye back east. My flight didn't leave until 11ish. I bought tickets to Pulp Fiction and some Star Treck thing that was Premiering out there (there were people dressed up and everything!). So I went in to Pulp and watched almost the whole thing, but I felt 20 minutes early so I didn't miss the Star Treck. Well.. The whole flight home I just kept thinking about Pulp and wondering what it was all about. That Saturday it opened locally and I went to see it. After watching the WHOLE thing, it made sense. It is really a time wrapped last thing first kind of thing. A really neat movie. The language is atrocious, but that is what it is supposed to be.

Favorite Lines:
Get the gimp
Neds dead baby
and all time favorite...
"Do you see a sign outside that says bring dead n-word here!!"
Quinten played a great psuedo gangster. Half in the life and half suburban house husband. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Docsknotinn · Jan 15, 2004

That movie reminds me of Fargo in way. Its sort or "artsy" and you have to watch it several times to begin to appreciate it....or at least I did. Dave

fivestring · Jan 15, 2004

"A law abiding gun owner wears his .22 in a hip holster for all to see, and some kid in the walmart parking lot says "MAMA that man has a gun!" The mama is distraught, and afraid for her and her kid. The gun owner has no intention or any wrong doing, but he has just terrorized the public. (just an example) " 

Not true. As one that enforces the above law in NC, the law is clear that the person has to have the "intent" to terrorize the public. Your scenerio does not show that he intended to terroroze the public. His intent was only to conduct his business.
Now, if the same person were to continually walk back and forth or anything else to DRAW ATTENTION to the fact that he had a gun, an inference of intent is there.
As an instructor, please first instruct your students the definition of intent. Most of our laws are based on intent.

"In NC the only reason to draw your weapon is to defend yourself against an attack that cannot be avoided and is an attack that uses deadly force." 

Not true.

The law clearly states to defend yourself OR a third person from an attack OR IMINENT attack.

"Also, in NC the act of pointing a gun at a person, be it loaded or not is defined as assualt with a deadly weapon." 

Not true.

Police point their guns at people EVERY day. There is no exception built into the law for that.
A person can point a gun at someone in self-defense and not be charged with a crime.

Again, if you are an instructor, I wish that you would instruct the TRUTH, not your personal agenda. I'm sure that others have seen this in your reply, also.

RanchMan · Jan 15, 2004

I'm not familiar with NC law, but you bring up an interesting and very important point - if somewhat indirectly: That people should consider their source before they take it as gospel and even better yet (my spin now) read the laws of their State/Community themselves - after all - that's where the "rubber meets the road."

Although there are certainly those who are learned on the various laws, someone reading something written or something stated by someone else takes a risk if they take it at face value - regardless of the source - i.e. those educated and familiar with the law don't always agree.

A good example of this was on another thread on TBN where someone stated that a Texas Sheriff & deputy gave the advise to drag the "bad guy" in to the home if you shot him along with incorrect info on what justified "deadly force." Needless to say, I was VERY upset at this because this idiot of a Sheriff and his sidekick gave REALLLLY bad advise. (and I don't buy that "we do things differently 'round here" argument he may have brought up - the prosecutor won't necessarily see it that way.)

That was just an isolated example as most law enforcement folks I know have more familiarity with the law - but - again, regardless of source, it behooves the individual to educate themselves by reading the words as they are written as that "friendly advise" (be it from a neighbor, a brother, etc.) may be a snootfull of trouble.

Bird · Jan 15, 2004

( read the laws of their State/Community themselves )

True, but even that sometimes is not enough. It helps if you can get the legislative notes and read the discussion that preceeded passing the statute in question. And it especially helps if you can read the case law on the topic; i.e., see how the courts have interpreted it.

For example, a Texas statute, for many years prior to 1974, prohibited carrying a "pistol, dirk, dagger ". . .(and several other weapons) "on or about" your "person, saddlebags, or portfolio" unless you were "traveling". Now the question frequently arose as to how far ya gotta go to be travelin'. /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif And if you go back and read up on the case law, you'll find the definition of "traveling" changed over the years. At one time, some courts decided if you were going to leave your home county, that qualified. Later, they gravitated to the idea that you were "traveling" only if you were going far enough to be away from home overnight. So . . ., OK, now you're going to be away overnight and then the question arose as to how much of the time and/or where could you carry that pistol. I recall one case in which a fellow left home in Dallas with his pistol, went to Austin and checked into a hotel (or motel), then went out that night and got arrested for carrying his pistol. His defense was that he was traveling. The trial court (upheld by the appeals court) said he was OK going to and from Dallas, but once he checked into that hotel in Austin, he should have left the pistol there; he wasn't "traveling" when he got arrested. /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Now when I started on the police department, we were told in the academy that if we found someone carrying a pistol "you put him in jail and let him prove he meets the exception." /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

And, Ranchman, I guess you know that prior to the new penal code in 1974, it was a felony in Texas to seduce an unmarried female under the age of 25 by promise of marriage. After prosecution began, it was a defense if you agreed to marry her, but even if you got married, you could still be prosecuted if you got a divorce within two years through no fault of hers. /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif Now I figured there had probably been few, if any, cases under that statute, but if you'd like to read some hilarious stories, go to a law library and read some of the cases that made it to the appeals court. /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

OhioTC18 · Jan 15, 2004

Bird,
That's what was wrong with Ohio's laws. You had to PROVE you met the exception to carry a weapon. Not degrading any law enforcement person at all here (after all I was there myself at one time). Costs ran into the hundreds of thousands for some individuals to prove they met the exceptions to the law legally. Known as an "affirmative defense" law.

RanchMan · Jan 15, 2004

All excellent points, Bird. /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif

dmccarty · Jan 15, 2004

RanchMan,

Not only does one need to look at the statutes AND the case law
they danged well better THINK about what the law says. Just
because the law says you can you deadly force in a given
situation it does not mean one SHOULD.

As was mentioned previously, NC law as I have been taught,
and I'm pretty sure its in one of the videos used in CCW
classes, says that one can use deadly force when someone is
trying to kick in your door to gain entry to your house. BUT
once they are inside you have to reevaluate if they are still
a threat such that deadly force can be used.

I tell you right now I am NOT shooting at anyone kicking in
my door. Not doing it. I don't think that law is right and it
would open one up to certainly civil if not criminal action.

Years ago in South Florida a man used deadly force against
a thief. The thief was caught running out of the front door
carrying the home owners tv. The home owner ran after the
thief and fired a couple of .380 rounds at the bad guy. The
pistol was junk and when fired would throw the round left or
right but never straight. Well, the homeowner got "lucky" and
hit the thief who was killed.

Now, Florida law at the time allowed the use of deadly force
to stop a murder, kidnapping, burglary, rape, prison escape
and act of treason. So the homeowner was legally correct in
using deadly force. The DA took him to court. Eventually the
man was acquited but he paid a fortune in legal fees. I hope
the home owner really like that old TV cause it cost him a
fortune.

Just because the law says you can, does not mean one should.

I can think of a couple more cases like this ....

If anyone is going to possess a firearm for self defense take a
course self defense law and CCW classes are great for this and
think about scenarios and what ifs before they happen.
Hopefully the bad things won't happen but one will be much
better off if one has thought things through and not just
reacting.....

Later,
Dan McCarty