mikestone967
Banned
It's a personal choice, period.
Open carry, concealed carry....
Just carry as you choose to.
It's all about what's best for "you".
The only real reason anyone carries concealed.
- Thread starter Blueshell
- Start date
- Status
It's a personal choice, period.
Open carry, concealed carry....
Just carry as you choose to.
It's all about what's best for "you".
Blueshell
Banned
So you claim to be a retired police officer but you don't know your state's use of force laws...or that each state has use of force laws...that use of force laws very from state to state...
Would you like a comprehencive list of all such "rules"? It would take some time but I would happy to compose it.
Police are civilians. As per the 3rd Geneva Convention you are either a member of your nation's military (which police are not), or you are an enemy combatant (which police are not) or you are a non-combatant (civilian). Police fight crime, not other nations, so police are civilians.
When I say "civilians are only allowed to use lethal force in defence", you should know without having to be told that that automaticaly includes police.
...unles you're ready to cite how your department was 'called up' for militia service under USC Title-10 or Title-32...
Only the military has the authority to use lethal force offencivly
Blueshell
Banned
No one claimed otherwise. Are you even paying any attention?
Blueshell
Banned
As explained, supprise is retaliation, and retaliation is an invalid use of lethal force.
Blueshell
Banned
What was I wrong about?
This has already been covered. A lack of prosecution does not prove validity or legality. For example, the ATF prosecutes less than 2% of all felony perjury incidents, but that doesn't mean those incidents are lawful; it just means the ATF isn't doing it's job.
Also, every consumer of marjuana in compliance with Colorado law who also bought a firearm from an FFL in the same time period lied on question 11c, which is purjery. That the ATF isn't going after these people in no way means their lie on Form 4473 was lawfull.
First, I am fully aware of my state's, as well a a few other's, use of force laws. That is why I question your statement. BTW, you still don't say where you got your rule that concealed carry is retaliation and therefore illegal.
Second, I am also aware that Police are civilians but if you had ever worked in LE you would know that Police refer to Non-police as Civilians. Wrong, yes but that's just the way it is.
Third, "Offensively" not "offencivly"; "unless" not "unles"; "defense" not "defence"; "automatically" not automaticaly"
Once again, where does this come from? Which state law or where in the USC does it state this. Is there a court case you can cite? Or is this just your opinion?
No such word as SUPPRISE , it's SURPRISE.
You spelled McDonald's with 2 N's
No it does not mean that ATFE is not doing their job, ATFE does not have the power to prosecute, it means the local US Attorney is not doing their job.
Once again, spelling lesson: "Marijuana" not "marjuana" ; "perjury" not purjery"; "lawful" not "Lawfull".
New Mexico Statute 30-2-7. Justifiable homicide by citizen.
Homicide is justifiable when committed by any person in any of the following cases:
A. when committed in the necessary defense of his life, his family or his property, or in necessarily defending against any unlawful action directed against himself, his wife or family;
B. when committed in the lawful defense of himself or of another and when there is a reasonable ground to believe a design exists to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury against such person or another, and there is imminent danger that the design will be accomplished; or
C. when necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed in his presence, or in lawfully suppressing any riot, or in necessarily and lawfully keeping and preserving the peace.
New Mexico Uniform Jury Instructions (UJI)
NM UJI 14-5183. Self defense; deadly force by defendant.
Evidence has been presented that the defendant acted in self defense.
The defendant acted in self defense if:
1.There was an appearance of immediate danger of death or great bodily harm to the defendant as a result of __________________(illegal act); and
2.The defendant was in fact put in fear of immediate death or great bodily harm and __________________(defensive act) because of that fear; and
3.The apparent danger would have caused a reasonable person in the same circumstances to act as the defendant did.
The burden is on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self defense. If you have a reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant acted in self defense, you must find the defendant not guilty.
This is the current State law in New Mexico where I worked for 25 years. You will not find and mention of concealment or open carry in any NM Statute that has to do with use of force. Basically if you are justified in your use of force it matters not where you carry your your gun.
I hope this explains where I come from and why your argument has so many holes in it. As has been stated before not all states have the same laws nor will all court cases be resolved the same way. Also, New Mexico does not, as of this date, have a Castle Doctrine, so in a use of force situation how you retreated or did not or could not retreat will need to be explained at some point. There are court decisions that state you do not have a "duty to retreat" while within your domicile.
Homicide is justifiable when committed by any person in any of the following cases:
A. when committed in the necessary defense of his life, his family or his property, or in necessarily defending against any unlawful action directed against himself, his wife or family;
B. when committed in the lawful defense of himself or of another and when there is a reasonable ground to believe a design exists to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury against such person or another, and there is imminent danger that the design will be accomplished; or
C. when necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed in his presence, or in lawfully suppressing any riot, or in necessarily and lawfully keeping and preserving the peace.
New Mexico Uniform Jury Instructions (UJI)
NM UJI 14-5183. Self defense; deadly force by defendant.
Evidence has been presented that the defendant acted in self defense.
The defendant acted in self defense if:
1.There was an appearance of immediate danger of death or great bodily harm to the defendant as a result of __________________(illegal act); and
2.The defendant was in fact put in fear of immediate death or great bodily harm and __________________(defensive act) because of that fear; and
3.The apparent danger would have caused a reasonable person in the same circumstances to act as the defendant did.
The burden is on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self defense. If you have a reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant acted in self defense, you must find the defendant not guilty.
This is the current State law in New Mexico where I worked for 25 years. You will not find and mention of concealment or open carry in any NM Statute that has to do with use of force. Basically if you are justified in your use of force it matters not where you carry your your gun.
