new permit, ONE BIG QUESTION

[Rob99VMI04]

Good comments so far. Lots of good opinions, food for thought.



No, bad idea.

C.Y.A. Can You Articulate. The statues related to self-defense and use-of-force are nearly always written in the "reasonable man" perspective, stating that one may take reasonable actions in a situation where a reasonable person would believe such actions to be necessary. Translation: others will judge your actions.

In anything you do in a self-defense situation, you need to be able to clearly articulate a credible threat, and to articulate the justifiability of what you did. Knowing where that dividing line is can be hard. But it's someone else's life you're capable of taking. You'd better be damned certain that your actions are necessary to protect innocent life (your own or others), even if "only" threatening its use.

Imagine being on a jury, in which the defendant is being charged with menacing or similar, the type of thing you're concerned with in this thread. Imagine the defendant claimed he felt assailed but not yet actually attacked, and yet he threatened the potential use of a firearm to stop being assailed. What was the infraction by the alleged assailant? What was the threat? Did it justify the use of deadly force, or even the threat of its use? Ask yourself this: if the defendant didn't feel that deadly force was actually needed, then what in the world is he doing threatening the use of deadly force? Think about it.

Some possible reactions to alleged threatening behavior by an assailant:

• Simply leaving, saying/doing nothing else.
• Verbally resisting, ie saying "no."
• Verbally stating you'd use force to stop being assailed. <-- what you're suggesting
• Physically showing you'd use force to stop being assailed (ie, removing hands from you).
• Physically using less-than-lethal force to stop being assailed.
• Verbally threatening the use of deadly force.
• Physically threatening the use of deadly force (ie, grabbing your weapon).
• Presenting your weapon.
• Using your weapon.

While there's certainly no clear-cut continuum of force specified in the statutes, you get the idea. As the threat becomes clearer, the severity of response actions becomes easier to justify. How far is too far? How reasonable is "reasonable"? It's whatever the DA/jury judge that to be. You'll need to decide what you're comfortable with, how far you're prepared to go at each level of a threatening situation. Think it through. Welcome to citizenry.

That said, in the end we each need to decide on the instant where that dividing line is, at which point we'd each be willing to step up and cease an attack against us. For my part, I'm unwilling to take a life unless mine is actually credibly threatened, but that's just me. Where, exactly, I would take steps to handle or present my weapon(s) would depend heavily on the specific circumstances.

Read Ayoob's In The Gravest Extreme. Re-read.

Like like like like like like why haven'ti found the stupid like tab did I forget to mention like like like like .... Thank you CCW9mm

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[nedrgr21]

Maybe I don't understand your post, but FL law is clear enough:
790.06 …. The licensee ... must display both the license and proper identification upon demand by a law enforcement officer. ...
I can't put my finger on it, but IIRC, a recent FL law relaxed prohibition on printing and brief, unintentional exposure of a lethal carry weapon.

Apparently not.
First, my post was in response to post 18 in reference to how an officer is notified, not whether or not it is required. Nothing about how to inform the officer is mentioned in your citation except providing a permit on request. Nothing about specific verbiage to use in addition to offering up a permit.

Second, it is common knowledge on sites like DC.com that mention of a duty/requirement to inform refers to the obligation of a citizen to inform an officer, at the beginning of any official interaction, that they are carrying a weapon whether or not the officer specifically asks about any weapons being present. All I said was some states do have a duty to inform, some don't - not everyone lives in FL like the OP. I believe TX and OH are examples of "duty to inform" states where you must inform an officer at the beginning of any interaction whether or not he asks. See the next part of my post wrt FL.

Third, the FL statute you quoted says that you must inform/present permit when the officer specifically asks/demands knowledge about any weapons present - no duty to inform. Glad I could clear that up for you.

Fourth, don't know about FL, but I posted about a week ago that the MO gov just signed a law that specifically says that brief exposure of a weapon is ok - maybe that's what you're referring to.

[nedrgr21]

Bilstaf, afa intending to shoot; the mere intent to shoot in response to aggression does not equal commitment to shoot, remember that saying "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" - part of that is not following through with one's intentions.

