Court Strikes Down D.C. Handgun Ban

[waste gate]

A U.S. appeals court struck down a three-decade-old District of Columbia law that bans residents from keeping a handgun in their homes, saying the Constitution's Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=azTOCL.ZiDGM&refer=us

In a 2-1 decision, the judges held that the activities protected by the Second Amendment "are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued intermittent enrollment in the militia."

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/03/09/D8NOQQ480.html

[ASWnut101]

HUUUUURRAYYYY!!!!!!!


:up: :up: :up: :up: :up: :()1: :()1: :sunny: :fff:

[waste gate]

HUUUUURRAYYYY!!!!!!!


:up: :up: :up: :up: :up: :()1: :()1: :sunny: :fff:

I knew you'd like this.

BTW SCOTUS is under no obligation to hear any appeal to the lower court ruling.

As Skynard would say, 'Give Me Back My bullets'

[elite_hunter_sh3]

excellent...... now american population will kill each other faster :rotfl::rotfl:

no seriously though,, i lov the rules for shooting ranges, i can fire enything i want under 18 with parental supervision. but i dont like the public gun laws and how easy it is to get a gun.. :down:

[waste gate]

excellent...... now american population will kill each other faster :rotfl::rotfl:

no seriously though,, i lov the rules for shooting ranges, i can fire enything i want under 18 with parental supervision. but i dont like the public gun laws and how easy it is to get a gun.. :down:

An armed society is a polite society. Now the criminals won't be the only people with guns, and the criminal element, will think twice before harming another human being. Sh1t, man, that lady might have a gun!

[Bort]

Wow, I'm somewhat surprised anyone would be that excited about a court ruling only affecting a place you don't even live in. The people of DC decided they didn't want guns in their city, and it was overturned by the HEAVILY conservative DC court of appeals.

This neatly brings me on to the issue of whether or not the District should be given at least quasi-state status, if nothing else for fairness sake. The US congress has far reaching powers into their governance, despite the fact that they do not have any voting representatives in either the house or the senate. I say they should be given 2 senators and a fair apportionment of congressmen, and that the Mayor of DC should have powers approximating a governor. What does everyone else think?

BTW, if you have never been to DC, they are very aware of their unusual status. Here's what their license plates look like:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/Dctaxationsample_small.jpg

[waste gate]

Wow, I'm somewhat surprised anyone would be that excited about a court ruling only affecting a place you don't even live in. The people of DC decided they didn't want guns in their city, and it was overturned by the HEAVILY conservative DC court of appeals.

This neatly brings me on to the issue of whether or not the District should be given at least quasi-state status, if nothing else for fairness sake. The US congress has far reaching powers into their governance, despite the fact that they do not have any voting representatives in either the house or the senate. I say they should be given 2 senators and a fair apportionment of congressmen, and that the Mayor of DC should have powers approximating a governor. What does everyone else think?

BTW, if you have never been to DC, they are very aware of their unusual status. Here's what their license plates look like:
http://www.pl8ster.net/DC/DCund_taxsample.jpg

The decision was rendered by a US Apeals court so it affects the entire nation (see the supremacy clause of the US Constitution) and gives all US citizens the ability to defend themselves.

As far as giving DC statehood, the District of Columbia, founded on July 16, 1790, is a federal district as specified by the United States Constitution. An amendment is required to change that status.

[Bort]

I am not in argument that DC was made a federal district in the constitution, my question is whether or not the people that live within the district should be given powers equivalent to a state, although whether or not DC should become a state is a different question.

As far as the court ruling goes, this only effects the jurisdiction of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_District_of _Columbia_Circuit), which is DC only. Although the DC appeals court does have some powers over government not available to other Circuits, they do not have the power to overturn laws outside the District.

So sorry if that ruined your party, but this has zero effect on the laws of the 50 states. :up:

[waste gate]

I am not in argument that DC was made a federal district in the constitution, my question is whether or not the people that live within the district should be given powers equivalent to a state, although whether or not DC should become a state is a different question.

As far as the court ruling goes, this only effects the jurisdiction of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_District_of _Columbia_Circuit), which is DC only. Although the DC appeals court does have some powers over government not available to other Circuits, they do not have the power to overturn laws outside the District.

So sorry if that ruined your party, but this has zero effect on the laws of the 50 states. :up:

I took this from your post.
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Appeals from the D.C. Circuit, as with all the U.S. Courts of Appeals, are heard on a discretionary basis by the Supreme Court. It should not be confused with the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

I have no particular position as to whether or not DC should be given statehood. An amendment to the Constitution is all that is necessary.

[Tchocky]

I thought the point of DC was to keep the seat of government geographically apolitical, as it were?

[waste gate]

I thought the point of DC was to keep the seat of government geographically apolitical, as it were?

That didn't work.:cool:

[Bort]

Federal courts of appeal make rulings that are only binding within their jurisdiction, for instance, remember that stupid pledge of allegiance thing that the 9th circuit said was unconstitutional? That ruling only applied within the 9th's jurisdiction. Same thing here. Unless the case goes before the Supreme Court and the ruling is upheld, it means nothing outside of the District.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/df/US_Court_of_Appeals_and_District_Court_map.svg/620px-US_Court_of_Appeals_and_District_Court_map.svg.png

I thought the point of DC was to keep the seat of government geographically apolitical, as it were?

That was the idea, and it was a good one and it worked for quite a while, until DC became a major city and not just some backwater where congress met and the President lived. As of the last census, there were 582,049 people living in the District, which is a pretty big number to disenfranchise.

[stabiz]

excellent...... now american population will kill each other faster :rotfl::rotfl:

no seriously though,, i lov the rules for shooting ranges, i can fire enything i want under 18 with parental supervision. but i dont like the public gun laws and how easy it is to get a gun.. :down:
An armed society is a polite society. Now the criminals won't be the only people with guns, and the criminal element, will think twice before harming another human being. Sh1t, man, that lady might have a gun!

That is some warped logic right there.:roll:

Lets continue your thinking a bit. Lets say every human on the planet had a gun. Nobody would fire at each other then? lol

[waste gate]

One more time. The judgements of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit are enforcable, based on the supremecy clause of the Constitution of the United States.

http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/internet.nsf

[Bort]

Agreed, they are enforceable thanks to the supremacy clause WITHIN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA! Until the Supreme Court rules (if they ever do) it means nothing outside of the jurisdiction of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which is, as the name may suggest, the District of Columbia. Thats it. Nothing else.

[waste gate]

excellent...... now american population will kill each other faster :rotfl::rotfl:

no seriously though,, i lov the rules for shooting ranges, i can fire enything i want under 18 with parental supervision. but i dont like the public gun laws and how easy it is to get a gun.. :down:
An armed society is a polite society. Now the criminals won't be the only people with guns, and the criminal element, will think twice before harming another human being. Sh1t, man, that lady might have a gun!

That is some warped logic right there.:roll:

Lets continue your thinking a bit. Lets say every human on the planet had a gun. Nobody would fire at each other then? lol

I think you are misinterpreting. Those who have evil in their hearts and want to do ill to others will think twice before attacking, with any weapon, those whom the 'evil doers', think will can defend themselves. Please do not mistake opinion for foolishness. I know that it will not end violence. Violence existed long before firearms. Let people defend themselves in the face of the violence you are concerned about.

[fatty]

That is some warped logic right there.:roll:

Lets continue your thinking a bit. Lets say every human on the planet had a gun. Nobody would fire at each other then? lol

Precisely. I've boughten into this argument before but then thought of circumstances where everyone had access to firearms. IMHO this becomes problematic very quickly.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1085000/images/_1089586_police300.jpg
These seem like decent guys. Okay, they can keep their guns.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/10/08/wsomalia08b.jpg
Umm not sure about that machine gun, but sure, I'll buy it.

http://www.noendbutvictory.com/wp-images/uic_thugs.jpg
Well these fellows don't seem friendly. But you can't judge a book by its cover, right?

