or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Social Life, Food & Drink, Travel › Guns? (do you carry?) revived
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Guns? (do you carry?) revived - Page 8

post #106 of 200
Quote:
You have been incorrectly informed about the law. Cal. Penal Code § 12020 prohibits the carrying of a concealed "dirk or dagger."

12020 provides that:

Quote:
As used in this section, a "dirk" or "dagger" means a knife or other instrument with or without a handguard that is capable of ready use as a stabbing weapon that may inflict great bodily injury or death. A nonlocking folding knife, a folding knife that is not prohibited by Section 653k, or a pocketknife is capable of ready use as a stabbing weapon that may inflict great bodily injury or death only if the blade of the knife is exposed and locked into position.


and also provides that:

Quote:
Knives carried in sheaths which are worn openly suspended from the waist of the wearer are not concealed within the meaning of this section.


Local laws can be more restrictive than 12020 (e.g., some cities restrict overall blade length), but most of those laws have safe harbor provisions for knives carried for use in one's employment. There is another section in the Penal Code that prohibits carrying certain knives on school premises (including colleges) but in general, 12020 is the governing statute.

I see, but isn't this the same type of idea as the fact that you can indeed legally carry a non-concealed firearm on your person even if it is not for occupational use/protection? I am pretty sure that if you are approached by a police officer, having a Ka-bar strapped to your leg may not go down so well. In addition, I don't believe that most of the people carrying shanks/daggers are doing so in a non-concealed manner. I was simply pointing out that people should know that they cannot carry a fixed position knife even if it is 2" long in their pockets....is that not what the law states?
post #107 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by GQgeek
I think that if you shot someone in the leg it would be a pretty easy argument to make, assuming they didn't die on you :P The chest is a lot easier to hit and is what most people intent on killing aim for.

1) If you fire a gun at someone, pretty much any law enforcement officer or prosecutor you meet will construe that as the use of deadly force, regardless of what part of the body you claim that you were aiming at, and even if you miss. So unless you can show that the use of deadly force was an appropriate and proportional respose to an imminent threat against you, you should be prepared to spend a very long time in a very small locked room.

2) People intent on killing don't aim exclusively for the chest. They may not "aim" at all, and may simply point shoot. Or they may aim for the head. Or they may simply point a gun in the general direction of the target and pull the trigger until they hear "click" instead of "bang."

3) Go check out some homicide trials. "I just meant to scare him" and "I was trying to hit him in the [arm/leg]" are not uncommon defenses. It is far better to adopt a defensive philosophy that tries to keep you out of court rather than guaranteeing that you will be telling your story to twelve of your peers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GQgeek
I would say that it's very dependant on the situation and the laws where you live, no? If some guy comes at you with a wrench are you allowed to shoot him dead? He can't kill you with a blunt object if you shoot him in a non-lethal area and you'll be less likely to get in trouble for the shooting. I think you should use the least amount of force necessary to neutralize the threat, more out of fear of legal repercussions than any value I attribute to an assailants' life. If the guy has a gun however, the rules change.

I know that in canada even if a guy breaks in to your place you're not allowed to shoot him unless he's basically already on top of you with a knife already at your throat.

1) I assume that Canadian self-defense law is different from US law. In the US, even in more liberal states, you are allowed to use deadly force in self defense when deadly force is being used against you. Which means that if someone comes at you with a wrench or any other weapon, and places you in a reasonable fear that he is about to inflict death or great bodily injury, you can use deadly force to repel the attack. If you do not reasonably fear death or great bodily injury, you should not use deadly force to repel the attack, unless you want the aforementioned long stay in a small room.

2) If you don't think a guy with a wrench is capable of killing you, well, I don't know what to say. I know that if someone came after me with a wrench I wouldn't stick around to let him turn my skull into mush, but that's just me.
post #108 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Englandmj7
I see, but isn't this the same type of idea as the fact that you can indeed legally carry a non-concealed firearm on your person even if it is not for occupational use/protection?

Firearms that are openly carried in public must be unloaded as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Englandmj7
I am pretty sure that if you are approached by a police officer, having a Ka-bar strapped to your leg may not go down so well.

No argument there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Englandmj7
In addition, I don't believe that most of the people carrying shanks/daggers are doing so in a non-concealed manner. I was simply pointing out that people should know that they cannot carry a fixed position knife even if it is 2" long in their pockets....is that not what the law states?

