Cal44
Member
Here is California you don't need as many reloads as elsewhere because the bad guys are restricted to 10 round magazines.
CCW Nightmare: What Would I Do?
- Thread starter federali
- Start date
Here is California you don't need as many reloads as elsewhere because the bad guys are restricted to 10 round magazines.
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2006
- Messages
- 19,517
- Reaction score
- 30,806
I hate to burst bubbles here, but it's NOT just NY & CA! Look across the entire Country and you can't deny the liberal (anti gun) swarm that has taken place over the last 50 years. Even though there are much friendlier places to live if you own a firearm than NY, CA or MA, the way the Anti's are doing it now is beyond legislation - they are using the Shame Game and pubic records disclosure tactics now. They are suspending grade school kids for drawing a picture of a gun, for pointing their hand like a gun etc. It is happening ALL OVER.
I therefore invite EVERY GUN OWNER to join the NRA or local Pro Gun Organizations instead of smugly setting in their (for the time being) gun friendly State and saying how they wouldn't live somewhere - because this is gonna be Nationwide NOT just in some places. We are al in the same boat Guys and Gals!
I therefore invite EVERY GUN OWNER to join the NRA or local Pro Gun Organizations instead of smugly setting in their (for the time being) gun friendly State and saying how they wouldn't live somewhere - because this is gonna be Nationwide NOT just in some places. We are al in the same boat Guys and Gals!
Last edited:
Shorty 45 MK2
Member
There's nothing romantic about drawing a gun on or shooting a person. I don't want to ever have to do either of those, but I want to live to see my family again more.
OP
federali
Absent Comrade
Massachusetts Follow-up
I suspected that a few well-meaning posters had responded with inaccurate information. Here's the Massachusetts law:
MA Castle Doctrine
The GOAL Staff receives many questions about Castle Doctrine in the state of MA. We hope this clears things up a bit. As always, GOAL Members are welcome to call the GOAL office with questions, 508-393-5333.
Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 278, Section 8(a): In the prosecution of a person who is an occupant of a dwelling charged with killing or injuring one who was unlawfully in said dwelling, it shall be a defense that the occupant was in his dwelling at the time of the offense and that he acted in the reasonable belief that the person unlawfully in said dwelling was about to inflict great bodily injury or death upon said occupant or upon another person lawfully in said dwelling, and that said occupant used reasonable means to defend himself or such other person lawfully in said dwelling. There shall be no duty on said occupant to retreat from such person unlawfully in said dwelling.
A couple of things to note:
Deadly Force: Force likely or intended to cause death or great bodily harm whether or not death actually occurs.
Self Defense: In general, the right to protect one’s person against an injury attempted by another. In MA the courts have taken the position that self defense using deadly force is justified only if the individual being attacked has a reasonable belief that he or she is in danger of death or serious bodily harm. Otherwise reasonable force (which is non lethal force such as fists) can be used to repel a non-lethal attack. However, as applies to castle doctrine, reasonable force is not protected and so therefore cannot be relied upon if someone enters your home and threatens you with only fists.
Dwelling: A place where an individual is temporarily or permanently residing. It has to be a permanent structure, your home, apartment, cottage, and under some circumstances can include a hotel/motel room. Note: a dwelling cannot be a motor home, tent, or boat because they are not permanent structures. Anyone using deadly force in one of these will not be protected by this law.
An ‘occupant’ is an individual who has some sort of possessory interest in the property, i.e. a tenant or owner.
If a criminal is unlawfully in your dwelling, and shows the intent to inflict serious bodily injury or death upon you or any other individual lawfully in your dwelling there is no duty of said occupant to retreat from the criminal unlawfully in that dwelling.
Please note: If the criminal intruder is not threatening death or serious bodily injury, the occupant will not be covered by this law and could be charged with murder or manslaughter for using deadly force against said criminal. To be protected by this law an occupant that is prosecuted for using deadly force has the burden of producing a claim of self-defense. Once the occupant shows proof it will be upon the prosecution to prove otherwise.
I suspected that a few well-meaning posters had responded with inaccurate information. Here's the Massachusetts law:
MA Castle Doctrine
The GOAL Staff receives many questions about Castle Doctrine in the state of MA. We hope this clears things up a bit. As always, GOAL Members are welcome to call the GOAL office with questions, 508-393-5333.
Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 278, Section 8(a): In the prosecution of a person who is an occupant of a dwelling charged with killing or injuring one who was unlawfully in said dwelling, it shall be a defense that the occupant was in his dwelling at the time of the offense and that he acted in the reasonable belief that the person unlawfully in said dwelling was about to inflict great bodily injury or death upon said occupant or upon another person lawfully in said dwelling, and that said occupant used reasonable means to defend himself or such other person lawfully in said dwelling. There shall be no duty on said occupant to retreat from such person unlawfully in said dwelling.
A couple of things to note:
Deadly Force: Force likely or intended to cause death or great bodily harm whether or not death actually occurs.
