|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
January 10, 2008, 11:02 AM | #1 |
Junior member
Join Date: July 30, 2006
Posts: 1,226
|
To Keep in Mind at All Times:
I posted on General Handgun Forum here I think a good summation of
CCW "Rules". It may answer sometimes some of the situational questions we have on this forum. http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/...d.php?t=275438 |
January 10, 2008, 09:32 PM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 26, 2007
Location: Estados Unitas / United States
Posts: 986
|
Very well written coherent post. No argument from this quarter.
|
January 10, 2008, 09:39 PM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 31, 2007
Posts: 264
|
Exactly!, I hope all the "cops" read that as well. It's exactly what I tried to tell every non action person on the debate. The only thing is in Tennessee we have a no retreat bill which means if you're threatened you don't have to retreat you can stand your ground and protect yourself. We can also openly carry with a ccw permit here.
|
January 10, 2008, 09:55 PM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 26, 2007
Location: Estados Unitas / United States
Posts: 986
|
Personally, I favor stand your ground laws like TN and FL.
Having said that, could and should mean different things to different folks. I could have shot a few folks back in my working days, but I did not have to so that ammo got burned at he range and my court time was for minor stuff with defendants other than myself. Don't regret my decisions. Having a mangled leg from a motorcycle accident my ability to flee is limited. In my current state a person entering my home displaying means intent and ability to do serious evil meeting demise from defensive action would stand a good chance of being justified under the law. That does not mean my first option will be lethal force if there is another way. I agree that a person engaged in lawfull activity where they have a right to be should not be legally required to retreat. That should be left to the individual IMO. |
January 10, 2008, 11:20 PM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 23, 2005
Posts: 955
|
I agree with the post. Well written and not done by a keyboard commando. I am not sure i would run away, The Marine in me wont let me but i would tacticly withdraw. If i pull my pistol its to save life an it will come out with the owner ready to pull the trigger if need be.
__________________
Colt King Cobra .357 Colt Anaconda .44mag Springfield Armory .45 Double stack Loaded XD40 service XD45 Taurus 617 .357mag Smith M&P 40 |
January 11, 2008, 04:15 PM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 16, 2007
Location: Gardendale, Alabama
Posts: 665
|
When the use of force is threatened, force is justified to stop the threat. If a person is attempting a crime with a weapon, why do you think that weapon is there? An armed criminal is a direct threat to your life and should be treated accordingly.
You shouldn't go looking for trouble, but to say you have to avoid it when it comes looking for you is another thing all together.
__________________
"What is play to the fool and the idiot is deadly serious to the man with the gun." Walt Rauch,Combat Handguns, May '08 |
January 11, 2008, 07:43 PM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 12, 2006
Location: Georgia
Posts: 271
|
I agree w/the rules whether they are "Law" or not...this is my approch to CCW.
__________________
GLOCK 23,Smith & Wesson New 520,Tuarus 651,Taurus 608,Taurus PT92, Astra A-75,CZ-52,East German Makarov,Mossberg 835 Ulti Mag, Remington 870 Express Magnum |
January 11, 2008, 08:20 PM | #8 | |
Junior member
Join Date: July 30, 2006
Posts: 1,226
|
Quote:
" 1. Your concealed handgun is for protection of life only. Draw it solely in preparation to protect yourself or an innocent third party from the wrongful and life-threatening criminal actions of another." |
|
January 12, 2008, 10:53 AM | #9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 16, 2007
Location: Gardendale, Alabama
Posts: 665
|
Yes, but you say a person should run if that option is available. I contend that they should never run unless their state or local laws require it. Otherwise they should resist. Bear in mind I said 'should,' ultimately the decision is theirs but failing to resist a criminal only allows that criminal another opportunity to hurt someone.
__________________
"What is play to the fool and the idiot is deadly serious to the man with the gun." Walt Rauch,Combat Handguns, May '08 |
January 12, 2008, 11:26 AM | #10 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 26, 2007
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 274
|
Quote:
A person cannot be considered to be a threat to my life or serious bodily harm to me, unless they are armed with a weapon, such as a gun, knife, crow bar or baseball bat?!?! and that weapon is VISIBLE to me? Otherwise I am legally required to flee?!? I am 49 years old. I have back problems. I can walk for reasonably long distances (10 miles or more, a few times a year, for exercise) and move fairly quickly for short distances like 10-15 feet, but outrunning a younger assailant is pretty unlikely. So all the assailant has to do when I see him - 40 feet away - as I'm walking back to my car, 110 feet away, is to be able to outrun me to my car, and keep his straight razor in his pocket until it is too late for me to draw and fire? What if there are two or three of them - unarmed? Anybody ever get killed or suffer serious body harm from somebody's bare hands? or boots? You ever see anybody kicking someone in the head when they were lying on the ground? Don't send flowers to my funeral - it will be too late for me. Please make a contribution to the NRA instead. |
|
January 12, 2008, 12:28 PM | #11 | |
Junior member
Join Date: July 30, 2006
Posts: 1,226
|
Quote:
A few states don't require an attempt to flee (if it doesn't expose you to more risk). Check where you live. This is a layman's answer. Talk to a skilled attorney in your area for a professional opinion. |
|
January 12, 2008, 12:37 PM | #12 | |
Junior member
Join Date: July 30, 2006
Posts: 1,226
|
Quote:
I do not believe, though, if you shoot somebody solely because of a weapon he MAY have, it's OK. I mean, we'd all be shooting each other at times anyone had a fantasy about future possibilities for danger in anyone else. This is a layman's answer. Talk to a skilled attorney in your area for a professional opinion. |
|
|
|