And so forth. The line between good and bad starts to blur. Keep the guns restricted and you at least can tell who the criminals are.

[waste gate]

That is some warped logic right there.:roll:

Lets continue your thinking a bit. Lets say every human on the planet had a gun. Nobody would fire at each other then? lol

Precisely. I've boughten into this argument before but then thought of circumstances where everyone had access to firearms. IMHO this becomes problematic very quickly.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1085000/images/_1089586_police300.jpg
These seem like decent guys. Okay, they can keep their guns.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/10/08/wsomalia08b.jpg
Umm not sure about that machine gun, but sure, I'll buy it.

http://www.noendbutvictory.com/wp-images/uic_thugs.jpg
Well these fellows don't seem friendly. But you can't judge a book by its cover, right?

And so forth. The line between good and bad starts to blur. Keep the guns restricted and you at least can tell who the criminals are.


And count the bodies of the innocent?

This is what its about!


1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, Detroit & Chicago cops need guns.

2. Washington DC's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.

3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are "just statistics."

4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect in 1994 are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates, which have been declining since 1991.

5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.

6. The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.

7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.

8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.

9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should "put up no defense - give them what they want, or run" (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields, Guns Don't Die - People Do, 1981, p. 125).

10. The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns; just like Guns & Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.

11. One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seat belts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for internal medicine, a computer programmer for hard drive problems, and Sarah Brady for firearms expertise.

12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which was created 130 years later, in 1917.

13. The National Guard, federally funded, with bases on federal land, using federally-owned weapons, vehicles, buildings and uniforms, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a "state" militia.

14. These phrases: "right of the people peaceably to assemble," "right of the people to be secure in their homes," "enumerations herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people," and "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people" all refer to individuals, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the state.

15. "The Constitution is strong and will never change." But we should ban and seize all guns thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments to that Constitution.

16. Rifles and handguns aren't necessary to national defense! Of course, the army has hundreds of thousands of them.

17. Private citizens shouldn't have handguns, because they aren't "military weapons'', but private citizens shouldn't have "assault rifles'', because they are military weapons.

18. In spite of waiting periods, background checks, fingerprinting, government forms, etc., guns today are too readily available, which is responsible for recent school shootings. In the 1940's, 1950's and 1960's, anyone could buy guns at hardware stores, army surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, Sears mail order, no waiting, no background check, no fingerprints, no government forms and there were no school shootings.

19. The NRA's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, but the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign is responsible social activity.

20. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.

21. A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.

22. Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a woman with a gun is "an accident waiting to happen" and gun makers' advertisements aimed at women are "preying on their fears."

23. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.

24. Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.

25. A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population supported owning slaves.

26. Any self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a "weapon of mass destruction" or an "assault weapon."

27. Most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.

28. The right of Internet pornographers to exist cannot be questioned because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use of handguns for self defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights.

29. Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self- defense only justifies bare hands.

30. The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other parts of the Constitution.

31. Charlton Heston, a movie actor as president of the NRA is a cheap lunatic who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas, a movie actor as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.

32. Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger capacity pistol magazines than do "civilians" who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.

33. We should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive guns because it's not fair that poor people have access to guns too.

34. Police officers have some special Jedi-like mastery over handguns that private citizens can never hope to obtain.

35. Private citizens don't need a gun for self- protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.

36. Citizens don't need to carry a gun for personal protection but police chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a building filled with cops, need a gun.

37. "Assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people. The police need assault weapons. You do not.

38. When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft preferential promotion, that's bad; but when the Federal government pressures cities to buy guns only from Smith & Wesson, that's good.

39. Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their duty weapon.
40. Handgun Control, Inc., says they want to "keep guns out of the wrong hands." Guess what? You have the wrong hands.

[MadMike]

Awesome, the liberals will be wetting their drawers over this legal decision. BTW, if you are a law abiding citizen who can pass a background check (and other necessities on BATF Form 4473), you can legally obtain a semi-auto AK-74 here through your friendly FFL dealer-

http://www.aimsurplus.com/acatalog/akgpwasr2.jpg

The Romanian WASR-2 is assembled in the U.S. by Century Arms using a majority of U.S. manufactured parts. They also sell 7.62x39 versions. The stock is unfinished, you'll have to stain and lacquer it (I also had to polish some parts, nothing beyond the skills of any home based gunsmith).

http://www.aimsurplus.com/acatalog/Romanian_WASR-2_5.45x39_AK_Rifle.html

Yours, Mike

[JetSnake]

Just for all of you anti-gunners. I'm going to buy some more evil black rifles next month. I don't really need them, but I will get them because I can.:up:

[stabiz]

Hows the weather in the Mid West?

[SUBMAN1]

excellent...... now american population will kill each other faster :rotfl::rotfl:

no seriously though,, i lov the rules for shooting ranges, i can fire enything i want under 18 with parental supervision. but i dont like the public gun laws and how easy it is to get a gun.. :down:

There are always other countries to live in - I think the UK has all guns pretty much banned. Try there. :yep:

-S

[SUBMAN1]

excellent...... now american population will kill each other faster :rotfl::rotfl:

no seriously though,, i lov the rules for shooting ranges, i can fire enything i want under 18 with parental supervision. but i dont like the public gun laws and how easy it is to get a gun.. :down:
An armed society is a polite society. Now the criminals won't be the only people with guns, and the criminal element, will think twice before harming another human being. Sh1t, man, that lady might have a gun!
That is some warped logic right there.:roll:

Lets continue your thinking a bit. Lets say every human on the planet had a gun. Nobody would fire at each other then? lol

Your thinking is not correct. You are the first generation in the history of the world where you don't have a weapon at all times. Did people throughout history shoot each other? Simple answer - no. And if they did, there would be reprocussions from every other armed citizen out there.

I think people have watched way too many movies and this conjures up images of Westerns. The problem with westerns is, there were no street dules where the first person to draw yadda yadda yadda - this never ever happened!!! That is a Hollywood made creation. All the garbage you see on screen never happened that way. There is no documented case where a pistol draw ever happneed in the history of the US!!!

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Awesome, the liberals will be wetting their drawers over this legal decision. BTW, if you are a law abiding citizen who can pass a background check (and other necessities on BATF Form 4473), you can legally obtain a semi-auto AK-74 here through your friendly FFL dealer-

http://www.aimsurplus.com/acatalog/akgpwasr2.jpg

The Romanian WASR-2 is assembled in the U.S. by Century Arms using a majority of U.S. manufactured parts. They also sell 7.62x39 versions. The stock is unfinished, you'll have to stain and lacquer it (I also had to polish some parts, nothing beyond the skills of any home based gunsmith).

http://www.aimsurplus.com/acatalog/Romanian_WASR-2_5.45x39_AK_Rifle.html

Yours, Mike

And if you look around, no matter that about half of all households in America have guns, including AR-15's and AK-47's, yet amazingly - you never see then - ever!!! That post above though with the guys all carrying around their guns was pretty funny though.

-S

[ASWnut101]

Awesome, the liberals will be wetting their drawers over this legal decision. BTW, if you are a law abiding citizen who can pass a background check (and other necessities on BATF Form 4473), you can legally obtain a semi-auto AK-74 here through your friendly FFL dealer-

http://www.aimsurplus.com/acatalog/akgpwasr2.jpg

The Romanian WASR-2 is assembled in the U.S. by Century Arms using a majority of U.S. manufactured parts. They also sell 7.62x39 versions. The stock is unfinished, you'll have to stain and lacquer it (I also had to polish some parts, nothing beyond the skills of any home based gunsmith).

http://www.aimsurplus.com/acatalog/Romanian_WASR-2_5.45x39_AK_Rifle.html

Yours, Mike


Dude, get a WASR-10. It's the 7.62x39 version. Little kick (surprisingly), and has some awesome fire-power. Just fired it at a indoor gun range; the thing is a mini-cannon. The 5.45mm is worthless if you want any decent penetration.

