Big gun-rights win in TEXAS... Open Carry and Campus Carry
 

I thought this deserved it's own thread. You can Google as required for newspaper articles, but basically:

OPEN CARRY: becomes legal January 1st 2016 for handguns. Technically, OC for long-guns has been legal in Texas without a permit depending on which cop you ask. In rural areas, no issues, but clearly you don't do it in Austin.

There was one last minute sticking point that is of interest to note. Most of you are familiar with the term "Terry Stop". Basically, the 4th Amendment in the Bill of Rights has been determined by the Supreme Court to mean that the police can't detain you for no reason... they need "probable cause"... which means you can't be detained simply for OC'ing... good luck with that one. Remember, if you are "free to go", you are not being "detained"... but if a cop asks to speak with you and you do so, including giving him your ID and carrying on a conversation while he fishes for a reason to detain you, you're a moron.

The issue for Texas is that the new law states you can only OC if you have a valid CCW (WTF you say?) Yup. And since Texas CCW law states specifically that any cop can ask you for your CCW at any time, he should be able to ask you for your CCW if you are OC'ing to make sure you're legal... except what about "Terry"?

So... we got what we wanted in that OC is now legal... but the anti's got what they wanted because of the inevitable madness of police being able to stop every OC'er they want to ask for their CCW... which is unconstitutional under the 4th, right? What? Yup? Really? Yup. It's what they're doing now. But also now, getting your CCW and then OC'ing, you are agreeing to getting stopped JUST SO THEY CAN CHECK.

So... the supporters of OC wanted an amendment specifically in the bill that spelled out CLEARLY that OC alone did not justify probable cause... totally unnecessary because of "Terry"... but the anti's and all of Texas law enforcement opposed it for obvious reasons. So the amendment was left out of the bill... so what will happen is that people will still continue to get arrested for OC at the whim of police, then sue the police dept for violation of the 4th and Terry, and collect fat "rights infringement" checks on the taxpayers dollar. Activists judges will continue to rule both ways further complicating things... awesome.

CAMPUS CARRY: Legal starting Fall 2016 semesters. No OC on campus. Still must be of legal age to own firearms and have a valid CCW. Colleges may specifically ban firearms in dorms. Still searching if they carved out an exemption for private universities.
EDIT*** Looks like they specifically cannot ban possession of firearms in dorms, but definitely ban OC in dorms. Also expected are stringent storage requirements.
EDIT*** Cutout for private universities was passed... I'm not exactly disappointed that private-property laws prevailed in this case.

OTHER NOTABLE LAWS THAT PASSED IN TEXAS:
Constitutional right to hunt and fish
More protections to NFA owners by fixing defense to prosecution penalties
Established civil fines for municipalities/officials who illegally post public property with 30.06 laws
State preemption on knife laws


https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1433172467

I couldn't give two shits about open carry because I think it's really stupid but I really think its about god damn time campus carry is a thing. The less "gun free" zones the better since mass shootings usually seem to take place in gun free zones.

I'm buying one of these just so I can OC like a bauce when I visit TX. Ruger Vaquero in .45 Colt, bitches!

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1433172982

I don't understand how Arizona is so screwed up and yet we have better gun laws than Texas. Seriously, how is open carry not a thing in Texas, when you don't even need a permit to concealed carry in Arizona?

I just don't understand why anyone would want to open carry anyway.

Seems like it would constantly bring extra unwanted attention, not just from LEOs but from everyone.

Yep. Up 'till now, TX gun laws were the same as CA, NY and IL. That is one of the strangest looking maps you'll ever see and reflects some old history. My understanding is that the OC prohibition in TX is over a century old. As nice as Ft. Worth is today, 100 years ago it was one of the roughest places in the US, and these types of laws were passed as an attempt to clean things up -- similar to the gun laws in S. Chicago today.

Anyway, I'm all for restoring freedom wherever we can. I'm with Rand Paul on the "Patriot" Act expiration for instance. Those that give up freedom for "security" deserve neither.

