I can't remember the source but a person at 30ft can be in your bidness in under 2 seconds.
The goal is not to shoot someone before they can run at you from 30 feet away - I can't imagine a scenario where you would:
A. Not be on high alert.
B. Someone charges at you from 30 feet away in such a manner that you expect your own bodily harm.
If someone wants to hurt you, and you aren't already prepared to defend yourself, they are going to casually approach you from 30 feet away. It's not until they are within arms reach of you that they are going to act with intent to harm.
In a situation such that someone DOES sprint at you from 30 feet away, it's because there is violent activity in progress, and they know that they have to neutralize you as quickly as possible. In this situation, if you don't already have your defensive weapon prepared to fire, then you probably weren't carrying in the first place.
When pusha says "20 feet" he doesn't intend to "to pull out my nine and cap a ***** if he suprise come at my face". Rather there is an intention to be able to engage a threat that is either A: currently threatening someone else, or B: currently engaged in melee contact, and doesn't realize Pusha is about to pull a defensive weapon on the attacker with a free hand, and fire at muzzle-contact range.
If a guy walks into a McDonalds and starts dropping customers with a pair of high capacity assault revolvers (massive 6-round cylinders in each one, God save the children) If I'm more than 20 feet away, I can probably get to a door without giving up too much cover. Less than 20 feet and I can probably hide behind a trash can or a statue of Ronald McDonald while I ready my weapon.
In addition to her, the Cali Police Officers Assoc has also filed for en banc, although it appears they have even less standing.
It looks like the anti parties in CA are in full-blown DELAY mode, trying to buy time until they can come up with something new to plug the hole. San Diego County Sheriff Gore has officially said he will not appeal, which isn't his only option, just the most usual one a defendant would take.
So a person can't size you up outside 30 feet then charge or make crazy and you not be ready? Ok... 3 things make a successful attack: surprise, speed, and violence of action. My point being: situational awareness drifting in and out of an "orange state"
High capacity assault revolvers?!? I love it!! I'm still lmao!
I believe we have been through this at least once before in this thread.
Nate, the "illustration" you are looking for is called the "Tueller Drill" named after Dennis Tueller. The point was to figure out the distance that a person would have to be before a police officer would be able to draw and engage before that person came close enough to engage them with an impact weapon. (knife for example)
My draw is average, but that is a draw on the range when I know I am going to be drawing, my concealment garment is (for the most part) in an optimal position for drawing a firearm. Plus, there is no time in there built up for recognition of a threat.
I think what you are getting at is correct. I just think you need more time for research and understanding.
Also, the next battle is happening right now in CA. If you're looking for some good gun-karma, may I humbly suggest joining CALGUNS. The Peruta decision is already being used by Alan Gura in the Drake case, which is the best chance we've currently got at getting SCOTUS to take up right-to-carry... and since I know you are ALL ALREADY members of the NRA and SAF (if you're not, WTF?), so your next $20 would be very well spent donating to CALGUNS.
Ninth Circuit: Yolo County Carry License Policy is Unconstitutional (3/5/14)
on March 5, 2014 in News
This morning, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals entered judgment in our Richards v. Prieto ’right to bear’ lawsuit that challenged Yolo County Sheriff Ed Prieto’s policy as unconstitutional. In the memorandum, the Court concluded that “the district court in this case erred in denying Richard’s motion for summary judgment because the Yolo County policy impermissibly infringes on the Second Amendment right to bear arms in lawful self-defense.”
We and Second Amendment Foundation will have more on this case later today.
I would be tempted to say "Good Cause" is damn near officially dead on the west coast.
I would be tempted to say "Good Cause" is damn near officially dead on the west coast.
I swear I'm not trying to be a hater here... but read:
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, THOMAS, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiffs Adam Richards, Brett Stewart, the Second Amendment Foundation, and the Calguns Foundation (collectively, “Richards”) brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants Yolo County and its Sheriff, Ed Prieto (collectively, “Prieto”), alleging that the Yolo County policy for issuing concealed-carry permits violates the Second Amendment. Specifically, Richards argues that Yolo County’s policy, in light of the California regulatory regime as a whole, abridges the Second Amendment right to bear arms because its definition of “good cause” prevents a responsible, law-abiding citizen from carrying a handgun in public for the lawful purpose of self-defense. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court concluded that Yolo County’s policy did not infringe Richard’s Second Amendment rights. It thus denied Richard’s motion for summary judgment and granted Prieto’s. In light of our disposition of the same issue in Peruta v. County of San Diego, No. 10-56971, — F.3d — (Feb. 13, 2014), we conclude that the district court in this case erred in denying Richard’s motion for summary judgment because the Yolo County policy impermissibly infringes on the Second Amendment right to bear arms in lawful self-defense.