[Penelope_Grey]

so let me get this straight, under article two of your Bill of Rights, I could effectively walk down the street carrying a Klashnikov with the safety off and that would be cool, because that article states I have the right to bear arms?

[ASWnut101]

Yes and no. It can't be loaded in most states, and you normally have to have it packed in a case. With it in a case, you need a Consealed Weapons Permit. With that, yes, you can carry a Kalashnikov down the street. In a "right-to-carry" state (ie. Florida) only.

[Penelope_Grey]

Yikes! But thanks for answering my question. :)

I can well see how some people are pushing to have guns banned in the US to just them that need them. (Police, Army etc)

Though scumbags will always find a way to lay their hands on a gun. Tight control is what is needed.

Doesn't it bother the average American citizen that effectively any old tom dick or harry can lay their hand on a weapon that your typical soldier would use, and can carry it down the street and use said weapom without any real problem?

[JetSnake]

Yikes! But thanks for answering my question. :)

I can well see how some people are pushing to have guns banned in the US to just them that need them. (Police, Army etc)

Though scumbags will always find a way to lay their hands on a gun. Tight control is what is needed.

Doesn't it bother the average American citizen that effectively any old tom dick or harry can lay their hand on a weapon that your typical soldier would use, and can carry it down the street and use said weapom without any real problem?


No not any old tom dick or harry can get weapons that soldiers use, because selective fire weapons are tightly controlled in the US. Now if you think a semi-automatic rifle is the same thing the military uses then you are mistaken as well as the politicians in this country that call them "assault weapons".

What I don't get is why people outside of the US are concerned about our right to bear arms? These rules were written for many reasons other than defending against a tyrannical government. Most use them for hunting/ competition, collecting and just because we can. Gun deaths are far outnumbered by motor vehicle accidents, drunk drivers, etc. Maybe we should outlaw vehicles.

[MadMike]

When the going get's rough, I reach for 7.62x54R...

It's interesting to note European laws on deactivated firearms (which do not meet US requirements for importation)- :shifty:

http://www.rusmilitary.com/html/c-deact_ak74m.htm


http://www.rusmilitary.com/images/aksu_main.jpg

http://www.rusmilitary.com/images/dshk_hmg%20(1).jpg

http://www.rusmilitary.com/images/gp_left.jpg

http://www.rusmilitary.com/images/ak74m_deact.jpg

Yours, Mike

[Penelope_Grey]

No not any old tom dick or harry can get weapons that soldiers use, because selective fire weapons are tightly controlled in the US. Now if you think a semi-automatic rifle is the same thing the military uses then you are mistaken as well as the politicians in this country that call them "assault weapons".

What I don't get is why people outside of the US are concerned about our right to bear arms? These rules were written for many reasons other than defending against a tyrannical government. Most use them for hunting/ competition, collecting and just because we can. Gun deaths are far outnumbered by motor vehicle accidents, drunk drivers, etc. Maybe we should outlaw vehicles.
I don't care about your right to bear arms. I was asking a question. Its how you learn stuff :) So I muddled up rifles and machine guns and whatsits, I don't pretend to know about guns because I am not interested in guns. :down:

The fact that guns are so freely available in the US is one of the reasons I won't go there on holiday. You can't trust EVERYBODY to be responsible with the kinds of weapons the average american can lay their hands on. Also just want to add the whole gun issue is another reason why I wouldn't go to Birmingham here in the UK if you paid me! The amount of shootings that used to go on there is really scary. Also Birmingham is a bit of a hole generally but with some nice shops just a shame that there are muppets there with guns.

[IRONxMortlock]

These rules were written for many reasons other than defending against a tyrannical government.

You now officially have a tyrannical government (http://www.amnestyusa.org/waronterror/detainees/habeas_corpus.html).

Gun deaths are far outnumbered by motor vehicle accidents, drunk drivers, etc. Maybe we should outlaw vehicles.

In that case I think there should be a war on bees rather than terror. Statistically, a US citizen is more likely to be killed a swarm of insects (1 in 5,000,000) than a terrorist (1 in 8,000,000).
________
ShannonScot live (http://camslivesexy.com/cam/ShannonScot)

[SUBMAN1]

The 5.45mm is worthless if you want any decent penetration.
Not quite a true statement. The 5.45 cal will not go through as many walls (has less kenetic energy) as the larger round, but for armor penetration (such as someone wearing body armor), it will initially have better penetration in that regard. This is why the AK-74 and AR-15/M-16 was born. The standard green tip M855 round that you can buy for any AR-15 will penetrate 6mm of steel armor - not sure about its Soviet counterpart though.

If you watch the body armor tests, the 7.62x39 gets stopped cold where the 5.56 penetrates (not sure how the 5.45 will perform, but probably in a similar fasion). Its interesting to watch, but this is ther very reason that guy who was sniped by the Dragonov in Iraq (vid on this board somewhere - taken by the would be assasins, and you can hear them start praying after the fact because they are in deep ****) lived because the Dragonov round did not penetrate his armor.

-S

PS. One more thing, I've watched my own M855 ammo peel the target holder at a gun range like a banana where my AK rounds simply bounced off it. I was teaching someone to shoot rifles that had little experience, but even I was shocked at the shower of sparks at the back of the range from the target holder getting torn up by the one errant round!

[JetSnake]

[/quote]
I don't care about your right to bear arms. I was asking a question. Its how you learn stuff :) So I muddled up rifles and machine guns and whatsits, I don't pretend to know about guns because I am not interested in guns. :down:

The fact that guns are so freely available in the US is one of the reasons I won't go there on holiday. You can't trust EVERYBODY to be responsible with the kinds of weapons the average american can lay their hands on. Also just want to add the whole gun issue is another reason why I wouldn't go to Birmingham here in the UK if you paid me! The amount of shootings that used to go on there is really scary. Also Birmingham is a bit of a hole generally but with some nice shops just a shame that there are muppets there with guns.[/quote]

You seem to have some twisted interest with guns, that is clear. To address the rest of your post would require me to gain access to a crash helmet so I won't injure my head pounding it against a brick wall :damn: . Really keep your infectious attitude about guns in the UK where they are already locked up. We don't need that here in the US, we already have way too many in government who think like that. :)

[JetSnake]

These rules were written for many reasons other than defending against a tyrannical government.

You now officially have a tyrannical government (http://www.amnestyusa.org/waronterror/detainees/habeas_corpus.html).

Gun deaths are far outnumbered by motor vehicle accidents, drunk drivers, etc. Maybe we should outlaw vehicles.

In that case I think there should be a war on bees rather than terror. Statistically, a US citizen is more likely to be killed a swarm of insects (1 in 5,000,000) than a terrorist (1 in 8,000,000).

I think the bees are already disapearing. I have no idea what you are getting at. so here is a pirate. :arrgh!:

[U-533]

Gun Control... HAA!:roll:

[Penelope_Grey]

See now, here I am faced with a dilemma, is JetSnake being funny, or is he taking a pop at me? I can't tell... so I'm not gonna risk it and as a consequence get into an argument.:down:

[ASWnut101]

The 5.45mm is worthless if you want any decent penetration.
Not quite a true statement. The 5.45 cal will not go through as many walls (has less kenetic energy) as the larger round, but for armor penetration (such as someone wearing body armor), it will initially have better penetration in that regard. This is why the AK-74 and AR-15/M-16 was born. The standard green tip M855 round that you can buy for any AR-15 will penetrate 6mm of steel armor - not sure about its Soviet counterpart though.

If you watch the body armor tests, the 7.62x39 gets stopped cold where the 5.56 penetrates (not sure how the 5.45 will perform, but probably in a similar fasion). Its interesting to watch, but this is ther very reason that guy who was sniped by the Dragonov in Iraq (vid on this board somewhere - taken by the would be assasins, and you can hear them start praying after the fact because they are in deep ****) lived because the Dragonov round did not penetrate his armor.