I think that if you find yourself drawing weapon, it should only be when there is a justifiable reason to draw - which means there is a justifiable reason to shoot. Therefore, at that point, someone did/said something so aggressive to cause you to believe you are justified. That person did something to escalate the situation, you, the victim, are reacting to it - with the intent to shoot. In the course of the victim presenting a weapon, it is up to that aggressor to do/say something to deescalate the situation - be it run, put hands up, verbally deescalate, etc before the victim of aggression pulls the trigger; any hesitation before that deescalation on the part of the victim is the victim's choice.

[McKahr]

funny answer, but helps... a consensus is helpful for me around here – even as much as I wish for far more freedom than we have had... but this is a reassuring changing colored map that gives us the trend as I hope people of like mind on this forum will spread it and show who is winning:

Concealed carry in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

scroll down just a bit and enjoy the map ;) hmmmm and notice which state is the hold out state... obama’s, well it was as a Senator, I guess now u could say he has them all...

You ever watched a movie... any movie with a murder scene.... The bad guy talks too much almost every time... And, if his yakitty yak doesn't get him killed... it at least let's the good guy get him first...

Don't be a bad guy.

What if one day... you say "don't do that, I have a gun..." And the guy says to you (in a similar vein as Crocodile Dundee) "You call that a gun?" whilst he pulls out his real-honest-to-gosh-fully-automatic-illegal-UZI and ends you...

NO... Don't talk... don't tell... don't brag.... avoid stupid places,people and don't do stupid things...

And if you can't afford a class... Get a book.... and read it 3 times... and take notes... which book?

In the Gravest Extreme: The Role of the Firearm in Personal Protection By Massad Ayoob... Can't find the book? Go to the library... they will get a copy for you .. it might cost a buck or two for an interlibrary loan... But you get that book and you study it...

Yes, in the book there is at least one incident in which a gun is displayed... But NEVER is it said "I've got a gun."

You now have a permit... to carry a weapon... it is now time for you to quit worrying about who's is bigger..? who is the man? and all the other "grade school questions." Now is the time when you do your level best to avoid conflicts in which you might otherwise be tempted to say... "I've got a gun."

No... and don't bring Zimmerman into this... telling TM he had a gun before or after he was allegedly on the ground would have done nothing... and According to Z he thought TM was going for his gun anyway... The TM/Z thing is completely irrelevant...

Now... I've told you what I think is the BIG ANSWER to your BIG QUESTION.... But in case you don't read for comprehension the answer to your question is....

NO

Sorry for my snarkiness... I'm being direct and forthright with the answer I believe you need to hear.

[McKahr]

deterrent, just as it operates this way in open carry states as u MUST open carry in them... i keep telling internationals not to snow ball the whole USA into one judgment, our laws vary greatly from state to state and then some all with their own points as this debate carries on here.

The NRA says (exaggerates) some 2 million times a year guns are brandished – rarely shot... its a big time diffuser, happens a lot... and yes, if someone punches u in the nose u can pull a gun, mine would bleed big time ;) --- there is much to be said for pistol whipping, if u wrap your index figure around the outside of the trigger housing u can use the gun (barrel tip) for your return punch to their nose, if u want to take a chance of losing your gun and returning the favor in much worse fashion AND communicate to your fellow nose puncher that the next punch might have a very load bang to it ;)

- just a possible scenario ;)

to answer your question, bump fire... check out this: Valkyrie BSR Mod-1... i’d argue even better than full auto as it keeps the recoil horizontal with the slide fireQUOTE=nedrgr21;2322260]INAL, but here's my take:
Why would you tell anyone? - if they ask - lie (unless you're talking about LEO)
If you are in a situation that warrants you drawing your weapon, draw; stating that you have access to a gun surrenders all advantages you had by carrying concealed in the first place - if armed, they can draw first and claim self defense since you "threatened them". If it hasn't escalated to that point where you are justified in presenting a weapon, stating you have one would amount to threatening someone with lethal force - then they've got your butt in a wringer.

