Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The leeway each state is able to grant is due to the Constitution preventing Federal government from controlling anything that the State government can handle.

That is why the NRA is so adamant about keeping any Federal Administration, ie the President, House and Senate, from passing legislation that supersedes that of the State. It's unconstitutional.

I also made it clear that I'm not going to shoot a homeless bum who means no harm or a lost kid/teenager that means no harm. Though if either of the above made a threatening gesture that I felt put my life at stake than all bets are off.

I'm 6 miles from the city, out in the country. All my neighbors are either elderly or meth heads/dealers (hell probably some elderly meth dealers) so odds are someone entering my home is going to be a meth head or a meth dealer. Neither of which would be there to watch some tv or grab some food (at least not until after harming me or stealing my tv and taking it back to their house).


So. Rules 1,2,3 and 4 have been or will be broken if the person most likely to break into my home is NOT a homeless bum or a runaway child.

I can also use deadly force to defend myself at my job or in my car if I feel threatened.

Like I pointed out earlier, I'm not going to shoot someone just to shoot someone. I've had to run a few drunken idiots off my yard in the past couple of years and now that summer is here I'm sure I'll have to do it again. My piece is on me, tucked into my waistband in case but so far any confrontations I've had were resolved without violence. Though if anyone ever thought to swing at me or come at me they'll suffer severe lead poisoning.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:

If he walks into my house it's Breaking and Entering. A Felony. Hence I can defend my house with deadly force if I feel the need. All I have to do is feel threatened by his actions and someone just walking into my house as if he lives there would make me feel threatened.
Wrong. That is called Trespassing. Breaking and Entering requies some sort of force or 'breaking' to have occured, such as breaking a window or forcing a door open. Just walking into your house (if you left the door open that is) does not necessarily contistute breaking and entering. So if you were to walk dowstairs and spot a guy just walking in a seating himself on the couch, you don't have the right to use lethal force until he makes a threatening move. Unless of course you live in a place where you can use lethal force on trespassers. Then that would make you one of "those" people.

He doesn't have to intend to do harm. He could be headed for the refrigerator for a bite to eat and I can still use lethal force to diffuse the situation.
No. Having killed him, the onus is on you to prove that either he intended to cause harm, or there was reason for you to beleive so. As far as I know, a hobo walking into your house and getting a bite to eat from the fridge can not be called 'threatening'. Therefore, you wouldn't be allowed to shoot him just for that alone, you could tell him at gunpoint to get out of your house, but you wouldn't be allowed to pull the trigger until he actually did something threatening. (Like picking up the kitchen knife or something). Again, this is only if you live in a sane part of the world that values human life. If you live in a place where you can shoot anyone you feel like who enters your premises, then again you are one of "those" people.

If I hit him with an NLR and then hit him again when he's down the court has to PROVE that he was down for the count after the first one. It's on the prosecutor to prove I was overzealous.
True, but it wouldn't be that hard with forensics to tell whether he was on the floor when you shot him. Even if you had a good ol' time cleaning up afterwards.

I'm outside of city limits.
Good for you.

The first two I admit are a bit sketchy but then again with the Castle Doctrine I just have to "feel" threatened by someone entering my house uninvited and that is reasonable cause enough for me to defend myself. The person does not even need to be armed. It's on the hands of the prosecutor/police officers to prove I didn't feel threatened and that can't be proven.
No. Inccoret. The police have to prove that you killed someone, with your conffession, the body in your house, the smokeing gun ect, that shouldn't be too hard. Having used 'self-defense' as your defense, the onus is on YOU to prove that you had reasonable grounds to feel threatened and that taking lethal action was absolutely neccesary. That shouldn't be extremely hard to do, especially if you're telling the truth, but you still have to do that.

I'll admit, this is mostly on my experience with Australian Law and the Westminister system (couple with some basic sense). If the law really is that different between the two, then I'll apologise again, for I was not aware that you were one of "those" people.

You are trying to apply dern ferener law. That is not appropriate in this instance.

Thankfully, Fateweaver has provided the basic tennents of the Castle Doctrine, so this shouldn't be too hard to grasp.

I assume that when one uses self-defense as a defense they have to prove it. It is not up to the police to disprove the claim.

It's not that hard to prove though.

Self-defense is normally cut and dry, especially with the castle doctrine.

I just sum these arguments up as, you arnt an American. You will not understand the need/want for a weapon as we do. Its just that simple. Americans say America is #1 because we have an absolute LOVE for this country. Sure we are beat in ALOT of categories that would be considered in selecting a real #1. We also LOVE our guns. Our country was born by its people and our guns. So its practically bred into us.

KC summed it up good.

If you weren't born here or lived here most of your life you, as a foreigner, cannot understand it.

My uncle lived in London for 25 years and with all my talks with him there are things about the UK that I could never understand the love or hate for.

Thats the beauty of having more than one country in this world. As long as we play nice with the other countries. But only the Western ones....

Marshal2Crusaders wrote:Thats the beauty of having more than one country in this world. As long as we play nice with the other countries. But only the Western ones....

QFT.

I bought a gun today. Can't say I'm thrilled about the 10-day waiting period here in Commiefornia. Waiting periods were never a law I could understand. I think it might have something to do with preventing someone who's a trifle hot-headed from buying a gun and using it right away, the waiting period giving him time to cool off. If anyone knows the real reason, I'd love to hear it.

Oh, it's a Kel-Tec SU-16CA, for anyone who's wondering. Not as nice as my customized AR-15 I had in NY, but, it was stolen from me and wouldn't be legal in CA anyway. :(

It might not be written on paper but my guess is the waiting period is to prevent a hothead going postal, though I'm sure that's not the intended reason.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Thankfully, Fateweaver has provided the basic tennents of the Castle Doctrine, so this shouldn't be too hard to grasp.

I assume that when one uses self-defense as a defense they have to prove it. It is not up to the police to disprove the claim.

It depends on the jurisdiction actually.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Commander Endova wrote:I bought a gun today. Can't say I'm thrilled about the 10-day waiting period here in Commiefornia. Waiting periods were never a law I could understand. I think it might have something to do with preventing someone who's a trifle hot-headed from buying a gun and using it right away, the waiting period giving him time to cool off. If anyone knows the real reason, I'd love to hear it.

Oh, it's a Kel-Tec SU-16CA, for anyone who's wondering. Not as nice as my customized AR-15 I had in NY, but, it was stolen from me and wouldn't be legal in CA anyway. :(

I read a consumer review. Is that the one with the grip that converts into a bipod? If so its a decent gun.