-S

PS. One more thing, I've watched my own M855 ammo peel the target holder at a gun range like a banana where my AK rounds simply bounced off it. I was teaching someone to shoot rifles that had little experience, but even I was shocked at the shower of sparks at the back of the range from the target holder getting torn up by the one errant round!


Hmm, how long was it? (your rifle) 39mm? I've seen plenty of body armor penetration with a 7.62x39, but I guess it depends on the quality of the armor. I'm also thinking that maby the 5.45 has a much higher velocity than the other, am I right?

[SUBMAN1]

The 5.45mm is worthless if you want any decent penetration.
Not quite a true statement. The 5.45 cal will not go through as many walls (has less kenetic energy) as the larger round, but for armor penetration (such as someone wearing body armor), it will initially have better penetration in that regard. This is why the AK-74 and AR-15/M-16 was born. The standard green tip M855 round that you can buy for any AR-15 will penetrate 6mm of steel armor - not sure about its Soviet counterpart though.

If you watch the body armor tests, the 7.62x39 gets stopped cold where the 5.56 penetrates (not sure how the 5.45 will perform, but probably in a similar fasion). Its interesting to watch, but this is ther very reason that guy who was sniped by the Dragonov in Iraq (vid on this board somewhere - taken by the would be assasins, and you can hear them start praying after the fact because they are in deep ****) lived because the Dragonov round did not penetrate his armor.

-S

PS. One more thing, I've watched my own M855 ammo peel the target holder at a gun range like a banana where my AK rounds simply bounced off it. I was teaching someone to shoot rifles that had little experience, but even I was shocked at the shower of sparks at the back of the range from the target holder getting torn up by the one errant round!

Hmm, how long was it? (your rifle) 39mm? I've seen plenty of body armor penetration with a 7.62x39, but I guess it depends on the quality of the armor. I'm also thinking that maby the 5.45 has a much higher velocity than the other, am I right?
I have both an AK and an AR. My AR is a 16" barrel and is the one that peeled the metal on the target holder. The AK is 7.62x39 - standard Russian short.

-S

PS. Yes the 5.45 is going to have a much higher velocity. That is another drawback of 7.62x39 - it drops out of the sky at any range. Hitting anything with an AK that is over 100 meters is not fun. The AR is good to 500 meters no problem.

PPS. I'll find the picture. I took one since it made my :o pop out of my head when i saw it. DO NOT hit anything with and AR unless you want to do damage! I'll post the pic if I find it.

[Sailor Steve]

I thought the point of DC was to keep the seat of government geographically apolitical, as it were?
There have been a couple of answers to this, and I think both are slightly off the mark. The purpose of the District of Columbia wasn't to make the capital "apolitical", but rather to ensure that no single state could claim ownership, and to have it located outside of any state.

@Waste Gate: sometimes I disagree with you, but your list made me smile:yep: :up: .

FYI: In 1746 the first encursions by the French were made into Pennsylvania territory. The mostly Quaker assembly were afraid to go against their beliefs and create a militia to defend themselves. While they were still talking, the first militia in the United States was created - by a private citizen - a forty-year-old shopkeeper named Benjamin Franklin.

[tycho102]

As of the last census, there were 582,049 people living in the District, which is a pretty big number to disenfranchise.
That same census also put it around 40,000 of the "527" lobbists that comprise the population. In Washington. District of Columbia. And that's just the ones that are registered.

How many other MBA's for Pfiser, Halliburton, Time-Warner, Sony-BMG, various hedge funds, just "happen to be there for a conference, ran into Senator XXXXX, who just so happens to chair the board which regulates the our market sector, and I just so happened to have Super Bowl tickets on me as well as a Learjet voucher through a small private-commerical company run out of the same city in which our corportate headquarters is located. And *they* just happen to be flying along that route, on that particular day! Wow, what a co-incidence!"?


On the topic of firearms:

What I like is when people (liberal cowards) figure the 2nd amendment only applies to circa-1776 muskets and the national guard. Then, they turn right around and apply the 1st amendment to circa-2000 television, frequency-modulated radio, satellite radio, cellular phones, the internet, museum "art" with Jesus depicted in a mound of cow sh*t.

Only parts of the Constitution are "living". Just the parts I want to be alive, and all the other parts only applied to 1776. Get over it already. Move on! Here's a granola bar and some natural spring water for you.

[Bertgang]

Well, it isn't the first time I see this kind of topic here, so no big surprise seeing what people thinks.

Anyway, the popular and constitutionnal support in US for personal firearms is still amazing, seen from Europe.

A law written when american independence, borders and wild areas were really riskly, seems a bit outdated today.

Then very few here think that a rifle or a revolver in each home could add a cent to people's security; maybe because too much legal owners have strange accidents, murders included.

[FIREWALL]

Someone on this site had an interestingsig. It went something like this.



Turn your swords to plowshares.

Then you can plow for those that didn't.

[waste gate]

Do you think this woman would have been better served if she could have protected herself? She died in a police station which had no police.
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=575931

[SUBMAN1]

Someone on this site had an interestingsig. It went something like this.



Turn your swords to plowshares.

Then you can plow for those that didn't.
I'm not plowing for anyones lazy *ss! Thanks!

-S

PS. Besides, I need my sword since it's typically someone's lazy *ss who didn't do their share of plowing who wants to take my harvest instead - lest I need to defend it.

[waste gate]

We live in a very violent world. Let's admit that at least. Denying people the right to protect themselves is a crime unto itself.

http://www.wnbc.com/news/11215959/detail.html?dl=headlineclick

[ASWnut101]

The man, believed to be in his 30s, rides a pink bicycle and was seen wearing a winter jacket with a fur collar around the hood, police said.

I'm sorry, but this is too good to pass up!:p


Anyway, I'm in agreeance (if that's a word) with Waste Gate.:yep: Denying someone's right to protect themself is essintally allowing them to be murdered or violated.

[Penelope_Grey]

Hmm.. I can't help but be intrigued by this somewhat, most Americans are strongly in favour of their guns. But, there is protection and then there is potentially killing someone. So in the interest of discussion.....

So in theory, I can shoot a burglar dead to protect myself, even though they may be unarmed? Ok they shouldn't be breaking into your house, but do they really deserve to be riddled with bullets for doing so? Or would I command them to "FREEZE" first and try to hold them prisoner till the police arrive? What if they don't believe the gun is loaded? Suppose they try to rush me to escape and end up getting shot? I believe in non-violence wherever possible but I am also a proponent of reasonable force in certain situations and to my mind shooting someone it not reasonable in the least.

I mean come on guys, right to protect yourself is one thing, but a right to get a gun out and shoot someone, that seems to be the ideas being put forward in this thread. Could any of you point a gun at someone and squeeze the trigger knowing full well you may kill that person?

[waste gate]

Hmm.. I can't help but be intrigued by this somewhat, most Americans are strongly in favour of their guns. But, there is protection and then there is potentially killing someone. So in the interest of discussion.....

So in theory, I can shoot a burglar dead to protect myself, even though they may be unarmed? Ok they shouldn't be breaking into your house, but do they really deserve to be riddled with bullets for doing so? Or would I command them to "FREEZE" first and try to hold them prisoner till the police arrive? What if they don't believe the gun is loaded? Suppose they try to rush me to escape and end up getting shot? I believe in non-violence wherever possible but I am also a proponent of reasonable force in certain situations and to my mind shooting someone it not reasonable in the least.

I mean come on guys, right to protect yourself is one thing, but a right to get a gun out and shoot someone, that seems to be the ideas being put forward in this thread. Could any of you point a gun at someone and squeeze the trigger knowing full well you may kill that person?