Your original post suggested that if a knife was merely capable of being locked in position, you could not legally carry it. I was pointing out that a "pocketknife" is only a "dirk or dagger" when it actually is in the locked position. Which means that unless a more restrictive local law applies, you can freely carry common 3-4" locking folders without running afoul of the general prohibited weapons statute, § 12020.
post #109 of 200
^^ I see. Good to know
post #110 of 200
Actually, in California there is no length limit on folding knives that are not of the "dirk or dagger" persuasion.
post #111 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by retronotmetro
Firearms that are openly carried in public must be unloaded as well.
I grew up in Minnesota where firearms must be unloaded and cased (completely closed case) when transported. Here in Dakota the law allows uncased firearms (long guns) in vehicles. (Can you say Rifle Rack?) When we go another 350 miles west, to Montana, a firearm can be transported without even bothering to unload it. I believe the chamber does have to be empty, however.
post #112 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renault78law
I'm obviously ignorant on the subject, please bear with me. I've been robbed at gunpoint, and I don't understand how having a gun in that situation would have helped. Could someone please walk me through a likely senario?

With a gun pointed directly at my face, I could have tried to draw and shoot him before I got shot. Probably a 0% chance of that happening.
Or I could have waited for him to walk away, then shoot him in the back? That's not kosher, legally (arguably morally, but probably not).
Or I could have waited for him to walk away, then tried to apprehend and disarm him with the threat of my gun, sit on him, and call police for backup? btw, when I called 911, I waited on hold for 10 minutes, then hung up.

If he decided to start shooting, I was toast, gun or no gun.


sorry to hear that.

this is my feeling - at one point, I was pretty fucking good with a gun. I can't imagine a situation where I could be walking down the street, have somebody point a gun at me, and I would be able to draw and shoot him without him shooting me.

my whole argument is not that you shouldn't defend yourself - I just don't see how a firearm will help you influnce an event in your favor. no gun, a callapsable baton is a great defense. gun, a gun isn't good enough. that is the situation
post #113 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by globetrotter
sorry to hear that.

this is my feeling - at one point, I was pretty fucking good with a gun. I can't imagine a situation where I could be walking down the street, have somebody point a gun at me, and I would be able to draw and shoot him without him shooting me.

my whole argument is not that you shouldn't defend yourself - I just don't see how a firearm will help you influnce an event in your favor. no gun, a callapsable baton is a great defense. gun, a gun isn't good enough. that is the situation
GT:

First, WTF is that in your avatar? I thought it was a squirrel and just realized there is a human face in there somewhere.

Second, not in every situation will a gun be handy, or a good idea to pull. The gun in your face scenario is one of those where if you had one, you'd best leave it where it is, because it's much too late.

However, I will say that I've been in a situation where I am very glad I was holding a gun at the time, because in hindsight I and my friend might have been killed for my stuff/car. This alone makes me very glad I am "allowed" to have one. In this situation, I was not carrying concealed, but if I had been, it also would have been very good to have. As it turned out I was not the one victimized up there, and it might have been other people who did it, but a week later in a situation like ours some people were killed up where we were.

So, if you don't mind, I'll hang onto mine and you can go without.
post #114 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by j
GT:

First, WTF is that in your avatar? I thought it was a squirrel and just realized there is a human face in there somewhere.

Second, not in every situation will a gun be handy, or a good idea to pull. The gun in your face scenario is one of those where if you had one, you'd best leave it where it is, because it's much too late.

However, I will say that I've been in a situation where I am very glad I was holding a gun at the time, because in hindsight I and my friend might have been killed for my stuff/car. This alone makes me very glad I am "allowed" to have one. In this situation, I was not carrying concealed, but if I had been, it also would have been very good to have. As it turned out I was not the one victimized up there, and it might have been other people who did it, but a week later in a situation like ours some people were killed up where we were.

So, if you don't mind, I'll hang onto mine and you can go without.

J,

it is seji miyaguchi in the scene from 7 samorai where he is waiting in a field of flowers to kill the two bandits by their horses.

there are occasions where firearms make the exact difference and influence the situation. yours may very well have been one of them. If you have read any of the half dozen similar threads over the past 3 years on this subject, I am not at all in favor of limiting the right to carry, I am a strong proponent of using the right tool for the right job.
post #115 of 200
I am rarely unarmed. At a minimum, a snub nose .38 in my front pocket. Much of the time a Glock 34. Formerly carried a 5 inch 1911. I also try to have a canister of pepper spray with me as well.

I'll second globetrotter's views here. A pistol will not prevent the attack, it gives you another option to respond to an attack. If you don't see the bad guy until his gun is in your face, well, you better give the man your wallet and hope for the best because you have few options left at that point.