Guns aren't for diffusing situations, they are for definitively ending them.

Getting punched in the nose is not a reason to pull out your gun or say you have one (see above) (generally speaking).

What do you mean when you say guns are "close to being fully automatic"?

The legalities of printing can vary from state to state, but it defeats the purpose/advantages of carrying concealed.[/QUOTE]

[McKahr]

funny answer, but helps... (and good follow up posts as well)... a consensus is helpful for me around here – even as much as I wish for far more freedom than we have had... but this is a reassuring changing colored map that gives us the trend as I hope people of like mind on this forum will spread it and show who is winning:

Concealed carry in the united states --- a wiki article

scroll down just a bit and enjoy the map ;) hmmmm and notice which state is the hold out state... obama’s, well it was as a Senator, I guess now u could say he has them all...

- so part of what i was thinking is the law about even pulling a gun out MUST be more extreme in punishment compared to a verbal I HAVE A GUN, not to mention eye witnesses and it coming down to hearsay... so it seems the main direction this is going is that there is an equivalence at work such that if u r going to say u have a gun u might as well have it out, that to do so (verbal or brandish) should be under the same legal circumstances of being justified in pulling out your concealed weapon...

so i’m using a auditory cue argument, like the stories of SHUCK SHUCK, as would be criminals on the other side of a door or in a house know what that sound is – 12 gauge shell getting loaded and take off without even seeing the home owner/occupant...

You ever watched a movie... any movie with a murder scene.... The bad guy talks too much almost every time... And, if his yakitty yak doesn't get him killed... it at least let's the good guy get him first...

Don't be a bad guy.

What if one day... you say "don't do that, I have a gun..." And the guy says to you (in a similar vein as Crocodile Dundee) "You call that a gun?" whilst he pulls out his real-honest-to-gosh-fully-automatic-illegal-UZI and ends you...

NO... Don't talk... don't tell... don't brag.... avoid stupid places,people and don't do stupid things...

And if you can't afford a class... Get a book.... and read it 3 times... and take notes... which book?

In the Gravest Extreme: The Role of the Firearm in Personal Protection By Massad Ayoob... Can't find the book? Go to the library... they will get a copy for you .. it might cost a buck or two for an interlibrary loan... But you get that book and you study it...

Yes, in the book there is at least one incident in which a gun is displayed... But NEVER is it said "I've got a gun."

You now have a permit... to carry a weapon... it is now time for you to quit worrying about who's is bigger..? who is the man? and all the other "grade school questions." Now is the time when you do your level best to avoid conflicts in which you might otherwise be tempted to say... "I've got a gun."

No... and don't bring Zimmerman into this... telling TM he had a gun before or after he was allegedly on the ground would have done nothing... and According to Z he thought TM was going for his gun anyway... The TM/Z thing is completely irrelevant...

Now... I've told you what I think is the BIG ANSWER to your BIG QUESTION.... But in case you don't read for comprehension the answer to your question is....

NO

Sorry for my snarkiness... I'm being direct and forthright with the answer I believe you need to hear.

[oldrwizr]

I regret not asking our concealed license teacher the following:

Can you verbally say u have a gun but still keep it concealed and obey the law (Florida)? Or if someone asks u if u have a gun, can u say u do?

I was wondering if the concealed law is only visual - may seem to be a stupid question but considering how close to "fully automatic" many guns are now or how close to switchblade some knives are with assist i wouldn't be surprised if there is a close call on this count as well...

Anyone? help please, i mean it just might be a GREAT idea to say u have a gun to diffuse a situation instead of having to brandish it and take it out of concealment... maybe george zimmerman could have said this as soon as his nose was punched?

Maybe Z could've never gotten close enough to get his nose punched.