If someone comes in my house uninvited, which is by common law my castle, I will do every thing in my power to evacuate him. I will tell him once to leave. If he does not comply I will defend myself and my property by firing my firearm in his direction. If he was not in the path of the bullet he is free to go and the police can chase him down. If he is in the path he is shot.

I'd rather be judged by twelve than buried by six.

[ASWnut101]

Hmm.. I can't help but be intrigued by this somewhat, most Americans are strongly in favour of their guns. But, there is protection and then there is potentially killing someone. So in the interest of discussion.....

Actually, not as many of us really are in favor of them as you think. There are still plenty, though.


So in theory, I can shoot a burglar dead to protect myself, even though they may be unarmed?

Unarmed or not, we shouldn't have to let them take our stuff while we sit back and watch. Nobody want's an "unwanted guest" in our homes. Homes are your sanctuaries. That's a safe place. Safe places aren't places that have crooks crawling through you place while you sleep.


Ok they shouldn't be breaking into your house, but do they really deserve to be riddled with bullets for doing so?

In most cases, yes. Nothing else will stop them. Jail or not. They will keep doing it until they are put away for life or dead.


Or would I command them to "FREEZE" first and try to hold them prisoner till the police arrive?

Of course, that's probably what many of us would do, just to prevent a unwanted death. Try to identify the intruder before blowing him away, if the situation permits


What if they don't believe the gun is loaded? Suppose they try to rush me to escape and end up getting shot?

Then that will be thier last mistake. They would be foolish to charge someone with a gun, especially if they don't know if it's loaded. Would you charge someone with a gun pointed at you?


I believe in non-violence wherever possible but I am also a proponent of reasonable force in certain situations and to my mind shooting someone it not reasonable in the least.

Then that's your opinion. Nothing wrong with that, mostly.


I mean come on guys, right to protect yourself is one thing, but a right to get a gun out and shoot someone, that seems to be the ideas being put forward in this thread.

How else would you protect yourself? If he/she is in your house, you shouldn't have to put up with it. If he dosen't get out, they will be leaving in a body-bag. He deserves no less.


Could any of you point a gun at someone and squeeze the trigger knowing full well you may kill that person?

I certainly could, and will if it happens. It's my right to live safely in my own house, free of intruders. Do you wan't to live safely in your house, free of intruders?

[Bort]

What I like is when people (liberal cowards) figure the 2nd amendment only applies to circa-1776 muskets and the national guard. Then, they turn right around and apply the 1st amendment to circa-2000 television, frequency-modulated radio, satellite radio, cellular phones, the internet, museum "art" with Jesus depicted in a mound of cow sh*t.

Wow, what a classy statement, calling an entire group (and it is a big group) cowards just because you disagree with them. Well done.

Hmm.. I can't help but be intrigued by this somewhat, most Americans are strongly in favour of their guns. But, there is protection and then there is potentially killing someone. So in the interest of discussion.....

So in theory, I can shoot a burglar dead to protect myself, even though they may be unarmed? Ok they shouldn't be breaking into your house, but do they really deserve to be riddled with bullets for doing so? Or would I command them to "FREEZE" first and try to hold them prisoner till the police arrive? What if they don't believe the gun is loaded? Suppose they try to rush me to escape and end up getting shot? I believe in non-violence wherever possible but I am also a proponent of reasonable force in certain situations and to my mind shooting someone it not reasonable in the least.

I mean come on guys, right to protect yourself is one thing, but a right to get a gun out and shoot someone, that seems to be the ideas being put forward in this thread. Could any of you point a gun at someone and squeeze the trigger knowing full well you may kill that person?

Gun ownership and the protection of that right (if it does indeed exist) is symptomatic of a much larger social/political split in the United States between the Urban and the Rural, the North and the South, The East and the West, and so on and so fourth. People in urban areas, (such as myself) tend to be more open to contols on firearms, which is likely due to the very nature of city life. As an example, if you are in trouble in a large city like Chicago, a call to the police will likely bring a much faster (5 minutes or less) response than in the country, where the nearest officer could be tens of miles away. People in cities are more reliant on government services than in the country, and they accept this fact, whereas people live much more independently with much less government access or role in their everyday lives, and therefore they tend to be wary of government regulation. Different strokes for different folks, which leads me to believe that municipalities like DC should have the right to regulate guns if they feel its necessary.

[Bertgang]

Ok Bort, I can understand this attitude when speaking of different needings in rural or urban areas; who lives alone in the country or in the woods can't be overconfident in external help, when exposed to a grizzly's or outlaw's strike.

Less easy, for me, to understand that when speaking about social/political split, North and South, East and West; something not so obvious for a foreigner.

[SUBMAN1]

Ok Bort, I can understand this attitude when speaking of different needings in rural or urban areas; who lives alone in the country or in the woods can't be overconfident in external help, when exposed to a grizzly's or outlaw's strike.

Less easy, for me, to understand that when speaking about social/political split, North and South, East and West; something not so obvious for a foreigner.
Chicago is one of the weirder places on this issue, so I don't think it applies outside of its immediate area. And the North South split is not like that either. Take Washington State for example (NW corner - but Oregon has similar statistics) - almost 50% of the population 21 and over has a concealed carry permit, and this doesn't even begin to cover the people who actually own firearms in their homes. Go to the South - California (SW corner), and I think a total of 6 civilians have a CCP in San Francisco persey. So I think this is a Chicago idea, not a whole country idea.

-S

PS. Go directly East of Cali - and you get Arizona - Open Carry is still legal there without a permit - you can walk out into public with a 6 shooter in your holster on public display if you feel like. Very few states follow the Chicago model which seems foreign to the rest of us.

[SUBMAN1]

Hmm.. I can't help but be intrigued by this somewhat, most Americans are strongly in favour of their guns. But, there is protection and then there is potentially killing someone. So in the interest of discussion.....

So in theory, I can shoot a burglar dead to protect myself, even though they may be unarmed? Ok they shouldn't be breaking into your house, but do they really deserve to be riddled with bullets for doing so? Or would I command them to "FREEZE" first and try to hold them prisoner till the police arrive? What if they don't believe the gun is loaded? Suppose they try to rush me to escape and end up getting shot? I believe in non-violence wherever possible but I am also a proponent of reasonable force in certain situations and to my mind shooting someone it not reasonable in the least.

I mean come on guys, right to protect yourself is one thing, but a right to get a gun out and shoot someone, that seems to be the ideas being put forward in this thread. Could any of you point a gun at someone and squeeze the trigger knowing full well you may kill that person?

Uhm, if some guy is breaking into your house, I would be willing to bet that you may be in major danger since this guy will probably do anything - even kill you to make sure he gets away with what it is he is doing. SOme would probably even be worse - rape then kill. So why do you think that by making him die it is a bad thing for society? Lets put it this way - a criminal like this is an enemy to the state anyway.

-S

[Sailor Steve]

I mean come on guys, right to protect yourself is one thing, but a right to get a gun out and shoot someone, that seems to be the ideas being put forward in this thread. Could any of you point a gun at someone and squeeze the trigger knowing full well you may kill that person?
One thing you're missing is that most people who own guns don't just put them in a drawer against possible bad times; they take them to the range and practice with them on a regular basis. I have a friend who has had several potential burglars in the last few years. On at least four separate occassions the sound of the slide wracking on a .45 is more than enough to scare an unarmed burglar into immediate flight. On none of these occassions has my friend ever shot anybody.

If you train with the weapon you also learn when not to use it. You could ask a cop the same question, and you would get the same answer. That said, here in Utah the law is perfectly clear: if he's in your house without permission, it's his problem, not yours.

[SUBMAN1]

One thing you're missing is that most people who own guns don't just put them in a drawer against possible bad times; they take them to the range and practice with them on a regular basis. I have a friend who has had several potential burglars in the last few years. On at least four separate occassions the sound of the slide wracking on a .45 is more than enough to scare an unarmed burglar into immediate flight. On none of these occassions has my friend ever shot anybody.