It's the same 3 judges from Peruta who are simply applying the same decision to Richards. When Richards vs. Prieto was tried, even though it was the EXACT same case as Peruta, OPEN CARRY was legal in CA, and the court concluded that OC was good enough not to infringe:
Under the statutory scheme, even if Plaintiffs are denied a concealed weapon license for self- defense purposes from Yolo County, they arestill more than free to keep an unloaded weapon nearby their person, load it, and use it for self-defense in circumstances that may occur in a public setting. Yolo County’s policy does not substantially burden Plaintiffs’ right to bear and keep arms. Therefore, rational basis review applies.
Again, CA shot itself in the foot by choosing CCW over OC. Peruta can still be taken en banc, which means it will be taken before the ENTIRETY of the 9th (all of the judges) rather than the small panel. The professional opinion from smart people is that O'SCANNLAIN wrote one of the best decisions they've ever seen, and the dissents missed the mark entirely. These are from people who are extremely critical when it comes to this stuff so they don't get excited when a court returns a pro-gun decision that is riddled with holes and will be easily appealed and lost.
However, if the 9th was going to take Peruta en banc, there would be no reason to update Richards... so you gotta wonder if they're going to let it stand, which would be ONE MORE STEP TOWARDS SCOTUS for a "right-to-carry" case. Peruta isn't the best case currently out there for this, but it's pretty good. And yes, if Peruta is allowed to stand, GOOD CAUSE would be effectively dead in CA... until the 9th issues a stay pending somebody's appeal to SCOTUS.
Also, there are quite a few more carry cases in recent CA history that could easily be overturned by Peruta, and those haven't been mentioned anywhere yet... maybe in the next few days?
Anyways, lots more fight to go before people in the full-blown liberal counties in CA give up... there are still tons of things they can implement, "GOOD MORAL CHARACTER" would be easy.
No, that was not the source. It was an actual scientific study... ie not made for TV...
I know that was not the source, I was just providing a related video. I think the source you are probably talking about was an old FBI study. At least that is what I see references to from time to time.
Edit - I see the Tueller Drill was mentioned a few posts up. I was searching for the FBI study but I cannot remember what it was called. There is a possibility that I am confusing the Tueller Drill with the 1986 FBI "Firefight".
Taking into consideration all generally considered factors, the answer to "What pistol should I buy?" has been the same since 1988 when it was introduced... the Glock 19. In fact, the only reason to answer something different is if you live in a state with a magazine capacity limit like CA/NY/NJ/CT.
The G19 is noticeably smaller than it's big brother full-size duty pistol, the Glock 17. It can be easily carried concealed by even small-statured people, and the factory 15rd magazines are a perfect compromise vs. the 17rd magazines of the larger model. Glocks are widely regarded (AOTBE) as the most reliable pistols there are. There's almost no argument for choosing any other gun if you're just looking "to buy your first pistol".
The 2 most common "comments" about Glocks are regarding the tigger and (lack of) a manual safety. There are numerous trigger upgrade parts available and most people just want something that engages a little smoother. I know of at least one company that will install a manual safety if you wish, however, many people choose Glocks specifically because of the lack of a manual safety... one less thing to get you killed in a crisis.
Some people "just don't like Glocks" for the same reasons people "just don't like Fords"... personal preference.
As for 9mm... historically, the 9mm (aka: Parabellum/9x19/Luger) has been labeled "the minimum defensive caliber" you should carry... that it's just "barely enough" bullet. However, there has been enormous growth in the past decades in cartridge and bullet design. Bullet technology has gotten to the point that people now say ".380acp is the minimum" and 9mm offerings are plenty, especially when considering newer +P self-defense stuff.
However, if you're limited to 10rds, there's no reason to go 9mm. Heck, if I could only have 10rds on tap, I'd probably carry something in 10mm Auto. But I've done the math, and 15rds of quality, modern 9mm, makes more sense to me than just 10rds of even .50AE.
All of this being said, I AM NOT A GLOCK FANBOY. When it comes to "what works", I have no brand allegiance and I certainly don't give a **** about looks. But I've done the homework, and I just haven't come across anything else that makes more sense than a G19 for the best "do-all" gun currently made.
My uncle is a Nevada Sheriff and I know his standard issue is a 0.40 cal Glock, but I'm not sure which model. Apparently the law enforcement where he is prefers the 0.40 cal for combination of stopping power, shootability, size, etc. etc. etc.
What's the price difference, long-term of a 9mm versus a 0.40? Initial purchase price + maintenance + ammo, etc. etc. etc.
Is the 0.40cal 20% more overall cost of ownership, 25%, 40%?