Which gun is better for the night stand? - Page 25
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > Handguns > Concealed Carrying & Personal Protection > Which gun is better for the night stand?

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-02-2013, 04:00 AM   #241
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
JackieBrown13's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 48
Liked 5 Times on 5 Posts

Default

It doesn't matter .45 low cap vs 9mm high cap. Both will work. Do what makes you comfortable. I have a 12 round mag of 9mm. It's also my EDC firearm

__________________
JackieBrown13 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2013, 07:01 AM   #242
Mommy, who lights the sun?
FTF_LIFETIMESUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Balota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Glenpool, Oklahoma
Posts: 2,928
Liked 1931 Times on 1176 Posts
Likes Given: 2082

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by axxe55 View Post
Mahall, IMO when a thief breaks into my home to rob me, he really needs to ask himself is robbing me worth the risk of dying. it's my property and it belongs to me. being on my property and breaking into my home and trying steal my things is a threat and they know that what they are doing is wrong. they made a choice to commit a felony and they have to live with the choices they make.

if i came home during the middle of the day from work and found someone had broke into my home and was still there, then i would hold them there at gunpoint until LE showed up. if they became a threat or endangered my life in any way, then i would show them the error of those choices.

there are no free passes or warning shots on my property. if i felt the need to fire a gun at another person, it will be because i felt my life was in danger and will respond accordingly. i will not shoot to kill or wound, but to stop the threat to me or my loved ones.
In Oklahoma,

"Title 21, Section 1289, Paragraph 25 Physical or Deadly Force Against Intruder:
A. The Legislature hereby recognizes that the citizens of the State of Oklahoma have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes or places of business.
B. A person or a owner, manager or employee of a business is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
1. The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, occupied vehicle or a place of business, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against the will of that person from the dwelling, residence, occupied vehicle or place of business, and
2. The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred."

The forcible entry at the beginning of a home invasion, whether for the purpose of theft or violence, is sufficient cause for the homeowner to believe he is in imminent peril. Under the law, the homeowner can shoot the thief for breaking in even if the thief is just looking for granddad's gold watch. Of course some common sense needs to be applied, mainly because the homeowner will have to deal with the after shooting events.

Not all states have such wording in their laws, so YMMV.
__________________

Balota
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
Practice does NOT make perfect. Practice makes permanent. Only perfect practice makes perfect.

Check out 4th FTF Shoot & Hoot.http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f138/4th-ftf-shotgun-shoot-hoot-vanzant-mo-oct-4-5-2014-a-105142/

Balota is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2013, 07:09 AM   #243
Mommy, who lights the sun?
FTF_LIFETIMESUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Balota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Glenpool, Oklahoma
Posts: 2,928
Liked 1931 Times on 1176 Posts
Likes Given: 2082

Default

That same paragraph goes on to say (paraphrasing to save my fingers a little typing) that outside of the home, a LAC who is attacked in any other place where he has a right to be, has no duty to retreat, has the right to stand his ground and meet force with force including deadly force IF he reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent death, etc.

The big difference is that out in public, the LAC must prove that a reasonable person in his situation would believe it was necessary. In the home (or your vehicle or business) the law presumes that aspect for the LAC.

__________________

Balota
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
Practice does NOT make perfect. Practice makes permanent. Only perfect practice makes perfect.

Check out 4th FTF Shoot & Hoot.http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f138/4th-ftf-shotgun-shoot-hoot-vanzant-mo-oct-4-5-2014-a-105142/

Balota is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2013, 06:57 PM   #244
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
mahall's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 891
Liked 160 Times on 138 Posts
Likes Given: 15

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Balota
That same paragraph goes on to say (paraphrasing to save my fingers a little typing) that outside of the home, a LAC who is attacked in any other place where he has a right to be, has no duty to retreat, has the right to stand his ground and meet force with force including deadly force IF he reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent death, etc.

The big difference is that out in public, the LAC must prove that a reasonable person in his situation would believe it was necessary. In the home (or your vehicle or business) the law presumes that aspect for the LAC.
So, needless to say, the law is, for the most part on your side if your on your own property. But in public the perception switches and the the burden of proof lies on the good guy!! Is that generally what your saying??
__________________
mahall is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2013, 07:14 PM   #245
Mommy, who lights the sun?
FTF_LIFETIMESUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Balota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Glenpool, Oklahoma
Posts: 2,928
Liked 1931 Times on 1176 Posts
Likes Given: 2082

Default

Quote:
The big difference is that out in public, the LAC must prove that a reasonable person in his situation would believe it was necessary. In the home (or your vehicle or business) the law presumes that aspect for the LAC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mahall View Post
So, needless to say, the law is, for the most part on your side if your on your own property. But in public the perception switches and the the burden of proof lies on the good guy!! Is that generally what your saying??
Yes. Please keep in mind that I didn't write the law, I'm just the messenger here.

The actual wording of 21:1289.25(D) is "A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."

My previous post (quoted above) is how several people have explained to me the test that would be applied in a court of law.

I would rather that the State had the burden of proof. They should need to prove that a reasonable person would not believe the shooting was necessary.