If you train with the weapon you also learn when not to use it. You could ask a cop the same question, and you would get the same answer. That said, here in Utah the law is perfectly clear: if he's in your house without permission, it's his problem, not yours.

Well said. I get the feeling that people over there think that gun owners over here whip them out on a moments notice. Quite the opposite is true. They are there, but never seen. It is the last line of defense before one would even think of using one.

I follow a simple rule - let the gun be seen, and expect to go to jail - period. That means - exhaust every last possibility before you use it since bringing it out can get you in jail as well. I even live in a 'stand your ground' state, but that is one rule I don't intend to ever follow - I'll still exhaust every last possibility first.

-S

[tycho102]

Well said. I get the feeling that people over there think that gun owners over here whip them out on a moments notice. Quite the opposite is true. They are there, but never seen. It is the last line of defense before one would even think of using one.
-S

Absolutely. you still have the option of fleeing, but it becomes an option.

[SUBMAN1]

Absolutely. you still have the option of fleeing, but it becomes an option.
When it comes to your life, options are good!

-S

[AVGWarhawk]

As I always understood it, one must use equal force. In other words, a bat for a bat, gun for a gun. Armed to unarmed is not equal. If said burgular is in your house and he is unarmed, you using a weapon is frowned upon in a court of law.

Get a large dog. Best alarm out there. One bark is usually enough to ward off potential burgulary.

[SUBMAN1]

As I always understood it, one must use equal force. In other words, a bat for a bat, gun for a gun. Armed to unarmed is not equal. If said burgular is in your house and he is unarmed, you using a weapon is frowned upon in a court of law.

Get a large dog. Best alarm out there. One bark is usually enough to ward off potential burgulary.
That is not true - you must be in fear for your physical well being, and any man simply entering your home fits that bill perfectly. Never heard of anyone being prosecuted for firing at an intruder before. That is the main reason I keep a gun in the first place. Even though I have a CPP, I almost never carry it. Its just a nice option to have. THe main reason for the gun though is intruders.

By the way, if you've ever watched the Discovery show called - It Takes a Thief, you might have another opinion of the dog. A big dog = not gonna do ya any good!

[Fish]

and it was overturned by the HEAVILY conservative DC court of appeals.



I think judge's shouldn't be political chosen.
Sounds ridiculous to me, a democratic or conservative court of appeal.:down:

[SUBMAN1]

and it was overturned by the HEAVILY conservative DC court of appeals.


I think judge's shouldn't be political chosen.
Sounds ridiculous to me, a democratic or conservative court of appeal.:down:

Only the Supreme court is like this. Other judges are elected. Some circuits just typically rule conservatively. THis may be one of them.

-S

[Bertgang]

Maybe I am wrong, but the problem I see with you system is about this:

US have a very large legal market for personal weapons; no special problem, until everything runs as supposed (just fine people, with a responsible attitude, has the right to purchase rifles and pistols).

More difficult to say if all legal weapons owners will be so fine as supposed.
Here I'm not speaking about the rare man who could become a mad murder, but the vicious use of this freedom.
Maybe someone is ready to sell again his weapons to someone who couldn't make a purchase on the legal market.
Maybe exist laws against that, but the trick to overrun them is really simple; sell your revolver to the worst criminal, then tell to police that it was lost, forgotten or stolen somewhere.
An easy and safe way to make money.

As I can see on this forum, lot of US homes are filled with any kind of weapons; why a criminal should buy them, when it's so easy to have some for free by simple theft?
Sure, it's a risk of bullets, but normal people sometimes sleeps, leaves home for holidays and so on; furthermore, the good armed cityzen isn't a full time armed sentinel or sniper.

Maybe someone has really an added chance to flee a chicken's thief, but I frankly doubt that the average outcome of your free weapon market could be for the legal side.

[SUBMAN1]

Maybe I am wrong, but the problem I see with you system is about this:

US have a very large legal market for personal weapons; no special problem, until everything runs as supposed (just fine people, with a responsible attitude, has the right to purchase rifles and pistols).

More difficult to say if all legal weapons owners will be so fine as supposed.
Here I'm not speaking about the rare man who could become a mad murder, but the vicious use of this freedom.
Maybe someone is ready to sell again his weapons to someone who couldn't make a purchase on the legal market.
Maybe exist laws against that, but the trick to overrun them is really simple; sell your revolver to the worst criminal, then tell to police that it was lost, forgotten or stolen somewhere.
An easy and safe way to make money.

As I can see on this forum, lot of US homes are filled with any kind of weapons; why a criminal should buy them, when it's so easy to have some for free by simple theft?
Sure, it's a risk of bullets, but normal people sometimes sleeps, leaves home for holidays and so on; furthermore, the good armed cityzen isn't a full time armed sentinel or sniper.

Maybe someone has really an added chance to flee a chicken's thief, but I frankly doubt that the average outcome of your free weapon market could be for the legal side.
I see your point. I have several weapons as you may have figured out, but one thing is for certain on every last one of them - I have a paper trail on where they have been and when they were purchased. What you may not understand is that each and every last one of them has a serial # on it, so if it were ever stolen - reporting it stolen could be a major offence to the person that posseses it when the cops find it.

One more thing - anyone I know that has a gun (majority do in the state I live in) practices with it. They know how to shoot something - unlike what you see in the movies where they can't hit a barn door. Of course this can be annoying on a rainy day when you have to wait for a lane at the local range. Arrghh!!! :damn:

Last thing - a simple statement as given by our founding fathers (Benjamin Franklin):

They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security -S

[Tchocky]

Are there any states where a level of training is mandatory for gun ownership? Just curious, seeing as guns seem to be much less dangerous when the carrier knows what the hell he's doing :)

[SUBMAN1]

Are there any states where a level of training is mandatory for gun ownership? Just curious, seeing as guns seem to be much less dangerous when the carrier knows what the hell he's doing :)

No.

For a Concealed Permit though, there are some states that have mandatory training.

Getting a gun in the first place is a major step, and it is one that is not taken lightly. Anyone that I have known that has ever taken that step, didn't hesitate to go train with it on their own. Does that answer it?

-S

[AVGWarhawk]

As I always understood it, one must use equal force. In other words, a bat for a bat, gun for a gun. Armed to unarmed is not equal. If said burgular is in your house and he is unarmed, you using a weapon is frowned upon in a court of law.

Get a large dog. Best alarm out there. One bark is usually enough to ward off potential burgulary.
That is not true - you must be in fear for your physical well being, and any man simply entering your home fits that bill perfectly. Never heard of anyone being prosecuted for firing at an intruder before. That is the main reason I keep a gun in the first place. Even though I have a CPP, I almost never carry it. Its just a nice option to have. THe main reason for the gun though is intruders.

By the way, if you've ever watched the Discovery show called - It Takes a Thief, you might have another opinion of the dog. A big dog = not gonna do ya any good!
I watch this program. Burgulary takes place when no one is home. Dog around, yes. Dog can bark but dog can not dial a phone. Problem number one handled. Therefore, dog can bark all day and if said owner is not home who really cares? No one. If at night when dog can bark alerting the owner, much different story. Case and point, I have a friend in Detroit. Early morning, her two dogs start acting funny. Whining and looking to leave the bedroom. Owner lets them out of bedroom. Dogs go to the kitchen where a man has entered the house. Man runs from dog and woman. Would the man have ran if woman not hom?e. Probably not because the dogs can not dial 911. Furthermore, the program is staged and acted. There is no real fear of cops showing up.


Just because you never heard of someone not being prosecuted for using a gun in this situation does not mean it has not happened. Case and point. Gentlemen in NY confronts an intruder in his house. He hits him in the head with a bat. The intruder dies on his floor. The cops show up. They tell this gentlemen to put the bat away. The cops then pull the body outside the house on the front porch. Police report reads intruder flees, trips on doorstep hitting his head on the stoop. Intruder dies as a result. The cops did not want home owner under any suspicion at all. How do I know this? This man was my college roommates father.


