Court Strikes Down D.C. Handgun Ban

[Fish]

Originally Posted by Bort

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.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Fish

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

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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!!!

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

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]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

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. 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. 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. Ok, Joe intruders family gets monies in a wrongful death suit. John home owner sells property to pay for more lawyers and appeals.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by 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. 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. 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. Ok, Joe intruders family get monies in a wrongful death suit. John home owner sells property to pay for more lawyers and appeals.

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]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by tycho102

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]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

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