[nedrgr21]

Wow

[Harryball]

I would never mention to anyone that I'm carrying. (Except LEO, if I'm asked). That said, I disagree somewhat that you only pull your weapon out if you intend to shoot with it. I think that is too absolutist and might lead to an unnecessary shooting. I think often the mere presence of someone with an openly viewed firearm can serve to defuse a situation (without gunfire). Most (sane) people are correctly scared of an open firearm and will tend to back away from the situation. I think if I could stop a developing violent situation without having to shoot, then I'd have succeeded. Of course, the possibility and option to shoot is always still there if needed.

On the other hand, there is the issue of brandishing. About the quickest way to lose your carry permit and possibly even get yourself charged with a crime is to brandish a weapon. Even brandishing with the best of intentions can get you charged.

Sometimes it can be tough to know what the correct thing to do is.

Well then, lest clear this up. You have a threat (deadly force threat ) You pull your gun, the threat doesnt run and hide he continues his way to you. This is what you do. YOU SHOOT.. If the threat runs away after pulling your gun. Call the PD right away. File your report. Your gun is not a deterrent to crime, or criminals for that matter. You are a civilian, not a LEO or Military. Its not are job to right the wrongs in the world. Its our job to protect us, and our loved ones. Do it right or dont do it at all

[McKahr]

My thinking exactly and to follow up, a verbal cue and warning could have the same effect as u say AND bypass this brandish risk under the law... and besides SO WHAT IF U SAID U HAD A GUN, later when the law catches up to you u can say, NO I DIDN'T I SAY THAT (and of course by then having slipped your gun into your car/home/bush ;)... hey, lying can be a righteous way to bypass evil weak liberal laws that support the criminal more than they defend the well meaning citizen but i like the higher moral ground always and NEVER want to have to lie about anything as many do because they feel entitled to bypass the law, like with George Zimmerman (stupid) and his stupid wife as they lied about their money (sadly starting to regret the $100 i sent george! - but like i said, they feel lynched and a huge witch hunt surrounding them, quite unjustifiably in my opinion and as such they are trying to bypass the law as they feel entitled

I would never mention to anyone that I'm carrying. (Except LEO, if I'm asked). That said, I disagree somewhat that you only pull your weapon out if you intend to shoot with it. I think that is too absolutist and might lead to an unnecessary shooting. I think often the mere presence of someone with an openly viewed firearm can serve to defuse a situation (without gunfire). Most (sane) people are correctly scared of an open firearm and will tend to back away from the situation. I think if I could stop a developing violent situation without having to shoot, then I'd have succeeded. Of course, the possibility and option to shoot is always still there if needed.

On the other hand, there is the issue of brandishing. About the quickest way to lose your carry permit and possibly even get yourself charged with a crime is to brandish a weapon. Even brandishing with the best of intentions can get you charged.

Sometimes it can be tough to know what the correct thing to do is.

[oldrwizr]

Archer, are you advocating that in an encounter with LEO, in the performance of his duties, you should say..."I've got a gun!"?

Nah... you AIN'T sayin' that, are you?

How about "Officer, I have a legally permitted firearm on my person, I have a legal permit for same in my wallet.... How would you like me to proceed?"

Archer would make a great North Carolinian. At least a law-abiding one! Law requires us to announce the presence of a gun when approached by a LEO in the performance of his duties, most frequently a traffic stop. No one's saying to scream, "I'VE GOT A GUN!" while waving your hands wildly, but your suggested announcement would do nicely. We're to say that on approach, not even waiting for him to speak first unless he does.

[McKahr]

if he was ambushed from a bush that might have been hard, but i just keep saying he should have had pepper, i do all the time, then a blade, and then gun - with arthritis in my hands i can NOT make a fist the past several days so for me its **** OLD SCHOOL FIGHTING HONOR, weapons first and only

Maybe Z could've never gotten close enough to get his nose punched.

[McKahr]

thanks, good stuff, i keep plugging Ayoob myself
of course it all depends on the specific scenario and how well u think a jury/judge/cop (in reverse order actually) might handle your situation... i was thinking more like u actually are getting your ass kicked, like george zimmerman but not necessarily on your back pinned to the ground...

u have a Kahr CW9? if so what do u think of their stated 200 shot break in...

Good comments so far. Lots of good opinions, food for thought.