Or not. I know a few people who OC everywhere they go and have never had an issue with anybody. In fact, I don't personally know a person who OC's who's ever had an issue. The stories you hear of "unwanted attention" and then put the attention they received on YT are normally people who are acting in a way designed to bring the exact kind of attention they received. Brain will likely chime in here that I support civil rights violations with that opinion. I also don't like pit bulls even though I've never met a mean one.

I have OC'd a few times with the occasional second glances, but I'm also a 6'4" white guy who dresses tastefully and acts like an adult in public. I don't seek attention and it has never sought me out when I've OC'd.

OTOH... my personal protection plan is my business, and I CCW everywhere I'm legally able to at all times... so I don't OC... I did it a few times to see what the result would be and my experience is exactly what I thought it would be, benign.

I open carried regularly in VA when I lived up there. For a while it was because I did not have my CCW. After I got that it was because you had to OC inside any establishment that served alcohol. If I wanted to run into Chipotle to grab a burrito I had to switch to OC, or grabbing a slice of pizza at my local pizza joint. Lots of times I honestly just forgot to cover my firearm back up after leaving. I never had an issue or anyone seem to give me different looks.

2 weekends ago I was in NC at a random flea market on the side of the road in the mountains. I saw a guy OCing and I did not even register it until a little bit afterwards. It did not bother me at all.

Put me down as another that thinks OC is stupid, and is happy at the removal of the campus ban.

NH is working on removing the requirement to have a CCW permit to CCW. I do not like this, it will make it more difficult for NH residents to get CCW permits in certain states which require you to have the permit from your own state before you are eligible to get one there. And I mean for residents of the state it take 2 weeks tops to get and costs $10 and its shall issue, so that have to give it to you unless they find a reason not to.

My problem with open carrying has a lot less to do with unwanted attention during mundane everyday life but with the idea that if I am in a confrontation of any kind the existence of a firearm in plain sight on my body will likely serve no other purpose than to escalate the situation. It also, in my opinion, offers a tactical disadvantage. Although you can generally draw faster with an open carry and aggressor can also access your gun more easily and knows that you have it and could more easily anticipate its use. It just seems to offer no real benefit to broadcast that I have a gun on my person.

It’s interesting, my current job prohibits firearms on site(something about jet fuel and all the welding tanks :-P), and my new job I’m starting in 2 weeks I believe is also not so keen on the idea, but at my last job… I bet half the office CC’d every day once the law was passed. I don’t carry because I don’t have a handgun currently, but I am a huge fan of CC and hope that Arizona passes a college campus CCW authorization.

<p>My GF grew up with a dad who CC all the time, and she believes she needs to CC to feel safe. But the way I look at it is if someone has a gun pointed at her how is a gun in her purse going to help her, I feel like it will just make her a target. Thoughts? Other points of view?&nbsp;</p><p>Also, my campus has gone back and forth on the CC cary, currently CC is banned but it seems to flip flop every few years.</p>

In the local news here was a story about a little old lady that did well in an attempted carjacking. Perp put a knife to her throat in the parking lot and told her to hand over the keys. She went into her purse, got her pistol, stuck it into the perp's face and told him "if you don't leave me alone, I'll blow your ^*%$# head off." He left . . . quickly.

The interview was hilarious. Such a sweet lady, her eyes just lit up as she told the story.

<p>Reminds me of this:&nbsp;http://lazer1033.com/moose/dirty-joke-old-lady-with-guns/</p><p>I don't know, I just don't see how someone car jacking with a knife wouldn't do something an instant a gun came out. I think we've reached a compromise with a big ass tazer and keychain pepper spray.&nbsp;</p>

That's actually the second most common argument made by anti-gun folks about "women and guns" in general.

Consider however that the exact same reasoning would apply to a anybody with a weapon not already in their hand, no matter how quickly accessible. Whether it's a man or woman carrying IWB/OWB/shoulder/appendix/Israeli/purse/ankle/etc... if somebody has the drop on you, your options are considerably more limited.

What you've done is limit your example scenario to fit a preconceived narrative... that women shouldn't own guns for self-defense because men are stronger and will just take it from them, making the situation "worse". What about the hundreds of other scenarios we could talk about for a man or woman PRIOR to the bad guy actually having a gun in his hand and pointed at them.

