2Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksI'm still not sure why there are laws that tell us its o.k. to protect ourselves and famillies. I believe this to be a no brainer.
Rest assured our law makerd cant wait to take our rights and guns away, so they can protect us, right?
This is a discussion on Castle Doctrine & Stand Your Ground within the Open Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; I'm still not sure why there are laws that tell us its o.k. to protect ourselves and famillies. I believe this to be a no ...
Array
Rest assured our law makerd cant wait to take our rights and guns away, so they can protect us, right?
Array
Hey Concealed: Guess you answered your own question. I'll bet we would be amazed to find out how many of our esteemed lawmakers have permission and own a firearm. I would not be surprised to find out that percent-wise, it is probably a great deal higher than us "normal folk". All I know is that if the king decides to become the all knowing, can't live without him dictator, as he plunges this country into debt/economic ruin, and "needs" his civilian police force (like the gestapo) to "enforce the peace", and they come a-callin at my house, they will know I have a firearm.
Array
Hey biglos, first, welcome to the forum, and second, thanks for posting the map! Good info, even if a little bit of it is outdated.
Live to ride, ride to live. Harley Road KingAnd keep a .45 handy
Kimber Custom TLE II
Array
Yeah, I don't get it either. But then again, I like to think for myself and that generally causes frustration to the people who come up with ridiculous laws like that.Originally Posted by ConcealedG30
"Don't hit a man if you can possibly avoid it; but if you do hit him, put him to sleep." - Theodore Roosevelt
If you are not willing to stand behind our Troops, feel free to stand in front of them!
-Paco
Array
Array
The new map Biglos just posted looks more like it to me. I know PA just passed it and I didnt think NY had it. We are a retreat state here were all the democrats live. Cuomo just signed a new law saying if your found in violation of any sort of domestic dispute case..misdeamenor or ANYTHING...you never see a handgun permit!
I think all deserve CD within their home for gods sake....
Please...work HARDER as MILLIONS on welfare depending on YOU !!
Array
Interesting fact: I'm from British Columbia originally and there is NO CASTLE DOCTRINE, I live in Washington state now...
Not to hi-jack this thread, but what Gov. Cuomo signed is totally in line with Federal Law. In fact, not only won't you get your pistol permit, but you lose all your gun rights! Permanently.
The Top 10 Things You Need to Know About Federal Gun Law
2. No guns after misdemeanor criminal domestic violence convictions and no guns during the time that a DVPO is in effect. Under federal law, anyone who has a criminal domestic violence conviction is barred from possessing a gun. Forever. As 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) says, "[i]t shall be unlawful for any person . . . who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence . . . to possess in or affecting commerce any firearm or ammunition."
Under 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(33), a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" is any misdemeanor that "has, as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon, committed by a current or former spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited with the victim as a spouse, parent, or guardian, or by a person similarly situated to a spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim."
What does that mean? If someone has a state court conviction for simple assault, assault on a female, or any other misdemeanor assault, and if the victim is the client's spouse, live-in partner, child, or anyone else "similarly situated," then the client is forever barred by federal law from possessing a gun. The same applies to convictions for communicating threats, when the client threatens to use a deadly weapon against one of the victims named above. The client can never again possess a gun; if he does, he can be prosecuted in federal court and receive up to ten years in federal prison.
What if, in state court, a client is charged with misdemeanor assault but the magistrate fails to put the "domestic violence" label on the case? That makes no difference in federal court. If the client and the victim are related or connected as described above, the case will still qualify as a "crime of domestic violence" in federal court.
Domestic violence protective orders (DVPO's) also fall within the federal firearms ban, but only for the length of time that the DVPO isin effect in state court. Anyone who "is subject" to a DVPO is barred from possessing a firearm, per 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8). Once the DVPO expires in state court (usually after one year, but it can be extended), the federal firearms ban goes away, because the person no longer "is subject" to the DVPO.
Practice tip: if you have someone charged with a civil DVPO as well as a misdemeanor domestic violence crime in state court, try to arrange a deal in which you agree to the DVPO in exchange for a dismissal of the criminal charge. After the DVPO expires, your client will be able to get his guns back.