No, bad idea.

C.Y.A. Can You Articulate. The statutes related to self-defense and use-of-force are nearly always written in the "reasonable man" perspective, stating that one may take reasonable actions in a situation where a reasonable person would believe such actions to be necessary. Translation: others will judge your actions.

In anything you do in a self-defense situation, you need to be able to clearly articulate a credible threat, and to articulate the justifiability of what you did. Knowing where that dividing line is can be hard. But it's someone else's life you're capable of taking. You'd better be damned certain that your actions are necessary to protect innocent life (your own or others), even if "only" threatening its use.

Imagine being on a jury, in which the defendant is being charged with menacing or similar, the type of thing you're concerned with in this thread. Imagine the defendant claimed he felt assailed but not yet actually attacked, and yet he threatened the potential use of a firearm to stop being assailed. What was the infraction by the alleged assailant? What was the threat? Did it justify the use of deadly force, or even the threat of its use? Ask yourself this: if the defendant didn't feel that deadly force was actually needed, then what in the world is he doing threatening the use of deadly force? Think about it.

Some possible reactions to alleged threatening behavior by an assailant:

• Simply leaving, saying/doing nothing else.
• Verbally resisting, ie saying "no."
• Verbally stating you'd use force to stop being assailed. <-- what you're suggesting
• Physically showing you'd use force to stop being assailed (ie, removing hands from you).
• Physically using less-than-lethal force to stop being assailed.
• Verbally threatening the use of deadly force.
• Physically threatening the use of deadly force (ie, grabbing your weapon).
• Presenting your weapon.
• Using your weapon.

While there's certainly no clear-cut continuum of force specified in the statutes, you get the idea. As the threat becomes clearer, the severity of response actions becomes easier to justify. How far is too far? How reasonable is "reasonable"? It's whatever the DA/jury judge that to be. You'll need to decide what you're comfortable with, how far you're prepared to go at each level of a threatening situation. Think it through. Welcome to citizenry.

That said, in the end we each need to decide on the instant where that dividing line is, at which point we'd each be willing to step up and cease an attack against us. For my part, I'm unwilling to take a life unless mine is actually credibly threatened, but that's just me. Where, exactly, I would take steps to handle or present my weapon(s) would depend heavily on the specific circumstances.

Read Ayoob's In The Gravest Extreme. Re-read.

[McKahr]

the ATF has approved and allowed several examples of full auto bypassing, its pretty ridiculous and begs the question about why we have any laws against full auto, like with switchblades or 10 shot clips, assault rifles, etc... Nanny State laws solve nothing, cost greatly and inconvenience millions with no cost/benefit analysis justifying it

Firearms Owners' Protection Act of May 19, 1986 needs to be repealed, i hope the NRA is on this, i'm a member.

there is a line to be drawn but i'm not sure where it is - i could understand alot more regulation of Ma Deuce (M2 Browning .50 cal) as to civilians but obviously we shouldn't have Ruger 10/22s in full auto selling for over $10,000 which has happened recently in auction... full auto would be nice during a home invasion by several ;)

I was thinkin' same thing...

Maybe OP means no measuring blackpowder, loading wadding/bullet, primer, and so forth...

[McKahr]

thanks again, good answer... and thanks for the corn ;)

this what your acronym means?:

"Monkey with a Gun is a film production company that specializes in filming action sports, currently concentrating on the sport of professional paintball"

Ask any Permit Office or LEO for a Legal Opinion..? Really? The best thing they could do for you is to read you the state statute... NEVER get legal advice from a cop.. .or government official... NEVER.

And speaking of Zimmerman... the guy who sponsored the "stand your ground law" in FL... says it was never intended to be used for "THAT" whatever "THAT" was... and he was the guy who sponsored the bill... he ought to know what his own law says.. oughtn' he?

If you want a legal opinion... ask a judge.... good luck with that... so ask a lawyer... you will get a legal opinion... it may or may not turn out to be valid... read the law your own self...

or, since you live in Florida... Go to This Site and get the most comprehensive book on your states laws.