If you want to be safer in your everyday activities: PAY ATTENTION! Be aware of your surroundings, who is around you, and what they are doing. If anything does not look or feel right, remove yourself from the situation immediately. When this level if situational awareness becomes normal, then a firearm may make sense, as your level of awareness will likely give you the several seconds of warning you need to, as gt says, use the firearm to influence the situation.
post #116 of 200
A somewhat related news event: Maurice Clarett found with 3 semi-automatic handguns and an assault riffle. He was also wearing a bullet proof vest. What a shame the speed of this kid's descent. A few years a go he was due to be a top 3 pick, now he's due in the jail house.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2545493

post #117 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim


Haha...I'd love to watch them mess up and try to jump through reinforced glass
post #118 of 200
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renault78law
I'm obviously ignorant on the subject, please bear with me. I've been robbed at gunpoint, and I don't understand how having a gun in that situation would have helped. Could someone please walk me through a likely senario?

With a gun pointed directly at my face, I could have tried to draw and shoot him before I got shot. Probably a 0% chance of that happening.
Or I could have waited for him to walk away, then shoot him in the back? That's not kosher, legally (arguably morally, but probably not).
Or I could have waited for him to walk away, then tried to apprehend and disarm him with the threat of my gun, sit on him, and call police for backup? btw, when I called 911, I waited on hold for 10 minutes, then hung up.

If he decided to start shooting, I was toast, gun or no gun.

Clearly there are some situations that having a gun doesn't give you an additional advantage. If someone has you at gunpoint, clearly it's best to cut your losses and hand him your wallet. If it's so important to you that you want to reclaim it at gunpoint, you could potentially wait for him to leave, draw a gun, call out and fire if he reaches for his weapon, if you were so inclined, and likely be able to argue it was self defense although I'm sure one of the lawyers posting on this thread would be able to let me know if this interpretation was correct. Personally I would think you're better off just writing your wallet off.

There are many other situations in which you'd be carrying concealed where a gun gives you more options. One that is rather obvious and fairly clear cut, which has happened to me, is an attempted mugging in which the victim was carrying a knife. In my particular situation, I took a few steps back while apparently reaching behind me for my wallet, drew on the attempted assailant and he dropped the knife and ran.

The situation in which guns would most likely be useful in my opinion are home invasions. As I mentioned in the previous thread, I have had my residences broken into three times, and in each case I was armed and was able to thwart the invaders. It's arguable that you're better off calling the police and waiting for them to take care of the problem, but in my personal opinion, I'd rather take care of the situation head on rather than sit in a dark bedroom hoping the person who broke into my house will go away without harming me or anyone in my house.

I have a fairly large body of experience with weapons and a fairly extensive arsenal. If someone who is better at shooting and better armed than me breaks into my house, I'm probably pretty screwed whether or not I'm armed.
post #119 of 200
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GQgeek
I think that if you shot someone in the leg it would be a pretty easy argument to make, assuming they didn't die on you :P The chest is a lot easier to hit and is what most people intent on killing aim for.



I would say that it's very dependant on the situation and the laws where you live, no? If some guy comes at you with a wrench are you allowed to shoot him dead? He can't kill you with a blunt object if you shoot him in a non-lethal area and you'll be less likely to get in trouble for the shooting. I think you should use the least amount of force necessary to neutralize the threat, more out of fear of legal repercussions than any value I attribute to an assailants' life. If the guy has a gun however, the rules change.

I know that in canada even if a guy breaks in to your place you're not allowed to shoot him unless he's basically already on top of you with a knife already at your throat.

Regardless, I don't profess to be some expert in weapons tactics.

If you've judged the tactical situation to be dire enough to shoot a gun at someone, you better be ready to kill or you're going to wind up in a coffin, unless you've seriously misjudged the situation. Shooting with non-lethal force, or trying to shoot the weapon out of someone's hand only happens in the movies. The reason that you fire a weapon at someone is to stop them, and unless you're ridiculously talented and only go for headshots (which is likely stupid unless you're on the olympic pistol team, or something) you stop someone by hitting them in the center of mass with a couple shots. In my pistol training we've been taught to fire two quick rounds at their center of mass followed by a third aimed round at the head, and with rifles enabled for burst or automatic firing, a three round burst at their center of mass.
post #120 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by drizzt3117
If it's so important to you that you want to reclaim it at gunpoint, you could potentially wait for him to leave, draw a gun, call out and fire if he reaches for his weapon, if you were so inclined, and likely be able to argue it was self defense although I'm sure one of the lawyers posting on this thread would be able to let me know if this interpretation was correct.

I believe the gist of it is that you are not allowed to use deadly forced in "hot pursuit" of property. Deadly forced is allowed in very narrow circumstances, i.e. when your life is in imminent danger and you cannot safely retreat, or you're defending another in a similar situation.

If someone has a gun to your head, no doubt the better solution is just to hand over your property.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Social Life, Food & Drink, Travel › Guns? (do you carry?) revived