It has nothing to do with the OP.
They grow them pretty rabid up there in New Hampshire compared to say neighboring Vermont. I may have found out one reason. I talked to someone recently, who said he had Libertarian family members recruited, by some of the states Libertarian party members, to move to New Hampshire, and they did. Has anyone heard anything similar? I must say that don't think most Libertarians are rabid, however these three can't seem to take defeat very well.
Anyway, I wonder how far this will go. If indeed it can be proved "that the 189 legislators voted to take away New Hampshire residents' right to protect themselves and their property," and truly put those citizens in danger by doing so. And, said legislators can be removed and have all their past votes nullified as a result; where does it end? Can they be held criminally or civilly liable. And if it's proved that "Stand your ground" laws indeed are needed for private citizens to protect themselves; following that train of thought, can any legislator anywhere be held civilly liable for not having voted for or passing such laws?
Anyway, where do you think this will lead?
...but that's not saying much. It is New England.
But I think I should note that the gun grabbers are idiot dumb shits when it comes to gun laws. They haven't got the foggiest fucking idea what the laws are when it comes to guns. If any of them bothered to read the Stand Your Ground law, they wouldn't think it was very controversial.
The law is pretty clear on this. You're prohibited from using a gun for any purpose other than if you 1) fear for your life and 2) can demonstrate to a reasonable person that if you did not act with deadly force you would likely be dead or seriously injured.
If you are referencing the article, are you saying that someone who votes against Stand Your Ground laws, is a gun grabber? In my opinion, no!
I must confess that I'm not all the familiar with the SYG laws. However, my personal beliefs are: 1. Anyone, who is carrying a gun, who I don't know, is not a recognizable officer of the law, and do I know their intentions; I should have a right to shoot. And, it shouldn't be my responsibility to prove in court what the person's intent was, or if it had changed from moment to moment; that does happen. 2. Anyone with a weapon, who is not a recognizable officer of the law, and approaches me while I'm in my car, I should have a right to shoot. 3. I'm not for shooting someone to protect my personal property.
So dumb if fact that I will give you a minute to contemplate what you just wrote and make a few changes before I completely rip you for it.
Just in case you are simply hungover and not quite with it today, I will give you a hint.
According to your logic, if you have the right shoot ANY person carrying a firearm, who is not in a LE uniform this of course would mean that you too would have to be armed. Now unless you have recently joined the ranks of LE, don't you see the other person would also have the right to shoot you? Now following your "logic" to it's logical conclusion, in your world any armed person would have the right to shoot any other armed person as long as said person was not wearing a uniform identifying said person as a member of LE, without having to show any cause other than the other person was armed.
Are you out of your fucking mind??? and I thought WW was the shoot em up advocate of this board.
I will now graciously offer you the opportunity to recant your statement and we will chalk it up to whatever drugs you were taking last night.
Just in case you are simply hungover and not quite with it today, I will give you a hint.
According to your logic, if you have the right shoot ANY person carrying a firearm, who is not in a LE uniform this of course would mean that you too would have to be armed. Now unless you have recently joined the ranks of LE, don't you see the other person would also have the right to shoot you? Now following your "logic" to it's logical conclusion, in your world any armed person would have the right to shoot any other armed person as long as said person was not wearing a uniform identifying said person as a member of LE, without having to show any cause other than the other person was armed.
Are you out of your fucking mind??? and I thought WW was the shoot em up advocate of this board.
I will now graciously offer you the opportunity to recant your statement and we will chalk it up to whatever drugs you were taking last night.