Excessive force is questioned if the victim is to believe to have used it. Sure perceived danger is one thing but by your thinking if I perceive a threat from someone walking by my house, I can pull out my gun and start firing? Not that I'm aware of. It is a self defense issue if I'm not mistaken. Don't get me wrong Subman, I'm firm believer in protection of ones life and property. I have no issue if someone plugs a burgular. Save the tax payors some money. Unfortunate the courts of law see it differently if I'm not mistaken.

[SUBMAN1]

I watch this program. Burgulary takes place when no one is home. Dog around, yes. Dog can bark but dog can not dial a phone. Problem number one handled. Therefore, dog can bark all day and if said owner is not home who really cares? No one. If at night when dog can bark alerting the owner, much different story. Case and point, I have a friend in Detroit. Early morning, her two dogs start acting funny. Whining and looking to leave the bedroom. Owner lets them out of bedroom. Dogs go to the kitchen where a man has entered the house. Man runs from dog and woman. Would the man have ran if woman not hom?e. Probably not because the dogs can not dial 911. Furthermore, the program is staged and acted. There is no real fear of cops showing up.

Point taken - dogs might help in alerting the owner to an intruder. As far as being staged an acted - I don't agree. These dogs don't know the difference and these guys enter the house and the dogs do nothing.


Just because you never heard of someone not being prosecuted for using a gun in this situation does not mean it has not happened. Case and point. Gentlemen in NY confronts an intruder in his house. He hits him in the head with a bat. The intruder dies on his floor. The cops show up. They tell this gentlemen to put the bat away. The cops then pull the body outside the house on the front porch. Police report reads intruder flees, trips on doorstep hitting his head on the stoop. Intruder dies as a result. The cops did not want home owner under any suspicion at all. How do I know this? This man was my college roommates father.

Interesting story - NY is always a special case and this is just one more story from there that doesn't surprise me. I do not think they are a stand your ground state which is why. If I remember correctly, I am not even sure guns are even legal in NY at all, so the bat may be a case of excessive force in a state that does not permit you to defend yourself. Sorry to hear this happened to someone you know.


Excessive force is questioned if the victim is to believe to have used it. Sure percieved danger is one thing but by your thinking if I percieve a threat from someone walking by my house, I can pull out my gun and start firing? Not that I'm aware of. It is a self defense issue if I'm not mistaken.

Yes - Everything is up to a prosecutor, but we should say that being convicted on said charges are very rare - and probably deserved if ever someone was convicted. I have yet to see a case myself like this though.

[AVGWarhawk]

@Sub,

As far as the dog issue on this program. The man who does the breaking and entering is not under any stress or having foreboding feelings of getting caught. Dogs can sense this. Sure there are plenty of happy go lucky dogs that no matter who shows up he will show them the silverware.:yep: I have two dogs. A poodle(happy go lucky) and a wire hair pointing griffon(not so happy go lucky but not a bitter). She will charge a stranger to say hello but 50lbs coming at you full speed barking just to say hello is pretty scary. I guess it depends on the dog.

NY is always a different story:yep:. No reason to be sorry. The home owner clobbered the intruder. OK in my book. This dumb dumb should not have been in the house. Just great the cops were avoiding a long drawn out court appearances for the home owner. The cops get tired of this crap also. Most time the victim has less rights than the accused.

As far as prosecutors and defense lawyers, just make the jury cry over something and the case is won. Gee, Joe intruder was just trying to feed his family(show pictures of family) and John home owner popped a cap in his rear killing him. Now Joe Intruders family is without a father:cry::cry:. Ok, Joe intruders family gets monies in a wrongful death suit. John home owner sells property to pay for more lawyers and appeals.:doh:

[SUBMAN1]

@Sub,

As far as the dog issue on this program. The man who does the breaking and entering is not under any stress or having foreboding feelings of getting caught. Dogs can sense this. Sure there are plenty of happy go lucky dogs that no matter who shows up he will show them the silverware.:yep: I have two dogs. A poodle(happy go lucky) and a wire hair pointing griffon(not so happy go lucky but not a bitter). She will charge a stranger to say hello but 50lbs coming at you full speed barking just to say hello is pretty scary. I guess it depends on the dog.

I hear ya - but some of these guys have done it so many times, they are not under any stress. In my experience though, if you approach a possibly hostile dog with a air of superiority, the dog is used to this and it will treat you as superior. Then again, I'm sure some idiots I'm sure would run from the dog - and that will defintely trigger the dogs instincts. I guess it is all about who you have breaking into your house.

NY is always a different story:yep:. No reason to be sorry. The home owner clobbered the intruder. OK in my book. This dumb dumb should not have been in the house. Just great the cops were avoiding a long drawn out court appearances for the home owner. The cops get tired of this crap also. Most time the victim has less rights than the accused.

In my opinion, it is good that one more bad guy is off the street. It is also good that the cops helped out in this case. I still feel bad that your friends father still had to go through all that crap. I only wish that I 'never' have to experience the same thing in my entire life.

As far as prosecutors and defense lawyers, just make the jury cry over something and the case is won. Gee, Joe intruder was just trying to feed his family(show pictures of family) and John home owner popped a cap in his rear killing him. Now Joe Intruders family is without a father:cry::cry:. Ok, Joe intruders family get monies in a wrongful death suit. John home owner sells property to pay for more lawyers and appeals.:doh:

I've never heard of anyone winning these wrongful death suits, and rarely have I heard of anyone trying to go after it. I have however heard of where the intruder wasn't killed and then the victim getting sued over it, and that just drives me nuts!!! How dare this guy sue for someone defending themselves? That is a stain on our current society in my book.

I hear ya though - anything could happen in a court of law. I guess it goes back to the old saying - better to be judged by 12, instead of buried by 6.

-S

[AVGWarhawk]

I have heard of accused suing the victum for breaking leg while fleeing. Such a joke.

[SUBMAN1]

I have heard of accused suing the victum for breaking leg while fleeing. Such a joke.

Yeah - that just turns my stomach to think they can get away with that.

-S

[tycho102]

As I always understood it, one must use equal force. In other words, a bat for a bat, gun for a gun. Armed to unarmed is not equal. If said burgular is in your house and he is unarmed, you using a weapon is frowned upon in a court of law.

Get a large dog. Best alarm out there. One bark is usually enough to ward off potential burgulary.
You make a number of interesting points.

1. My state law says I am justifed in using, but not limited to, deadly force to stop any perceived aggression -- no matter how slight -- in my home. I have the "reasonable" expectation of complete safety in my own home. Don't break into my home: It's that simple to me because I will simply not break into someone else's home.

2. Years ago, I used to go jogging around the block. Usually right around dusk. Had a run in with a dog that the people were keeping on their front porch (he had a doghouse there), which I can only assume was to ward off potential burglars (or toilet paperers [TP'ers]). I was ~.1km down the street when the dog raced out to me. It was a large dog and I'm not entirely sure of it's breed because it had just gotten dark. I drew and kept backing away, and fortunately for me (the dog too, I guess) he let me go. Another time in broad daylight when I had stopped to tie down some branches in the back of my truck, someone's dog ran out to me. I climbed onto the cab of my truck and the owner came over and retreived his dog after what was probably a minute.

That is to say, I have had more issues with large dogs than I have with people. Which is why I ended up buying a treadmill and using that, instead.

Sticks are great except when it's a +30kg pitbull or doberman. One good time is all it'll take to teach you that lesson -- I've seen videos on the internet of people who had been educated about sticks and dogs. It becomes even more critical when you're just trying to walk around the block with your wife and child, or heading down to the park playground.