Self Defense: In general, the right to protect one’s person against an injury attempted by another. In MA the courts have taken the position that self defense using deadly force is justified only if the individual being attacked has a reasonable belief that he or she is in danger of death or serious bodily harm. Otherwise reasonable force (which is non lethal force such as fists) can be used to repel a non-lethal attack. However, as applies to castle doctrine, reasonable force is not protected and so therefore cannot be relied upon if someone enters your home and threatens you with only fists.
Dwelling: A place where an individual is temporarily or permanently residing. It has to be a permanent structure, your home, apartment, cottage, and under some circumstances can include a hotel/motel room. Note: a dwelling cannot be a motor home, tent, or boat because they are not permanent structures. Anyone using deadly force in one of these will not be protected by this law.
An ‘occupant’ is an individual who has some sort of possessory interest in the property, i.e. a tenant or owner.
If a criminal is unlawfully in your dwelling, and shows the intent to inflict serious bodily injury or death upon you or any other individual lawfully in your dwelling there is no duty of said occupant to retreat from the criminal unlawfully in that dwelling.
Please note: If the criminal intruder is not threatening death or serious bodily injury, the occupant will not be covered by this law and could be charged with murder or manslaughter for using deadly force against said criminal. To be protected by this law an occupant that is prosecuted for using deadly force has the burden of producing a claim of self-defense. Once the occupant shows proof it will be upon the prosecution to prove otherwise.
Harkrader
Member
With so many stores having security cameras we (in Wisconsin) have been able to see entire events. I think they are instructive for the armed person.
1. most transpire quickly. Time to think is very short. Many clerks are taught to open the cash register drawer and immediately leave, sometimes to a safe room.
2. defenders, such as the store clerk, often fire without significant - or any - effect on the robber. If the robber is armed, s/he fires to the rear while running. A very few actually face the clerk and aim. Hits are rare or not fatal.
3. most robbers want to get out quickly.
My - unofficial - observation is that how the robber dresses is not a good indication. Everyone, it seems, wears hoodies these days. Many robbers do not hide their faces.
Body language seems the most reliable, where the robber goes directly to the cash register without buying anything and appears agitated.
The first shooting in Wisconsin by a CCW-holder after the Wisconsin law was enacted, occurred very soon after passage. A young man and his wife were in an Aldi grocery store that was posted with anti-self-defense signs the young man said he did not see. The robbers went straight to a cash register, armed with a shotgun and handgun. They jumped the counter and screamed for people to submit. I don't know what caused one of the robbers to turn, but as he did he perceived the young man as a threat and began to swing his gun toward the man and his wife. Witnesses agree the young man THEN drew his gun and fired at the robbers, hitting one in the leg and ending the robbery.
The young man was not prosecuted and Aldi took down the anti-self-defense signs, at least for a while.
The wounded robbers' "family" then complained that he didn't deserve to be shot.
I'm retired everything. My plan is to 1: run; if unable, 2: hide; if unable, 3: shoot until the threat is over. Seeing as how the fascist Left wants to punish anyone brash enough to defend their lives against deadly criminals, I'm hoping to never put that plan to use.
To the people who say they are always in "condition yellow" when they go out, be sure to have a full stress test every couple years so you can see your heart attack coming.
1. most transpire quickly. Time to think is very short. Many clerks are taught to open the cash register drawer and immediately leave, sometimes to a safe room.
2. defenders, such as the store clerk, often fire without significant - or any - effect on the robber. If the robber is armed, s/he fires to the rear while running. A very few actually face the clerk and aim. Hits are rare or not fatal.
3. most robbers want to get out quickly.
My - unofficial - observation is that how the robber dresses is not a good indication. Everyone, it seems, wears hoodies these days. Many robbers do not hide their faces.
Body language seems the most reliable, where the robber goes directly to the cash register without buying anything and appears agitated.
The first shooting in Wisconsin by a CCW-holder after the Wisconsin law was enacted, occurred very soon after passage. A young man and his wife were in an Aldi grocery store that was posted with anti-self-defense signs the young man said he did not see. The robbers went straight to a cash register, armed with a shotgun and handgun. They jumped the counter and screamed for people to submit. I don't know what caused one of the robbers to turn, but as he did he perceived the young man as a threat and began to swing his gun toward the man and his wife. Witnesses agree the young man THEN drew his gun and fired at the robbers, hitting one in the leg and ending the robbery.
The young man was not prosecuted and Aldi took down the anti-self-defense signs, at least for a while.
The wounded robbers' "family" then complained that he didn't deserve to be shot.
I'm retired everything. My plan is to 1: run; if unable, 2: hide; if unable, 3: shoot until the threat is over. Seeing as how the fascist Left wants to punish anyone brash enough to defend their lives against deadly criminals, I'm hoping to never put that plan to use.
