|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
October 17, 2016, 11:40 PM | #1 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 21, 2012
Location: Kitsap County, WA, USA
Posts: 445
|
Concealed carry of legally owned item not covered in detail by local law.
I'm curious what your local laws and such say about Stand your ground and such in this regard. What's a good way to only use a baton, tactical keyfob/kubotan or knife that you own legally but have no reason to use for utility that you carry just in case.
Like, at what point are you just overstepping your bounds as a citizen by not retreating using a morally ambiguous defensive weapon. I don't want any argument of the laws, but just say how you interpret local...nuances. For example here any situation where you're breaking the law and have to defend yourself is super vague, even if the LA Riots led to some landmark stuff in that regard for WA legislation, we went a step backwards with i-594 a bit ago, imo. Made everyone scared that anyone *technically* breaking the law is being too boy-crying-wolf if they complain period. Statutory versus judiciary law, I mean, it's a weird case on the West Coast, sadly, but I'm wondering where Castle Doctrine is too vague and statutory for Reasonable Man standard to apply with no jury involved. |
October 17, 2016, 11:56 PM | #2 |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
I have no idea what this is all about, and I see no reason why we should need to try to figure it out.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
October 18, 2016, 12:00 AM | #3 | |
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,929
|
If you use a non-firearm weapon against someone and that use is determined to constitute deadly force then you'll have to show exactly the same level of justification as if you had used a firearm. If you are in a duty-to-retreat region of the U.S. then that duty applies regardless of what potentially deadly weapon you plan to use to defend yourself.
Deadly force is deadly force regardless of what type of weapon is used to apply it. You won't get any legal leeway for applying deadly force with a 2x4 vs. shooting someone. Quote:
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
|
October 18, 2016, 12:01 AM | #4 |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Good response, John. We'll leave it at that.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|