I hope this explains where I come from and why your argument has so many holes in it. As has been stated before not all states have the same laws nor will all court cases be resolved the same way. Also, New Mexico does not, as of this date, have a Castle Doctrine, so in a use of force situation how you retreated or did not or could not retreat will need to be explained at some point. There are court decisions that state you do not have a "duty to retreat" while within your domicile.
Blueshell
Banned
And this changes my argument how? Lack of prosecution does not establish legality.
So let's hear your professional view on level-zero holsters. You argue that OC gets guns stolen, but you haven't linked to a credible source proving such, and you ignore my counter argument that his holster got his gun stolen.
Have you had an opportunity to look up your state's use of force laws yet, to know that they exist and to learn when one can use lethal force?
Why so mad?
Blueshell
Banned
If I had ever said that concealed carry was illegal then you would have a valid point.
That's not my argument, however.
Do you remember Post #59? (above) While you did not say CC was illegal you insinuated as such. By your standards drawing from concealment is retaliation and retaliation is illegal, therefore CC must also be illegal. (That's your logic not mine) I posted my state law to show you there is no requirement for CC or OC, just justification for self defense. We are getting into legal issues of when you can and cannot use lethal force. I am not a lawyer and neither are you. so lets leave this where it is, a difference of opinion. You will never convince me and I doubt anyone else on this board or your point of view. Concealed carry is ethical, moral, legal and the preferred method of carry by most people I have spoken with who can legally carry.
Blueshell
Banned
I can see how my post could be read that way. Having clarification now, however, I trust you can address your rebuttals accordingly.
The reasoning contained in law behind use-of-force does not support CC even while CC is legal.
Other things which are legal despite a total lack of legal validity include but are not limited to: the Gun Free School Zone Act, the Interstate Handgun Transfer Ban (which is under legal challenge), 'no-gun' signs having force-of-law, the Machine-gun ban (which is under legal challenge), the very existence of carry permits, background checks, any incarnation of an 'assault weapon' ban.
I said something different. I said deploying "the element of surprise" is retaliation and retaliation is illegal. There's a difference between what I said and what you're attributing to me. At no point did I claim CC is illegal. CC is legal, it's just invalid 99% of the time.
Ahh so you've learned where the rule saying civilians can only use lethal force in defense is located in your state law. Good. You didn't know that before but now you've learned something.
We are? News to me. Civilians can only use lethal force in defense. While the specifics change from state to state, case by case, no state allows lethal force to be used offensively. Not a single one. You don't need to be a lawyer to know that, just take a basic CC class.
Debate per-se doesn't exist to convince anyone of anything. Therefore this thread isn't here to convince you. I have posed an argument and invited challenge to it. The goal is to discuss and debate the topic. That's it. This thread's purpose is achieved with each post.
Employing "the element of surprise" has always been invalid.
So let's hear about your view on level-zero holsters. You brought up McDonalds, so let's talk about it.
Blueshell
Banned
Lack of prosecution doesn't establish legality, so if your rebuttal doesn't change that, then your previous proof that a behavior is legal because it isn't prosecuted failed logical muster.
No retention.
Meaning no compression to hold the gun by traction, no button needing to be pressed, no strap over the back of the slide, nothing. Here is an example of what I've been calling a level-zero holster: Link Removed
Here's what happens when someone tries to take an openly carried gun from a holster with retention:
The gentleman you referenced was using one of these pocket holsters incorrectly. They are designed to hold the gun completely inside the pocket, but this man was using a gun to big to fit in his pocket. Wrong holster, wrong carry style for that gun. That's what got his gun stolen, not that the gun was visible.
Pointing out spelling errors in a thread that isn't about spelling errors is to detract from the topic, and that's trolling, and trolling is against this forum's rules. Online forums are informal writing, it is completely acceptable to even use eDialects such as 1337'speak or LOLCAT. Abbreviated scripts such as hashtags and texting shorthand are also perfectly acceptable. You don't have to like my spelling but you should comply with the rules you agreed to follow when you made an account here. Please keep your word.
XD40scinNC
New member
Yes, I have been paying attention, and in an earlier post you said;
Did you actually mean civilians and LEO's? Perhaps you should have said "everybody"?
Blueshell
Banned
LEOS are civilians.
And no, not everybody. The military can use lethal force offensivly. Civilians can't.
XD40scinNC
New member
Reba
Sinner saved by grace
The definition of retaliate is to return like for like. Self defense is not retaliation. Surprise might be an element of self defense but not always. Surprise and retaliation aren't the same thing. A person can retaliate against someone without surprise, and something can be a surprise without being retaliation.
Please look up the definition of civilian in either Webster's or the Oxford dictionary and then tell me LEO's are civilians.
The Blackhawk holster you call a Level 0 is only designed to hold a small handgun upright in your front pocket. Your pocket then provides both retention and concealment. I agree the guy at McDonald's was using it improperly and it was indeed a factor in losing his gun. However, it is my belief that the theft was a crime of opportunity. Had the gun been concealed, the thief would not have known it was there and would not have stolen it.
Last, re-read my post as I never said lack of prosecution makes anything legal. It just means for whatever reason ATF or the US Attorney has they chose not to prosecute. If a cop stops you for speeding and chooses not to give you a citation or he he doesn't catch you, that does not make your speeding legal. Speeding is illegal whether you get caught of not.
If I was trolling I would not be using the same name on multiple forums, some of which I have belonged to for years.
And as X40scinNC has already stated within the bounds of the USA our military cannot use lethal force Offensively. Unless of course we are attacked by a foreign invader.
- Status
New Threads
-
Recent TX Appeals Court declaration that ATF arm brace rule is unconstitutional
- Started by lw07
- Replies: 1
-
Hunter Constantine or Phlster Enigma, for running?
- Started by sigsag1
- Replies: 1
-
-
-
Members online
No members online now.