A firearm for self-defense is only one tool in your (what should be) extensive self-protection plan. If you reach the point one day where a bad guy has absolutely gotten the drop on you, and already has a gun pointed at you... you should probably do what they say and look for opportunities to create a positive outcome. This "opportunity" might be to draw, or perhaps to run... but it's really immaterial that you happen to be a woman with a gun in your purse at that point.

However, I have to ask what you were doing in the previous 30 seconds or several minutes where you were so behind in situational awareness that you let somebody get that much of an advantage. Sure, sometimes life just sucks for you and the bad guy is that much better... but probably you could have done more if you'd been paying attention. Just saying.

<p></p><p>I should clarify that I don't mean just her or women in general. I only specified because she grew up with a different viewpoint on guns and CC than I did.&nbsp;I don't CC for the same reason. I have limited self defense training, she has even less. She believes that she will be able to pull out a gun and save the day when I feel like she will be further endangering herself by pulling out a gun.</p><p>I believe that with proper self defense training CC can be a weapon in the arsenal, but just getting a license and throwing a gun in your purse/holster can cause greater damage to yourself and others.</p>

I've had less trouble with open carry on night shift then concealed.

I used to locksmith and would avoid bad areas at night. Some contracts ding you hard if you refuse service calls.... Regardless of their intent people give you less shit when they think you won't take it.

I was curious too if it was better to open or conceal and in my particular scenario it was more beneficial to open carry.

Based solely on the length of time it takes my wife to find her keys in her purse, I doubt a gun would be that useful to her.

Joking aside, I live in one of the top 5 most obnoxious counties in California to try to get a CCW and the state has made it nearly impossible to purchase a decent CCW piece thanks to the shitty CA DOJ Handgun Roster. My wife has proper knowledge, skills and attitude (where my instructors at?) to shoot safely but lacks the experience or range time to make the mechanics of shooting second nature. Part of this is finding something she is comfortable shooting and part of this is her just getting more range time in. Her father and brother are both CCW holders (because their county sheriff isn't an asshole) and they have encouraged both of us to do the same. She has shown interest and I would trust her judgement with the use of a firearm in a personal defense situation but honestly, I'm not sure I'd be comfortable with her actually carrying until her mechanics improve.

But that's just me. In the end its her right and her decision. I'd support her no matter what she decided. I'm certainly not going to tell her what to do but you damn sure better believe I'd drag her ass to the range for more frequent practice.

My sentiments exactly. Just because you CAN does not mean that you SHOULD. One would hope the approval process for a CCW would take care of this, but out this way it can be either a gimmie or an incredible pain in the ass, depending on where you live in this state.

My opinion:I find this so stupid and hilarious, no offense.

Someone runs up to you, threatens, you shoot them, the likelihood of you going away for a long time or ever is high, you go through insane court trials and all sorts of crap over what? The fact that like .0001 people get shot or killed in these situations and somehow walking around with a weapon is going to make you good at diffusing a situation? C'mon. And then there's the crazies who will shoot people either way, so unless you can spot the, shoot and successfully kill them before they do what they wanna do, you won't stop jack diddly.
Now, before the hatered flows, I'd like to say: I've come to the US from a country where so many people carry weapons. So what do the bad guys do? They carry bigger weapons. They carry automatic weapons. They're organized. So the people that want to jack you will end up killing you regardless, whether you take one or two of them out as you go or not.

The false sense of security or that somehow this is a good idea is what really makes me laugh. You can find just as many of, if not more, videos/reports/incidents where people with guns got robbed or killed as you will people without guns.

PS: the best part is if you kill one of them and then as you're feeling all cool about yourself they come back and murder you family. One, by, one.

But of course, I enjoy hearing stories and seeing vids of "instant justice" as much as the next guy, so don't write me off as some hippie or something. I just don't see why this is so cool

The stats dont agree with you.

Brought to you by a guy from a guns are banned, leftist commy state in the middle of nowhere.

The stats in USA?

18psi, you come from Russia, yeah?

