1. Please take 30 seconds to register your free account to remove most ads, post topics, make friends, earn reward points at our store, and more!  

Conceal and Carry Laws are pointless if....

Discussion in 'Off Topic [BG]' started by Fire-Starter, Jul 22, 2007.


  1. Fire-Starter

    Fire-Starter Supporting Member

    Aug 11, 2002
    MINNESOTA
    Correct me if I am wrong, but I was listening to a talk show here in Mn regarding Conceal and Carry. The situation was this....if you are attacked on the streets by a thug, you, yes.. YOU must seek to flee before you can use your concealed weapon? although I don't ever want to be in a situation like that, what is the point of having a permit to carry a weapon in case something like this happens, but then you have to flee first? My question then is, what if the thug chases you?

    They were also talking about a person having the same rights that you do under "The Castle law" or something like that, which says something to the tune of "if you are attacked in your home..i.e Castle..you have the right to use deadly force to protect yourself" MAKES SENSE TO ME

    I really don't care much for violence at all, but I also understand we live in a world that really could give a horses rear end of what I think, and will use violence against me in a second. So I am all for protecting myself and family if need be. As my instructor says, better be judged by 12 than carried by six"

    I just do not understand the part of the Conceal and Carry Law that requires me to RUN first, before I use my weapon to protect myself. maybe I am missing something?? are other States like this???? Can someone also describe a situation where it is LEGAL to use you Concealed weapon if you are attacked? this is kind of confusing????

    HERE IS A LINK FOR MINNESOTA CONCEAL AND CARRY BELOW AND THE "DUTY TO RETREAT" LINK IS BELOW THAT...


    http://www.leg.state.mn.us/lrl/issues/firearmcarry.asp


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine
     
  2. Baryonyx

    Baryonyx Banned

    Jul 11, 2005
    Marathon Man
    Run, then spin round and start shooting! Say you gassed out and couldn't run anymore, and he was still coming!
     
  3. HollowBassman

    HollowBassman

    Jun 24, 2007
    Hancock, MD
    If you ever need to use a concealed weapon, you will most likely not have witnesses, other than the one attacking you.(If you're smart, they won't be a witness either!)So who's to say that you didn't run first?
     
  4. Vince S.

    Vince S. Resident Former Bassist

    Jan 24, 2003
    Here in CT, we have may-issue CCW, but the laws in place that say when and where you are allowed to draw your firearm are very strict.

    If a guy is simply running after you, you may not draw on him; even if it comes to a point where he is beating you with his fists, that is still not considered a legit reason.

    Basically, one must prove that the attack would cause a "reasonable person to believe that he was going to suffer serious bodily harm or death" in order to justify using the firearm.
     
  5. Johnny Crab

    Johnny Crab ACME,QSC,Fame/Hondo/Greco/HELIX user & BOSE Abuser Gold Supporting Member

    Feb 11, 2004
    South Texas
    Surely that "law" would not apply to a politician being assaulted!!
     
  6. bassman314

    bassman314 I seem to be a verb, an evolutionary process...

    Mar 13, 2005
    Bay Area, CA
    of course... Politicians are HARDLY reasonable...

    the 'duty to flee' laws are an attempt to make sure that a person has correctly identified the situation before randomly firing at someone who may not even be a threat.. in that regard, I understand them.

    I also recognize the real world, in that altercations take place over matter of seconds, you don't have the time to make multiple decisions at once. You pick a path (fight or flight) and take it. You'll rarely have a second chance to re-choose.
     
  7. Fire-Starter

    Fire-Starter Supporting Member

    Aug 11, 2002
    MINNESOTA
  8. syciprider

    syciprider Banned

    May 27, 2005
    Inland Empire
    States have varying laws on when it is ok to pull the betsy on someone.

    Florida has a Make My Day law. No need to flee.

    Oh and someone beating you with his fists is considered cause for grave bodily harm and could be reason enough to ventilate the assailant.
     