I meant to have included the phrase 'in my house,' and it was assumed that the person, being armed and not belonging there, was posing a threat. Same as someone who was approaching my car, with the seeming intend to highjack it, or cause me bodily injury. I was trying to make the point, that if someone is armed, threatening, and in my dwelling, I should not have to bear the burden of proof, in court, as the whether he was intent to cause me bodily harm. Thanks for the correction. I can see where that didn't make much sense.
makes much more sense now. Proof in court is the simple fact he was in your home uninvited and armed with a weapon. Stand your ground laws are mainly intentioned for this purpose. Car or on the street (think zimmerman) are much more a gray area and you will have to PROVE the threat existed, even if the other individual was armed if he hadnt pulled his weapon. Its always better to avoid a situation where you have to react and defend yourself and knowing that if you do defend yourself it could cost you thousands if not hundred of thousands of dollars defending yourself even if you were in the right. I also believe that "stand your ground" does not absolve you of civil liabilities, so ALWAYS consider that as well. Many states the laws are different as well, Texas stand your ground includes anywhere on your property I believe, while many states only include your home.
I can only speak with some certainty about Virginia's gun laws, and we don't have a stand your ground law, because we really don't need one.
You don't have to prove someone else's intent. All you have to prove is that you reasonably feared for your life, and you had good reason to fear for your life.
So, suppose someone is openly carrying a gun on their hip and strikes up a conversation with me. I shouldn't have a fear that this person will shoot me. The second the guy reaches for his gun, that's a different matter.
If you're a gun owner, and you carry, KNOW THE LAW!
I was assuming, the person being a threat, not because the were merely carrying a gun in a holster, but rather had one in hand.
I am a gun owner, however I only have them for protection in the house. I don't carry outside the house.
Sam Harris mentioned that carrying outside the home is problematic legally speaking. Suppose you see two people kicking a man who's on the ground. You use your gun to stop the beating. You think you're in the right. What you don't know is that the man on the ground had just attempted to rob someone and the two men who are kicking him are unarmed and are trying to restrain him.
This is probably an unlikely scenario, but it could happen. The point is that unless you see the entire event unfold, you don't really know what's going on. When you're inside your own home, you're on a far more sound legal footing, concealed carry permit or no.
This has made me wonder the morality of getting involved in an incident that doesn't involve you directly. You risk your own life and limb, you could get sued after words, even if you're legally in the right, who knows what could go wrong.
I haven't decided what the right answer is yet. I suppose it depends on the situation. But I suppose I'm not much inclined to get involved to help a stranger risking so much. Family or friends is another matter.
If it was some guy beating the hell out of a woman who's screaming for help, then I think I would get involved.
Regardless, it's a hard call to make if you're not the one who's being threatened or attacked.
-- Modified on 4/13/2013 2:20:54 PM
I actually agree with your revised statement.
If I find an armed intruder in my house, he better have a badge in pretty clear sight, or he better drop his gun awfully quickly, or I will drop him and ask questions later.
and even in the post Patriot Act America, if it's a cop and I have the drop, he's putting down his gun first. My home, my castle.
As the saying goes, "better to be tried by twelve, than carried by six" words to live by.
-- Modified on 4/13/2013 1:57:37 PM
Only Lazarus and Jesus Christ ever came back from the dead, or at least that's how the story goes. However, I'm not counting on being able to do the same. A good lawyer creating reasonable doubt in the minds of a jury is where I'd put all my money on.
where the concept of "your home is your castle" still exists. In most of the places I have lived over the last two or three decades, you simply call the cops to pick up the body. Two or three questions later, you go about your business, but I still maintain that if you shoot an intruder in your home, make sure he's down for good, our legal system is still fucked up enough that you might get sued for damages for infringing on his "right to work" by interfering with his robbing you, or some such shit. lol
...are still some states (Minnesota?) where you have a duty to retreat to the safest part of the house or escape the house before using deadly force. It's doubtful though that anyone would be prosecuted for killing an armed intruder if they didn't flee. It would be your word vs. a dead felon.
There was one case I saw where somebody was robbing a convenience store, and an armed customer shot the robber. The robber was on the ground, barely moving, and the customer turned away for a second to call the police. He turned back around and shot the robber one more time while he was on the ground. That last shot got him charged for murder.
The moral of the story is if they break into your house, make sure they're dead before they hit the ground.
The customer should have just accidentally stepped on the guys throat until he stopped breathing and saved the bullet, he would have saved himself a lot of grief.