Organized crime is much more of a problem there than here. USA has a tradition of obedience to the rule of law. I'm not saying people don't break laws, everyone does, but generally speaking we still, as a society, think it's bad to break the law. In Russia, do people feel the same way? The reason it works here is that we buy in. The less we buy in to obeying the law, the less it works though.

Throwing organized crime out, and looking at the crime remaining, yes, armed citizens are an adequate deterrent to much of remaining crime. Now, I believe we also should educate and train people on gun safety, but an armed citizenship is vital to America functioning the way America does. If we remove the right to bear arms, only then would we see and understand the unfortunate consequences.

Currently, I don't own a fire arm, but I will.

Yep. Maybe, but you don't think thugs/thieves/scumbags here will try to get revenge on you if you killed one of their "homiez"? I dunno

And trust me, I'm NOT against people having the right to have weapons. Not at all. I guess what I find weird is how obsessed some people are with this, when in reality if you actually use the weapon you're in for a world of headache whether it was justified or not, and IMHO 99% of the people that have them or want them don't know how to use them or wouldn't even be able to properly diffuse the situation. (this goes back to what you just said about educating folks). Maybe it's because we're in sissy CA, but I haven't seen a single instance where a gun was used by a non-cop that didn't land them in jail, then court trials for months/years trying to figure out if it was justified, etc. Maybe that's it.

I'm completely open to being proven wrong, this isn't some stance I'm taking lol

In the PRC (People's Republic of California), maybe. Most of the country has "Stand your ground" laws that allow the use of deadly force if someone threatens to harm you or your property.

In many states it even allows the use of deadly force to protect someone else.

You're still likely going to have some legal problems to clear up even if they clear you. The severity can range from simply talking to the police, it being clear cut, and you getting released all the way to zimmerman levels of legal problems. To pretend killing someone isn't going to cause problems for you just because it was justified is fairly ignorant. But even with all of this I would still rather be alive and fighting the legal system than six feet under.

Yes, definitely.
A conservative estimate for the number of times a crime is prevented or stopped per year in the US is well over 1 million.
Note that this does not mean over 1 million triggers are pulled, but it is very clear that armed citizens have a dramatic effect on reducing crime.
Some more interesting facts: While it is true that the US has a higher fire-arm murder rate than say England or Australia, the violent crime rate is significantly lower.
Also, in areas of the country that have previously banned CCW loosen carry laws, crime drops. It never goes the other way around.


Depends on the situation, political climate, and preparedness of the shooter.
If the situation is clearly justified and you know the appropriate things to say to law enforcement, you'll probably be just fine.
and
I would trust an average CCW holder over the average police officer to make the right call in a shooting situation. Seriously. Restraint and marksmanship are very important qualities in people who routinely carry around a loaded gun. Most people who go through the trouble of obtaining a permit usually posses said qualities.

Bingo. Scenarios that go well for the good guy are seldom reported by the mainstream media, but they are numerous.
Maybe that's it.

Understood, and I hope the people responding will be respectful of that. The worst thing gun owners can do is be disrespectful of people who don't agree with us.

Another very common point made by anti-carry folks that holds no water (except your last sentence). What you're arguing is that it's better to be a victim, and whether you realize it or not, you're tailoring your argument where the bad-guy has the drop on you from the beginning of a situation. Very few self-defense experts will argue that if you are that far behind, that you can improve a situation by introducing your own firearm. It is better to explore other options, including cooperation.

The standard scenario plays out in movies all the time... bad guy has people held hostage in a bank! Good guy security guard thinks he's gonna be slick and tries to draw his gun in plain view of the bad guy... gets shot. This is what anti-gun folks want you to believe is the only outcome if you try to defend yourself with a gun.

Statistics show that thousands of people every day IN THIS COUNTRY are successful in spotting the bad guy before they have the complete upper hand and defending their lives with a firearm... whether that is exposing their gun to demonstrate they'll fight back, drawing the weapon, or firing the weapon. Sure, sometimes it just sucks to be you, but most people who carry firearms for self-defense don't choose "sucks to be me" as a way to live, and are prepared.

