A baseball bat is NOT considered a lethal weapons???
This is a discussion on The Burden of Proof within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Research what devices have been used as weapons to kill or mutilate. I am certain that a ball bat would be found within the list ...
Research what devices have been used as weapons to kill or mutilate. I am certain that a ball bat would be found within the list of items.
Government is out of control
"If gun laws in fact worked, the sponsors of this type of legislation should have no difficulty drawing upon long lists of examples of crime rates reduced by such legislation. That they cannot do so after a century and a half of trying -- " Sen Orrin G. Hatch
A baseball bat is NOT considered a lethal weapons???
If I recall my class to get my Connecticut when I lived there back in 2000 there is a grevious bodily harm clause. someone bigger with weapon that can and will cause sever bodily harm.
Luke 22:36 Jesus says that if his disciples do not have a sword, they should sell their cloak and buy a sword.
Other than that the only thing I can think of would be to take a shooting position where you are on the floor. It is not that great of a position but in this case you can argue that the BG had the upper hand as you were on the ground and with proper practice you can be just as effective as if you were standing.
"Don't hit a man if you can possibly avoid it; but if you do hit him, put him to sleep." - Theodore Roosevelt
C.G.S. 53-206 covers baseball bats under the catch all clause of any other dangerous or deadly weapons made or adapted to be used as such.
It's a bludgon with sporting applications.
Don't get all hung up on it.
If you think that, hand one to the average 20yr old neighborhood kid and ask him to take a couple really good swings. A bat can crush a skull and do severe damage to bones, organs.I don't think a baseball bat is considered a lethal weapon.
Or, if you'd prefer, set up a few coconuts and have him swing at those. Hard little units, coconuts, right? Uh-huh.
You've got a problem, if the legal hounds in your state deny you the right to defend yourself if you fear the loss of your lives in your own home. Oregon follows the "reasonable man" standard and allows much, but it doesn't come right out and state you're presumed innocent and presumed to have acted in legitimate self-defense. Definitely, not a "Castle Law" state.I feel that if someone comes into my house and threatens me or my wife or my possessions I should be able to defend myself with lethal force. Connecticut law does not guarantee me that right.
I am interested in other people's thinking on this issue.
Push hard, very hard, for statutes that acknowledge you have every right as an upstanding citizen to the following:Clearly, I don't want to break the law; but at the same time, I want to feel safe in my own home in the age of the home invasion.
- To not retreat.
- To be where you're legally allowed to be.
- To defend yourself against violence with the degree of resistance you deem necessary to thwart the attack.
- That your home is, quite literally, your "castle," and that you have every right to repel boarders in all cases, using any and all force you deem necessary.
- That the that the State, as the accuser, must PROVE your guilt and that your resistance of criminals cannot have been what you claim.
- That the State must cover all of your costs in defending yourself, if in fact you're acquitted from the spurious charges leveled against you.
Until then, keep discussing with an attorney who is competent in CT self-defense and use-of-force laws as to what you're able to do without stringing your own hanging noose. It's a field of land mines out there. Caution.
"C.G.S. 53-206 covers baseball bats under the catch all clause of any other dangerous or deadly weapons made or adapted to be used as such."
It sounds like a huge grey area open to a wide range of interpretation IMHO ;)
Sec. 53-206. Carrying of dangerous weapons prohibited. (a) Any person who carries upon his or her person any BB. gun, blackjack, metal or brass knuckles, or any dirk knife, or any switch knife, or any knife having an automatic spring release device by which a blade is released from the handle, having a blade of over one and one-half inches in length, or stiletto, or any knife the edged portion of the blade of which is four inches or over in length, any police baton or nightstick, or any martial arts weapon or electronic defense weapon, as defined in section 53a-3, or any other dangerous or deadly weapon or instrument, shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars or imprisoned not more than three years or both. Whenever any person is found guilty of a violation of this section, any weapon or other instrument within the provisions of this section, found upon the body of such person, shall be forfeited to the municipality wherein such person was apprehended, notwithstanding any failure of the judgment of conviction to expressly impose such forfeiture.
RE: your comment - Yes. It is, isn't it?
Hammers, rolled up newspapers, a pool ball drilled and put onto an electrical cord to be used as a bludgon (which works very well, thank you...), and a frozen pork loin used as a stick...
Broadly applied...oh, yes.