3. You are equating "proportionate force" with "equal force". They are not the same -- they are different concepts. If two unarmed people attack me, in my state, I can use deadly force to stop them. If someone threatens me with a knife, I can use deadly force in response, even if the attacker is 5 meters away; the knife can be thrown.

[AVGWarhawk]

As I always understood it, one must use equal force. In other words, a bat for a bat, gun for a gun. Armed to unarmed is not equal. If said burgular is in your house and he is unarmed, you using a weapon is frowned upon in a court of law.

Get a large dog. Best alarm out there. One bark is usually enough to ward off potential burgulary.
You make a number of interesting points.

1. My state law says I am justifed in using, but not limited to, deadly force to stop any perceived aggression -- no matter how slight -- in my home. I have the "reasonable" expectation of complete safety in my own home. Don't break into my home: It's that simple to me because I will simply not break into someone else's home.

2. Years ago, I used to go jogging around the block. Usually right around dusk. Had a run in with a dog that the people were keeping on their front porch (he had a doghouse there), which I can only assume was to ward off potential burglars (or toilet paperers [TP'ers]). I was ~.1km down the street when the dog raced out to me. It was a large dog and I'm not entirely sure of it's breed because it had just gotten dark. I drew and kept backing away, and fortunately for me (the dog too, I guess) he let me go. Another time in broad daylight when I had stopped to tie down some branches in the back of my truck, someone's dog ran out to me. I climbed onto the cab of my truck and the owner came over and retreived his dog after what was probably a minute.

That is to say, I have had more issues with large dogs than I have with people. Which is why I ended up buying a treadmill and using that, instead.

Sticks are great except when it's a +30kg pitbull or doberman. One good time is all it'll take to teach you that lesson -- I've seen videos on the internet of people who had been educated about sticks and dogs. It becomes even more critical when you're just trying to walk around the block with your wife and child, or heading down to the park playground.

3. You are equating "proportionate force" with "equal force". They are not the same -- they are different concepts. If two unarmed people attack me, in my state, I can use deadly force to stop them. If someone threatens me with a knife, I can use deadly force in response, even if the attacker is 5 meters away; the knife can be thrown.
Proportionate force is basically equal force. If two guys jumped you, you should be able to use deadly force as you are not equal in force.....2 to 1 is not equal. You are about to get your butt kicked and you should be able to use whatever means you have at the moment. Includes running like hell!!! A knife is a deadly weapon and you should be able to fight with equal weapon, all be it a handgun if you have it, also a deadly weapon. The police are under the same deal. They look closely at incidents with police if a baton should have been used instead of the handgun. Maybe mace, maybe rubber bullets were a better alternative instead of a 9mm to the head. Everyone gets examined no matter who you are.

[SUBMAN1]

As I always understood it, one must use equal force. In other words, a bat for a bat, gun for a gun. Armed to unarmed is not equal. If said burgular is in your house and he is unarmed, you using a weapon is frowned upon in a court of law.

Get a large dog. Best alarm out there. One bark is usually enough to ward off potential burgulary.
You make a number of interesting points.

1. My state law says I am justifed in using, but not limited to, deadly force to stop any perceived aggression -- no matter how slight -- in my home. I have the "reasonable" expectation of complete safety in my own home. Don't break into my home: It's that simple to me because I will simply not break into someone else's home.

2. Years ago, I used to go jogging around the block. Usually right around dusk. Had a run in with a dog that the people were keeping on their front porch (he had a doghouse there), which I can only assume was to ward off potential burglars (or toilet paperers [TP'ers]). I was ~.1km down the street when the dog raced out to me. It was a large dog and I'm not entirely sure of it's breed because it had just gotten dark. I drew and kept backing away, and fortunately for me (the dog too, I guess) he let me go. Another time in broad daylight when I had stopped to tie down some branches in the back of my truck, someone's dog ran out to me. I climbed onto the cab of my truck and the owner came over and retreived his dog after what was probably a minute.

That is to say, I have had more issues with large dogs than I have with people. Which is why I ended up buying a treadmill and using that, instead.

Sticks are great except when it's a +30kg pitbull or doberman. One good time is all it'll take to teach you that lesson -- I've seen videos on the internet of people who had been educated about sticks and dogs. It becomes even more critical when you're just trying to walk around the block with your wife and child, or heading down to the park playground.

3. You are equating "proportionate force" with "equal force". They are not the same -- they are different concepts. If two unarmed people attack me, in my state, I can use deadly force to stop them. If someone threatens me with a knife, I can use deadly force in response, even if the attacker is 5 meters away; the knife can be thrown.
Proportionate force is basically equal force. If two guys jumped you, you should be able to use deadly force as you are not equal in force.....2 to 1 is not equal. You are about to get your butt kicked and you should be able to use whatever means you have at the moment. Includes running like hell!!! A knife is a deadly weapon and you should be able to fight with equal weapon, all be it a handgun if you have it, also a deadly weapon. The police are under the same deal. They look closely at incidents with police if a baton should have been used instead of the handgun. Maybe mace, maybe rubber bullets were a better alternative instead of a 9mm to the head. Everyone gets examined no matter who you are.

Any hefty intruder in ones home than is not equal force then under that logic! :p Doesn't matter though since my state doesn't care as much as you NY'rs.

-S

[Tchocky]

Getting a gun in the first place is a major step, and it is one that is not taken lightly. Anyone that I have known that has ever taken that step, didn't hesitate to go train with it on their own. Does that answer it?

-S

That's good to know.

[AVGWarhawk]

Any hefty intruder in ones home than is not equal force then under that logic! :p Doesn't matter though since my state doesn't care as much as you NY'rs.


Yes, Joe strongman that does not know his own strenght is subject to much the same. Just like when a man overpowers a woman. She is not equal.

[waste gate]

Openly carrying a fire arm is legal in Colorado. A permit is required for concealed carry (CCW). Since we are tapped into the internet crime database the waiting period is about 45 minutes and there is no limit as to the numer of guns one can buy ina a day, week, month or year.

[AVGWarhawk]

Openly carrying a fire arm is legal in Colorado. A permit is required for concealed carry (CCW). Since we are tapped into the internet crime database the waiting period is about 45 minutes and there is no limit as to the numer of guns one can buy ina a day, week, month or year.

Same for TX. I believe handgun killings are quite low because, well, everyone has equal force!!!

[waste gate]

Openly carrying a fire arm is legal in Colorado. A permit is required for concealed carry (CCW). Since we are tapped into the internet crime database the waiting period is about 45 minutes and there is no limit as to the numer of guns one can buy ina a day, week, month or year.

Same for TX. I believe handgun killings are quite low because, well, everyone has equal force!!!

Years ago I lived in Connecticut, and openly carrying a fire arm was illegal. A permit was needed to do so. Yet, concealed carry was encouraged and no permit was required. Curious.

[ASWnut101]

Can't you also do that in Arizona?

[waste gate]

Can't you also do that in Arizona?

This is an inerpretation of Arizona law.


Date updated: Sep 26, 2005 @ 4:04 pm
Arizona is an open carry state. Handguns should be holstered when not actually in use to avoid issues related to brandishing or questions regarding the concealed nature of the firearm. The law states that as long as a portion of the holster is visible, the weapon is not concealed. It is recommended that at least 2-3 inches of the holster be visible. Fanny packs designed to carry a handgun do not qualify as a holster; only permit holders may carry a weapon in a fanny pack (State v. Moerman).
An unholstered handgun carried by a non-permitee which is only partially visible is considered concealed, hence the recommendation to keep carried handguns holstered. Weapons carried in a vehicle that are not in a holster or case must be clearly visible and obvious, unless the weapon is in the trunk, glove box or a storage compartment of the vehicle (see comment under Car/Gun law summary). Weapons may be transported/carried loaded or unloaded. Open carry is generally discouraged on tribal lands (see discussion under "Places off-limits while carrying"). Other locations may be posted "no weapons" or be covered under State or Federal law (see above).