That argument is invalid. You can always develop a scenario whereby there is no way to win, and you're using that argument to say it's better to be a victim all the time because of the very limited scenarios whereby there is no way to win (live through it) short of travelling with your own SEAL Team. The bad guys can start using C4 to break into your house I suppose, or RPG's during muggings. An obvious truth is that a gun will not always be the right answer, nor will even the most prepared and skilled person prevail in all scenarios. But to use that as a reason not to prepare for the majority of scenarios is disingenuous.

No you can't. What you will find are a few stories here and there that fit a specific anti-gun narrative that the liberal networks use to spin their propaganda about why carrying a gun makes every encounter with a bag guy worse. This is in contrast to the ample evidence that (I WILL SAY IT AGAIN) THOUSANDS of people every day use a firearm to successfully deter being victims.

As for the headache of the aftermath of a shooting... it is a very valid concern. Most people are completely uneducated about just how significantly even the most righteous shooting may affect your life. I have no statistical evidence or specific examples, but all my homework shows that most people involved in righteous shootings make mistakes in the immediate aftermath that unintentionally cause them problems. You don't necessarily need a lawyer on retainer, but you need to know who to call, and for the most part, the only things you should be saying to the police is enough so they understand very clearly it was self-defense, while simultaneously saying "Officer, this has been very stressful for me, and I'm sure you'll understand if I don't want to say more right now. You have all my information, how about I come down to the station tomorrow with my attorney and we can talk more?"

"Many self-defense shootings don't have to happen" is probably a very accurate statement. Many shootings are due to somebody waiting too long to introduce a gun believe it or not. Many shootings are people who simply have no situational awareness and the firearm becomes their first/last/only option. I hope I'm not kidding myself about my own skills, but if I ever have to shoot a person, it's because they were trying to kill me... that it was obvious to the police when they arrived, that it was on video, and that there were witnesses, and most importantly, it was clear that there was nothing else I could have done to preserve my own life. In absence of that level of proof that what I did was legal and justified and don't get charged with a crime, there's always the chance for a civil suit "wrongful death", which can be just as financially devastating.

As for a false sense of security... who is kidding themselves more?
Me, who carries just in case and who incorporates a firearm in to an extensive self-defense plan... or somebody who's approach to security is "nothing bad will ever happen to me".

If this thread and the discussions interest you... please read these links:

Duty to Retreat, "Stand Your Ground", and Castle Doctrine
Duty to Retreat, "Stand Your Ground", and Castle Doctrine - The Firing Line Forums

On the Lawful Presentation of a Firearm in a Defensive Encounter
On the Lawful Presentation of a Firearm in a Defensive Encounter - The Firing Line Forums

Civil Liability, Civil Immunity, and the Use of Force
Civil Liability, Civil Immunity, and the Use of Force - The Firing Line Forums

Federal Constitutional Primer
Spats McGee?s Federal Constitutional Primer - The Firing Line Forums

Yes, there is always the danger of that, but like I said, this is not as common or prevalent. True story about a man I know from church:

My friend, we’ll call him tom, had his truck stolen. Cops caught the bad guy, my friend opted to press charges. Bad guys buddies got pissed about this, and one day when my friend was in his yard pulling weeds, bad guys buddies pulled up, hopped out of a truck, and jumped him. Tom is an ex marine and ex CIA employee(in what role, I don’t know), so despite being in his 50’s, can take care of himself. He was outnumbered 3-1, and broke one of the guys legs before they knocked Tom out. Tom woke up in the hospital, and had been found in a puddle of his own blood at a bus stop down the street from the hospital. Tom recounted the story to the police/hospital staff. Turns out there was a guy who came in a few minutes before Tom with a broken leg. They put Tom on a stretcher and rolled him past the room with the other guy and his two buddies who were there keeping him company. Tom ID’d them, provided video from his home surveillance system to prove it, and they all went to jail.

If Tom had a gun, I don’t know what would have happened, but I bet it wouldn’t have been any worse than Tom nearly losing his life anyways.

I'll check em out.

Here's a question: How many here have ever had their life legitimately threatened to the point of 100% needing a firearm?