In their misguided attempt to provide security through an every increasing mountain of legislation law makers in place like NY, NJ and CT are succeeding in making law breakers of more and more honest citizens.
Just about any object with structural integrity can be fashioned into weapon that can cause serious bodily injury and/or death. In my opinion it is not unreasonable to believe that if an unfamilar individual is discovered in your home under any sort of unusual circumstances that they are a threat and that a huge benefit of doubt goes to the homeowner in defending his life and property. This is especially justified given the fact that the difference between surviving a situation where you are confronted by an unknown individual or becoming a victim may be a matter of having only seconds to take decisive action.
When these discussions come up it is typical to hear the scenerio of a "daughter lets her boyfriend sneak into the house" for a midnight make out session and is discovered by a parent while he is making his way through the house to exit. He turns to address the parent and is raising his hands in a gesture that under normal circumstance would be interpreted as "I can explain" but under these circumstances it is intepreted as the prelude to an attack.
Sorry, in my opinion as tragic as this is the benefit of the doubt goes to the homeowner.
In many cases the final and absolute confirmation that you are being attacked is the attack, and in many cases that attack puts you so far behind the power curve you can't recover. But it seems that in some circles absolute confirmation (attack in progress) is the only thing that will be seen as being the basis for reasonable belief.
My reference of the statute was not to start the tinfoi hat manufacture about how the legislature is out to strip people in CT of their ability to defend themselves.
It was to show that baseball bats are weapons per the Connecticut General Statutes.
53-206 has been on the books since likely before WWI. It is as old as CT CCW statutes.
It's not some modern day sinister creation. Stop trying to make it as such.
If one properly defends himself in a home invasion where he fears for his life, there should be only one individual giving testimony to LE.
Proverbs 27:12 says: “The prudent see danger and take refuge, but the simple keep going and suffer for it.”
Certified Glock Armorer
NRA Life Member
You mean, how these laws are now applied to everyone, instead of just people of darker skin tone?
You mean how society changed and now laws passed to control the negros & the other undesirables are now being enforced against people who actually matter? You know...white people...
The tinfoil is getting strong here.
The constant paranoia about all laws is getting tiresome. You will double think yourself into inaction if you let it get to you.
Know your areas use of force rules.
Know them stone cold.
Find out how they are actually applied, and that doesn't mean disucssing them on the internet with people as confused about them as you are.
That's not a slap, just a statement of fact, because a lot of people, here and elsewere, couldn't explain use of force rules in plain english to save their lives, and won't be able to use them in the OODA loop during an encounter...
And that's how you have one of two outcomes:
a) YOU DIE.
b) YOU WIN AND GO TO JAIL.
What good is your gear if you don't have any training...
and what good is your gear & training if you are double thinking yourself into inaction?
Yes or no question for anyone here:
Do you have doubts or questions as to use of force rules and how such rules apply to various situations in your area? Any at all?
If the answer is yes, and you haven't spent the $$ for a 1 hour consultation with a lawer to get things cleared up for yourself...
What the hell are you doing carrying a handgun?
Is it a security talisman or religious icon for you?
Is it something you will use in the hopes you use it to save your life, then ruin it in the process?
Something to do with your second amendment rights, and to hell with the consequences to your life if you make a mistake in using it?
I mean, really!
Is ANY of that really acceptable?
If it is...G0D bless.
If it's not...you have some phone calls to make and a case of ammo you aren't buying this month.
And if you have no doubts at all about use of force rules that will effect your life should you need to drop the hammer (or for glock people, "make the ping sound with the funny little plastic thingy")...
Ask yourself these questions:
Why am I so sure I know what I think I know?
Were did I get my info from?
Was the source reliable? Biased?
Were did the source get it's info from?
Unfortunately it is not all that easy to define what will be reasonable for all occasions.
1. If there is such a need for an immediate use of deadly force, that one does not really have time to think about it, then his conduct is likely to be reasonable.
2. If the facts cause indecision, then there is a possibility that use of deadly force may not be reasonable. Unfortunately, in this situation, there is the risk of being killed before taking decisive action.
In the end analysis, the shooter will have to make his own decision as to whether his conduct is reasonable. Scenario #2 is the difficult one for which there can never be a good advance answer.
Live every day so that you can, with a clear conscience, look all men in their eyes and tell them to go to hell.