  9. burk48237

    burk48237 Supporting Member

    Nov 22, 2004
    Oak Park, MI
    Basically the idea is, as I understand it, be sure you have exhausted all options before you begin firing. The position of a private citizen is different and the reasonable force options are different then a police officer. It is not your job to apprehend people. So if their is a way to escape the situation, DO IT. Makes sense to me. OTOH, Vince comments about attacks with a fist are not legitimate. If you feel your life is threatened, you have a right to self defense. Obviously if your a 6'4" ex linebacker and your assailant is an unarmed 5'3" women the odds are against you convincing a jury you thought your life was threatened. A weapon, in the hands of your assailant, especially in the act of a felony is usually enough.

    The Castle doctrine, is a slightly different issue. It has always been assumed (more as a function of common law) that if you are the victim of an armed burglary in your own house you have a right to defend yourself wether or not their are direct threats on your life. The Armed burglary on your premises is enough justification.

    The issue has been, what if your attacked on the street? or a car-jacking?. In many jurisdictions the burden of prove now goes with the person acting in defense. They must prove their lives were threatened, the car-jacking or mugging alone (even armed) did not change the burden of proof. After a few cases where mothers were put on trial for firing in self defense during a car-jacking while their kids were in the car, the public has begun to rethink this. And many states have begun passing castle doctrine laws that give you the right to stand your ground, and shift the burden of proof back to the perpetrator of the felony. While I agree with this, I still would prefer to flee if the situation presented itself.

    But I agree with the basic principle, criminals who are in the act of committing armed violent felonies, should not receive the benefit of the doubt when a citizen chooses to fire in self defense. And only in extreme circumstances (it was routine) should a private citizen have to go to court and hire a lawyer for the action of self defense.
     
  10. Fire-Starter

    Fire-Starter Supporting Member

    Aug 11, 2002
    MINNESOTA
    Agreed, my only other thought is how much does someone have to beat you with their fist before you decide, ok, my life is now in danger. Does he have to knock out my teeth, or bodyslam me to the concrete? I can see why the law would not want a trigger happy person to shoot because someone punched him in the knees, but there is a LOT of room for error on who is at fault here in a attack, a LOT OF ROOM:meh:
     
  11. kserg

    kserg

    Feb 20, 2004
    San Jose, CA
    HA, I'll shoot the idiot before I try to run. Rather have a bullet in the thug then a bullet in my back.
     
  12. Doooooooo yooooooooo feeeeeeeeeel LUCKY??? PUNK????

    :D I never thought of the law like that. I LIKE it!! :) If someone tries to jack me up, it's ON!! :p
     
  13. Not to derail this thread but I just read an article on the new Springfield Armory EMP. It's their scaled down 1911 in 9mm. The article said they are also going to produce them in .40SW. It said they might even be available by the time the magazine was on the stands. I'm getting a .40 as soon as I can find one. The more I see them the more I like the little blasters!! Cocked and locked baby :hyper:
     
  14. bassman314

    bassman314 I seem to be a verb, an evolutionary process...

    Mar 13, 2005
    Bay Area, CA
    the problem is you have to remember in all the confusion if you've shot 5 or 6. ..
     
  15. syciprider

    syciprider Banned

    May 27, 2005
    Inland Empire
    Who cares? Just pull out your other pistol and get back to the business of shooting:smug:
     
  16. Spector_Ray

    Spector_Ray

    Aug 8, 2004
    Texas
    Here in Texas, our governor just signed into law our version of the Castle Doctrine which extends to our personal vehicles and workplaces. This negates the flee before you fight requirement.
     
  17. burk48237

    burk48237 Supporting Member

    Nov 22, 2004
    Oak Park, MI
    We have passed the same in MI.
     
  18. I don't carry a wheelgun. I have to remember if I shot 12 or 13. [​IMG]
     
  19. Vince S.

    Vince S. Resident Former Bassist

    Jan 24, 2003
    In states with Castle Doctrine laws, how does the state legal system treat self-defense?

    Here in CT, self-defense is considered a legal defense in prosecution, with the victim needing to prove self-defense and state disproving it.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.