-Bark'n
Semper Fi
"The gun is the great equalizer... For it is the gun, that allows the meek to repel the monsters; Whom are bigger, stronger and without conscience, prey on those who without one, would surely perish."
Array
Great Info!
Array
Just the other day, while at the shooting range with three LEO buddies of mine, the discussion came up about stand your ground and the Castle Doctrine. Looking at the map and the left coast, I'm pretty sure that guns can only shoot flowers out of them and the amount of flowers may be restricted. How nice it must be to have someone break into your house while you run out the door leaving droppings of flowers. Thanks goodness I live in a State where at least some semblance of common sense prevails. Interesting to hear my LEO friends say that in today's economy and age, no one should be without a gun. (And one that shoots real bullets.) Friends, if the economy gets any worse and people are foraging for food and shelter, life as we know it is going to change in a big way. I truly believe in helping your fellow man but within reason and limits that I may have to fight to enforce. I live in an affluent town (or at least it is perceived as being one) and beggars are at every traffic light. I drive a luxury automobile and I am eyeballed by the beggars as the enemy. I worked long and hard all my life to obtain my goals and my toys. I will not let anyone deny me my pleasures, yet I try to help out a poor soul with a donation every once in a while. How long will it be before someone follows me to my house because they think I have the solution to their financial problems?
45Gunner
NRA Certified Instructor
Gold Seal CFI
1st Air Cav Vietnam Veteran
Array
Amen!
Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk
Guantes' Idaho is red in the latest Castle Doctrine map. Maybe that's why he makes a distinction with "Stand Your Ground"? California is white. California has a legal commentary for something like Castle Doctrine.
For example, in People v. Hardin 1, the
defendant broke into the resident’s home and was attacked with a
hammer by the resident after the defendant failed to comply with her
request to leave. The defendant then struck and killed the
resident. The court held that the defendant’s belief that he was in
imminent and deadly peril ended when he disarmed the resident.
Furthermore, the court held that a person who breaks into someone
else’s home cannot assert self-defense if the home owner attacks
him. In sum, when a resident acts with deadly force against an
intruder in his residence, there is a presumption of imminent harm.2
------------------
1See People v. Hardin, 85 Cal. App. 4th 625, 631–32, 102 Cal. Rptr. 2d
2In People v. Owen, 277 Cal. Rptr. 341, 347, 226 Cal. App. 3d 996,
1005 (1991), the court stated that California Penal Code section 198.5 creates a
rebuttable presumption of reasonable fear:
[T]he statute was enacted to permit residential occupants to defend
themselves from intruders without fear of legal repercussions, to give
“the benefit of the doubt in such cases to the resident, establishing a
presumption that the very act of forcible entry entails a threat to the
life and limb of the homeowner.” (Press release from the office of Sen.
H. L. Richardson (the bill’s author) Oct. 1, 1984).
-Blackstone’s Commentaries 145–146, n. 42 (1803) in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)Americans understood the right of self-preservation as permitting a citizen to repel force by force
when the intervention of society... may be too late to prevent an injury.
Array
Thanks.
"I do what I do." Cpl 'coach' Bowden, "Southern Comfort".
Interesting, we don't have to retreat even if a safe retreat is possible. So what does that mean as far as the map shows? (CA)
Vietnam Vets, WELCOME HOME
Crossman 760 BB/Pellet, Daisy Red Ryder, Crossman Wrist Rocket, 14 Steak Knives, 3 Fillet Knives, Rolling Pin-14", Various Hunting Knives, 2 Baseball Bats, 3 Big Dogs and a big American Flag flying in the yard. I have no firearms; Try the next house.
Array
45gunner: I know what you mean; all of my family is in Boca. I have a relative that works at a bank in downtown Boca and apparently there is a very popular beggar that always harasses people at an intersection. She said he walks in and deposits all of his "Earnings" for the day and she said he has over $150,000 in his account.
”A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them..."
-George Washington
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