To the people who say they are always in "condition yellow" when they go out, be sure to have a full stress test every couple years so you can see your heart attack coming.
cmort666
Member
I was a lousy runner as a twenty one year old Infantry second lieutenant. At fifty six, I'm not one SECOND faster.
I'm not running, because all that will get me is dying tired.
One thing I learned in the Army was that NOBODY can outrun a bullet. That's why they tell you to charge an ambush rather than run from it.
I may get shot, but it's not going to be in the back, and it's DEFINITELY not going to be in the back of the head, while on my knees.
+1
You have to have it entrained in your brain, if you stop and think about taking a life, it'll get ya killed damn near every time.
As far as the stats where you can't use deadly force to protect yourself, tough S***, I'm going to prevail in a gun fight, rather the rule makers like it or not.
Johnmuratore
Member
thanks federali
Thank you Sir, for the info. I'm a member of GOAL and have been for years. I'll check into their resources more carefully.
My thoughts after reading are:
I guess I can't assume that someone who has broken into my home is intending to do me and my family great bodily harm or death, and if I use deadly force to protect myself and my family, I'll have to somehow prove to the court and maybe a jury what his/her intent was. If the BG didn't have a weapon but was intending to beat me and my family to death with his fists, I could be SOL. What if the BG survives and testifies that he never intended to hurt anyone? What a load of ****.
This is really a sad state of affairs.
Thank you Sir, for the info. I'm a member of GOAL and have been for years. I'll check into their resources more carefully.
My thoughts after reading are:
I guess I can't assume that someone who has broken into my home is intending to do me and my family great bodily harm or death, and if I use deadly force to protect myself and my family, I'll have to somehow prove to the court and maybe a jury what his/her intent was. If the BG didn't have a weapon but was intending to beat me and my family to death with his fists, I could be SOL. What if the BG survives and testifies that he never intended to hurt anyone? What a load of ****.
This is really a sad state of affairs.
Never heard of anyone kicking down your door to invite you to a picnic.
If they enter by breaking, they go out flat on their back.
I'll deal with the consequences, at least I'll be here to do so.
waynesigmeister
Member
One thing that the readers must understand about LEO's carrying off duty about their responsibility to take action when off duty. Each department has it's own policies to which the officer must adhere to. When the off duty officer takes action, it is as a police officer and he has full force of the law to act. He is also given some protection against civil court action because of his department policies.
When the LEO is retired, department policies may vary. I am required to read and understand my department shooting policies and must qualify each year to continue to have the right to carry CCW. There is one problem, the department is not required to protect by getting a lawyer for me in case of civil action or criminal investigation by the District Attorney (however I could fight it and protection). That is probably why most retired LEO's do not want to get involved.
When the LEO is retired, department policies may vary. I am required to read and understand my department shooting policies and must qualify each year to continue to have the right to carry CCW. There is one problem, the department is not required to protect by getting a lawyer for me in case of civil action or criminal investigation by the District Attorney (however I could fight it and protection). That is probably why most retired LEO's do not want to get involved.
It is unlikely that a surviving bad guy in your scenario would take the witness stand. It is more likely that kicking in your door would not constitute his first rodeo, and if he testifies, the nice prosecutor will get to discuss all his previous rodeos with him and the jury. . .
Ken, although counter-intuitive, SCOTUS held in Warren v. District of Columbia (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) et al , police DO NOT have a legal obligation to act (on duty or off). Moreover, most department policies encourage off-duty officers to also act as good witnesses unless defending themselves or others from imminent death or great bodily injury.
Last edited:
Brian41
Member
Very interesting thread and I've learned a lot reading it. One thing that comes to mind is to be careful where you go and when. I usually go to same gas station/convenience store near my rural home. For one it usually has customers and another I know the usual clerk there is also armed and can shoot as well. I feel about as safe there as anywhere but do keep my eyes open at all times.
We told my mother-in-law not to go to one store near her home in a bad area but she continued to do so anyhow as it was convenient and she was a pretty fearless woman anyway. Well one day it happened and there was a robbery with gun in the store while she was there. Thankfully she knew enough to stand back and let him rob the store without bringing attention to herself. The thief left the store without making any contact with her but she was just plain lucky. I'd like to say she quit going there but she still did up until she passed.
We told my mother-in-law not to go to one store near her home in a bad area but she continued to do so anyhow as it was convenient and she was a pretty fearless woman anyway. Well one day it happened and there was a robbery with gun in the store while she was there. Thankfully she knew enough to stand back and let him rob the store without bringing attention to herself. The thief left the store without making any contact with her but she was just plain lucky. I'd like to say she quit going there but she still did up until she passed.
I live in a state and place where it shouldn't be a problem and my girl friend is a lawyer. I also refrain from going to places that will not allow me to defend myself. But, if I was in an area where that wasn't true I would defend myself anyway. The prosecutor can charge me, but hopefully one or more of the 12 jurors has a brain bigger than a pea. I will take those odds over the odds of a bad guy with a gun doing the right thing every time.