What about as a statistic over the whole population? Is there such a statistic?


Ok I can understand that.
Here's another one, this is from a distant relative of mine, who is currently in prison:

stupid crackhead "homeboys" come over to threaten him over some dumb argument they got into. one of them pulls a gun to "de-escalate" the situation. said relative snatches it out of his hands, it goes off, he murders the homeboy on accident.

he's in for 7 years, after an insane amount of court and all sorta stuff, proving that he did in fact do all of this in self defense.

I guess it's an isolated "CA problem"?

These are great! thanks!

It's amazing the way some of you will try to read deeper into a statement than necessary in order to try to make a point.

I'm not suggesting you won't have ANY problems.

If you're justified in shooting someone, legally (not necessarily morally), than you won't have much of an issue - that was my point.

Zimmerman had issues because it wasn't clear cut and he could have avoided the situation by not following the kid.

Are you suggesting that most situation's are "clear cut" when it comes to shooting/killing/murder?

None of the shit you are asking matters Vlad.

When legal gun ownership increases violent crime decreases and vice versa. Period. Regardless of country. Repeated world over.

End of story.

It's like you guys lack 5th grade reading comprehension.

I'm bowing out.

Leftists the world over.

That's cool you both can just leave the thread then.

I didnt say Id leave. I said that you were wrong.

That's cool. Now hush and let the grown ups with experience and knowledge actually post meaningful content.

If I wanted to hear a bunch of vague bickering and overdefensive insults I'd have gone to the source. I'm really not interested in the 100th pissing match.

I already posted what you need to know.

Take guns from law abiding citizens, violent crime goes up. Do the reverse and the reverse happens.

All you need to do is google violent crime over time graphs and look up when legislation changes were made and to fuck your confirmation bias off and you are set.

<p></p><p>You must not know how easy it is to get a CCW in Oregon...you can do it all online pretty much.</p>

In a self defense situation, yes. As long as it is clear that you weren't the aggressor in the situation, and you had legitimate reason to fear for your life, then the legal issue is pretty cut and dry.
The Zimmerman case is that one in a million self-defense situation you hear about in the news because of questionable actions on the part of the shooter that in some way help bring about a deadly outcome.

Is the situation I posted earlier a 2nd in a million? The one that actually happened with someone I know?

Are these questions pissng pro-gun people off? Should I just bow out and let this become a circle jerk?

LOL@DAnn - oh yeah bro, post up from all your gun owning experience and living in a place that has them outlawed. We're all dying to hear.

Google knowledge - real lyfe y0

I literally dont need to post anything else, You sound like a 3rd wave feminist, stop using anecdotes and look at the stats, your feelings are irrelevant.
I swear to god I hope Im getting trolled.

great.

love the ninja edits

In fact, I do know, and I'm working on getting one myself because of how frequently I like to visit.
It is interesting how low your gun homicide rate is, especially compared to neighboring California.
It is easier in Indiana, and the permit lasts a lifetime with no need to renew.
It is still a process, and those responsible enough to go through it and follow the law are generally responsible people who get training and actually practice shooting.
I frequently help a buddy out in his gun-store, and almost every new shooter asks where they can take classes. If they don't, we politely suggest that they do and offer an on the spot safety lesson.

The gun safety act of 2013 (gsa2013) is a win here in Maryland. (Sarcasm) We want to be California soooo bad. Last month, Baltimore just had a record setting murder count. 43 people killed in one month. We have had a higher count many years ago, but the population in Baltimore was higher at that time. So the record per capita was broken.

Not sure if it is just a continuation of the violence from the freddie gray riots or law enforcement apathy. The mayor and attorney general have made it very clear they dont support the police. So law enforcers are scared to do their job.

And yes V, I have needed a gun to save my life in the past, though not in this country, and certainly not in the context that we are discussing.
However, I know the shityourpantsohfuck feeling that occurs and that it is indeed possible to show good judgement and restraint. It is also worth noting that situational awareness played more a part in my survival than pulling the trigger.

