Home defense question

acmf74

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2008
Messages
14
Reaction score
2
Location
Long Island, New York
I own a pistol for home defense/hunting. The gun and permit is in my name. If someone were to break in when I'm not home and my wife uses the pistol to stop the threat, would there be any recourse against her since she isn't a licensed pistol holder?

(I'm in NY State)
 
Register to hide this ad
I own a pistol for home defense/hunting. The gun and permit is in my name. If someone were to break in when I'm not home and my wife uses the pistol to stop the threat, would there be any recourse against her since she isn't a licensed pistol holder?

(I'm in NY State)

Nope, she resides in the household and one would expect she would use whatever means possible in self defense. Her training in the use of the gun may be questioned by the authorities.

The results would not be the same if she accidentally injured someone with the firearm.
 
As you probably already know, the answer is highly dependent on the laws of the state where you are standing. In states without "permits to purchase" or registration, the question is irrelevant. You need an expert on your NY law.

In OK where I live, with no state laws (only Federal) on eligible adults possessing guns and our Castle Doctrine, breaking into an occupied house is tatamount to suicide.

Recently an OK woman called 911 that a man was trying to break down her door, and she had her husband's shotgun. 911 dispatched the sheriff (who was 20 min away) and stayed on the line. When the man broke through the door, the 911 operator told the woman to shoot. They collected the body and assured the woman she had done the right thing.
 
In theory she could probably be charged I suppose. As a practical matter, DAs in most jurisdictions have better things to do with their time and the taxpayers money.
 
My understanding, being a NY resident, is that she could be charged, but I think that would be highly unlikely under "normal" circumstances. If you really want to play it safe, buy a shotgun for HD only and teach your wife to use it.

Remember, in NY, you and a licensed gunsmith are the only ones allowed to handle the pistols on your permit.
 
My understanding, being a NY resident, is that she could be charged, but I think that would be highly unlikely under "normal" circumstances. If you really want to play it safe, buy a shotgun for HD only and teach your wife to use it.

Remember, in NY, you and a licensed gunsmith are the only ones allowed to handle the pistols on your permit.
That is crazy. I'm so glad it's not like that here in KY.
 
Why even worry about it? Would you rather have her dead but legal?
First things first!
 
My understanding, being a NY resident, is that she could be charged, but I think that would be highly unlikely under "normal" circumstances. If you really want to play it safe, buy a shotgun for HD only and teach your wife to use it.

Remember, in NY, you and a licensed gunsmith are the only ones allowed to handle the pistols on your permit.

That has got to be one of the dopiest ( and in this case potentially dangerous laws on the books ). Given the circumstances in NY I'd ask her if she would be comfortable with a shotgun. I've been reading that 20 gauge triple ought buck is almost as effective as 12 gauge with a fraction of the felt recoil. There are some nice youth models with shorter stocks if that is an issue. Suggest moving to North Dakota or Minnesota .
 
I mis-spoke . I should have said #3 buck not triple ought. Here is a reference and a quote.

Ammunition For The Self-Defense Firearm

" I specifically recommend the 20 gauge for women and recoil-sensitive men who dislike the blast and recoil of the 12 gauge. "Delivering roughly the ballistic force of two .44 Magnum rounds at once," comments the knowledgeable Ayoob, the 20 "delivers 75% of the lead for only 50-60% of the recoil". Many police departments have found their officers shoot much more accurately in realistic training exercises with the lighter-kicking but still potent 20 gauge. "
 
NYS Penal Article 35 contains the affirmative defense of justification. If the DA were to decide to bring charges (depending on the county and the DA this might or might not happen), she could raise the defense of justification. Basically, if deadly physical force was justified, her defense to the charges (assault, homicide, crim. poss. weapon, etc.)would be justification. This is not legal advice -- you should consult a lawyer for that.
 
S 35.15 Justification; use of physical force in defense of a person.
1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subdivision two, use
physical force upon another person when and to the extent he reasonably
believes such to be necessary to defend himself or a third person from
what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful
physical force by such other person, unless:
(a) The latter`s conduct was provoked by the actor himself with intent
to cause physical injury to another person; or
(b) The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case his
use of physical force is nevertheless justifiable if he has withdrawn
from the encounter and effectively communicated such withdrawal to such
other person but the latter persists in continuing the incident by the
use or threatened imminent use of unlawful physical force; or
(c) The physical force involved is he product of a combat by
agreement not specifically authorized by law.
2. A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person
under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless:
(a) He reasonably believes that such other person is using or about to
use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the actor may not
use deadly physical force if he knows that he can with complete safety
as to himself and others avoid the necessity of so doing by retreating;
except that he is under no duty to retreat if he is:
(i) in his dwelling and not the initial aggressor; or
(ii) a police officer or peace officer or a person assisting a police
officer or a peace officer at the latter`s direction, acting pursuant to
section 35.30; or
(b) He reasonably believes that such other person is committing or
attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible sodomy or
robbery; or
(c) He reasonably believes that such other person is committing or
attempting to commit a burglary, and the circumstances are such that the
use of deadly physical force is authorized by subdivision three of
section 35.20.

S 35.20 Justification; use of physical force in defense of premises and
in defense of a person in the course of burglary.
1. Any person may use physical force upon another person when he or
she reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate
what he or she reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted
commission by such other person of a crime involving damage to premises.
Such person may use any degree of physical force, other than deadly
physical force, which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary for
such purpose, and may use deadly physical force if he or she reasonably
believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or
attempted commission of arson.
2. A person in possession or control of any premises, or a person
licensed or privileged to be thereon or therein, may use physical force
upon another person when he or she reasonably believes such to be
necessary to prevent or terminate what he or she reasonably believes to
be the commission or attempted commission by such other person of a
criminal trespass upon such premises. Such person may use any degree of
physical force, other than deadly physical force, which he or she
reasonably believes to be necessary for such purpose, and may use deadly
physical force in order to prevent or terminate the commission or
attempted commission of arson, as prescribed in subdivision one, or in
the course of a burglary or attempted burglary, as prescribed in
subdivision three.
3. A person in possession or control of, or licensed or privileged to
be in, a dwelling or an occupied building, who reasonably believes that
another person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such
dwelling or building, may use deadly physical force upon such other
person when he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to
prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of such
burglary.
4. As used in this section, the following terms have the following
meanings:
(a) The terms "premises," "building" and "dwelling" have the meanings
prescribed in section 140.00;
(b) Persons "licensed or privileged" to be in buildings or upon other
premises include, but are not limited to:
(i) police officers or peace officers acting in the performance of
their duties; and
(ii) security personnel or employees of nuclear powered electric
generating facilities located within the state who are employed as part
of any security plan approved by the federal operating license agencies
acting in the performance of their duties at such generating facilities.
For purposes of this subparagraph, the term "nuclear powered electric
generating facility" shall mean a facility that generates electricity
using nuclear power for sale, directly or indirectly, to the public,
including the land upon which the facility is located and the safety and
security zones as defined under federal regulations.
 
Gotta know the state rules and regs. In SC castle doctrine says it all. Slime in your house (or car) from breakin--all bets are off--any resident that has reasonable fear of imminent death or bodily injury has the right to defend themselves. Now if its outside your property--da da da da da da.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top