Even so, I would hope that any LAC who carries in public is thinking before acting. The decision to draw and fire should be a conscious decision and should be the result of a reasonable belief that the action is necessary to prevent death or serious injury. Part of the decision to carry involves awareness of all the legal aspect associated with that decision.
__________________

Balota
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
Practice does NOT make perfect. Practice makes permanent. Only perfect practice makes perfect.

Check out 4th FTF Shoot & Hoot.http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f138/4th-ftf-shotgun-shoot-hoot-vanzant-mo-oct-4-5-2014-a-105142/


Last edited by Balota; 06-02-2013 at 07:22 PM.
Balota is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2013, 07:15 PM   #246
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
locutus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 9,302
Liked 5701 Times on 3223 Posts
Likes Given: 5118

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mahall View Post
So, needless to say, the law is, for the most part on your side if your on your own property. But in public the perception switches and the the burden of proof lies on the good guy!! Is that generally what your saying??


Almost since the founding of the Republic, criminal actions at law have been decided by the RPM standard. The Reasonable, Prudent man.

Any time you kill someone and use "self defense" as the justification, the burden of proof is on you to prove that it actually was self defense, and a RPM would have taken the same action. This is a good and reasonable standard.

If you shot a woman because she looked Japanese, and you had a real, honest, mortal fear of Japanese, you would still be convicted. The standard is "would a reasonable, prudent man" have been in fear of his life from all Japanese.

If you were being attacked by someone with any kind of deadly weapon, you will not be convicted because an RPM would have been in fear.

The "Castle Doctrine" alters that standard in your home. (Your Castle)
__________________
“We sleep safely at night because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would harm us.”


Winston Churchill
locutus is offline  
3
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2013, 07:31 PM   #247
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
mahall's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 891
Liked 160 Times on 138 Posts
Likes Given: 15

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by locutus

Almost since the founding of the Republic, criminal actions at law have been decided by the RPM standard. The Reasonable, Prudent man.

Any time you kill someone and use "self defense" as the justification, the burden of proof is on you to prove that it actually was self defense, and a RPM would have taken the same action. This is a good and reasonable standard.

If you shot a woman because she looked Japanese, and you had a real, honest, mortal fear of Japanese, you would still be convicted. The standard is "would a reasonable, prudent man" have been in fear of his life from all Japanese.

If you were being attacked by someone with any kind of deadly weapon, you will not be convicted because an RPM would have been in fear.

The "Castle Doctrine" alters that standard in your home. (Your Castle)
That's kinda of what I thought. Thanks for the insight.
__________________
mahall is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2013, 10:34 PM   #248
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 73
Liked 12 Times on 8 Posts

Default

Um.... Some folks are making some silly assumptions and odd statements in this thread.

Some one breaks in my house at 2am- how am I supposed to know what their intent is?

"Hey strange dude on my house, is this a run of the mill burgerly or is this a home invasion?

Crimes get labeled after the fact once all the details are found. When its happening, you have no idea of intent or plan.

I will go right ahead and assume the worse case scenario and assume they did no break in to have a nice chat over acup of coffee.

__________________
simpkinst is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2013, 02:33 AM   #249
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
mahall's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 891
Liked 160 Times on 138 Posts
Likes Given: 15

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by simpkinst
Um.... Some folks are making some silly assumptions and odd statements in this thread.

Some one breaks in my house at 2am- how am I supposed to know what their intent is?

"Hey strange dude on my house, is this a run of the mill burgerly or is this a home invasion?

Crimes get labeled after the fact once all the details are found. When its happening, you have no idea of intent or plan.

I will go right ahead and assume the worse case scenario and assume they did no break in to have a nice chat over acup of coffee.
And some people are new and want to know the law, I knew my states carry laws pretty well!! But the Home Defense laws differ and generally give you more rights or a lot more justification to use deadly force! Sorry for the ignorance!! I damn sure want to defend my life, if need be!! But I sure don't want to go to prison for ignorance of the law!! To me Prison and death are one in the same!!
__________________
mahall is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2013, 12:28 PM   #250
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
mdauben's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 441
Liked 97 Times on 68 Posts
Likes Given: 7

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mahall

I'm not saying I agree with Florida law!! But that is the basic outline of the law in Fl.
Mahall, you may want to do some more research into FL laws yourself.

In 2005 FL passed their Castle Doctrine law. Under this law anyone who breaks into your home is automatically assumed to be there to cause death or great bodily harm, thus justifying the use of deadly force. You do not need to establish any further justification. The same law says you have no duty to retreat before resorting to deadly force.

You may still have moral issues with using deadly force but the law in FL is on your side if you do.
__________________
mdauben is offline  
axxe55 Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Lets Stand Together On This 1911love Legal and Activism 1 12-20-2012 05:03 AM
New gun stand. xcoreyyyx Firearm Accessories & Gear 2 06-28-2012 04:36 AM
Your last stand. Kenney The Club House 16 06-17-2012 12:21 PM
Where do you stand? canebrake Politics, Religion and Controversy 17 03-24-2010 12:00 AM
From where I Stand Kelly J Politics, Religion and Controversy 6 10-27-2008 10:45 PM