See, I can respect that :)

<p></p><p>I think I figured Oregon out. We have incredibly lax gun laws, but ridiculously overbearing alcohol laws. Its like years ago they were like, &quot;well shit, it turns out booze and guns don't always mix well together, we should probably control one. *flips coin*, Alcohol it is!&quot;</p>

:rofl:

Yes, Indiana is very lax, but you can't buy alcohol on Sunday.
Maybe there's something to that.

Its not that I lack reading comprehension or am trying to argue for the sake of arguing but it really bothers me when people say "you'll be just fine" if it was a good shooting. That is such bullshit if the scenario isn't perfect and even if it is you still get fucked sometimes. I am pro-gun and CCW but it is important for people to understand the complete consequences before they take action and have a clear understanding of what might happen. I don't want some idiot on this forum to read your statement and regurgitate false information to someone else. SamNavy even pointed out that the aftermath can be very messy. To further support my argument I will give you three examples.

Carl Kozlosky was a 53-year-old Cleveland Ohio man.

While on an all night crack binge, a convicted murderer broke down Kozlosky's back door and began beating his girlfriend. Kozlosky shot the man with a .38 caliber revolver.

Even though he acted in defense, he was convicted of murder and sentenced to 18 years to life. It took two years for the verdict to be overturned and another year for Kozlosky to be released on a $10,000 bond.

Cleveland murder conviction of Carl Kozlosky reversed by appeals court - newsnet5.com Cleveland

ay Rodney Lewis was a 49- year-old former law enforcement officer in Iowa with a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

While driving home one night, he was confronted by two men, one a drunk, convicted felon.

After using his gun in self defense, Lewis was arrested and jailed with bond set at $225,000. A jury found that he acted appropriately, but he spent 112 days in jail, lost his job and all his possessions, and found himself homeless and penniless.

Stand Your Ground, Lose Everything(home defense)

Harold Fish was a 57-year-old retired high school teacher in Arizona with a clean record and a license to carry a concealed weapon.

While hiking, a man charged him, waving his arms and threatening to kill him. Harold Fish shot the man in self defense.

A jury found him guilty of second degree murder and he spent 3 years in prison and half a million dollars in legal fees before the conviction was reversed.

Trail of evidence - Dateline NBC - Crime reports - Trail of Evidence | NBC News

But you know......you'll be totally fine in a self-defense shooting and nothing bad will happen because our legal system never makes mistakes.

This of course, is also completely ignoring the wrongful death suit the family is going to file that has a much lower burden of proof, preponderance of the evidence, that might land you in eternal debt. Not to mention any local or national backlash depending on the specific case. But again, don't worry, if it was a justified shooting you'll be fine and you have nothing to worry about.

Maybe that's why California's gun laws suck so bad? Because we can get booze erryehwere!

My biggest issue with CA's CCW laws is that it once you have one it covers the entire state, but its up to the SHERIFF in your COUNTY OF RESIDENCE to set the entire process and rules for acquisition. If your Sheriff is an asshole you are completely boned. Counties like San Diego and San Francisco refuse to issue, Monterey County just went from "terrible process" to "good ol' boys club" and NorCal counties like Siskayou, Butte, Modoc, Plumas, etc all have decent Sheriffs and therefore decent CCW processes.

Its a big god damn unfair mess. I'm not a proponent of big government but I do support the CCW process being taken over by the state and standardized.

Here, enjoy the madness:
https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1433263825

What I learned from this map is that California has a YOLO county. :giggle:

I have never felt the need to draw my gun. But I'm not sure you know what you're asking. If your life is "threatened", ie, somebody is presenting you with "great bodily harm", then by legal definition, you are justified in using lethal force against him. I would also argue that you have the moral obligation to defend yourself with as much force as required. However, if you read up on the lawful presentation of a firearm, you don't need to be "in fear for your life" to present a firearm. Which is to say, drawing your weapon introduces a variable the bad guy might not have anticipated or be willing to continue the encounter over, thereby never getting to the point of "in fear for your life". This situation is the majority of daily instances where a firearm saves a life. Exact numbers can never be known because of underreporting, but there have been studies and they all say the same things about how often a "good guy with a gun" wins... and most of those end up without a shot fired.

You don't murder somebody on accident... murder by definition is intentional. Manslaughter is an accident and negligent homicide falls somewhere in between. However, I want to talk about normal everyday law-abiding and peaceful citizens with a sincere interest in lawful self-defense with legally owned firearms doing their best to avoid trouble. If you want to cling to a few random examples of what happens when scumbag people do to eachother what they do best to justify your "guns don't help" position, then by all means.

I feel it necessary to mention that part of my in-depth self-defense plan is to avoid any kind of trouble at all times. I don't go into dark alleys, I don't associate with drug users, I don't use hole-in-the-wall gas stations in the middle of nowhere, and I certainly don't associate with crackheads. In other words, I think I'm like most people.

I also don't spend every waking moment on "hi-alert" assuming everybody I come across is trying to kill me. Maybe it's a bit of military training, or observing my father for a couple decades, or just plain'old street-smarts... but I like to think I can see trouble coming and I go the other direction.

You can argue all day long whether he should have followed the kid... completely irrelevant to what by all accounts was an ambush followed by a righteous self-defense shooting. The girlfiend all but said that the kid had made it home to his porch and then went back looking for him. Shit, there's tons of speculation that the girlfriend told him he was a pussy if he didn't go find him and kick his ass. Anyways... where Zimmerman made his mistake was in talking to the police. If he had simply said "I was attacked, he was trying to kill me, and I fired in self defense... and now I'd like some medical attention for my wounds, but don't want to say anything else until tomorrow after I've talked with a lawyer... I'm sure you police officers understand"... then there would have been zero story.

Be patient friend... Peruta was almost the golden ticket. Peruta may still be pending the follow-on hearing in the 9th. It gets better every year. The anti's know they will lose on "good cause" court cases every time. Judge Scullin is holding DC's feet to the fire on what is essentially "shall issue"... CA will come around at some point.

Missed this on my first read... I don't think you do. The California legislature will be a Democratic supermajority for the foreseeable future, yes? Do you want that kind of "standardization"? At least currently, the process is governed by locally elected officials that most people don't see as "Democrat" or "Republican". County Sheriffs can campaign on topics that don't have anything to do with left or right. I'd love to see a few of the right people run for Sheriff in the red counties with a major part of their ticket being "shall issue" and see what happens. I don't know if that's happening now.

And to be clear about Peruta... there was zero impact to the laws of the State Of California. The only impact was to the official or unofficial approving criteria for individual County Sheriffs in that "Self Defense" could no longer be denied as "good cause". Most people think that Peruta caused California legal code (at the state level) to change, which is false. This is why the 9th initially refused Harris (Cali Attorney General) standing to add anything to the case during the usual motions to dismiss or stay after the verdict was read, because it didn't affect State law directly. Now that Peruta will he heard enbanc by the 9th, we have to wait longer for the final word... the jury is still out on how that plays.

Regarding the possibility of civil suits after a justified shooting -- MS state law disallows civil suits if cleared of criminal wrongdoing in a self defense scenario.

And I live very close to it :rofl:

Every time a selfie with the "Now Entering Yolo County" sign comes up in my Facebook feed, someone gets unfriended.

84(R) SB 11 - Enrolled version - Bill Text

This is the actual text of the law that the Governor will sign.

Here is the carve-out for private universities:

In my locksmith van I have a couple safes. A drop safe and a gun safe. I've been held up by knife twice. Each time I have gone to the gun safe and they thought they were getting some sweet cash only to have my barrel in their face.

I no longer am a locksmith partially for my safety but also because of the awful hours. I got sick of being caught in between some nasty split ups...having a pissed husband in my face after he randomly shows up and his wife is changing the locks on him. People not taking care of their vicious pets, getting threatened, robbed for trying to help people.

Could I have done without the gun? probably... but you know it did give me comfort and helped me defuse my situations.

For all I know I could have been stabbed after I gave my money. Yeah I was lucky they didn't have guns but either way In my situation they didn't have "bigger" weapons.

btw I hardly ever carry anymore now that i'm in a different field. I'm not some huge gun fanatic. It was simply a safety mechanism for my situation.