Click to Translate to English Click to Translate to French  Click to Translate to Spanish  Click to Translate to German  Click to Translate to Italian  Click to Translate to Japanese  Click to Translate to Chinese Simplified  Click to Translate to Korean  Click to Translate to Arabic  Click to Translate to Russian  Click to Translate to Portuguese


Forum Home Forum Home > General Discussion > General Discussion
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - CCW or firearms license
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Online Discussion: Tracking new emerging diseases and the next pandemic

CCW or firearms license

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 5>
Author
Message
digital View Drop Down
Senior Advisor Group
Senior Advisor Group


Joined: May 28 2006
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 115
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote digital Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 03 2007 at 4:43am
Originally posted by wolfgang2000 wolfgang2000 wrote:

Originally posted by digital digital wrote:

When you have been given the permission from your State to carry a concealed weapon, if the LEO wishes to take your weapon from you and unload it why doesnt he unload his as well. After all, you are both authorised by the State. You are both judged by the State to be competent and responsible people.


The answer to your question is responsibility. A LEO is the only member of our society other than the military that is under oath. A CCW is "authorize by the state" to carry a weapon, AND THAT IS ALL. The have NO enforcement responsibility at all. Nor do they take a "oath" to anything. Nor are they responsible to enforce any law or to protect anyone other than themselves.

This responsibility reason Most CCW laws dictate that a CCW inform the LEO that he is armed. Remember if you haven't done something wrong you wouldn't be under the scrutiny of the LEO in the first place!   
    

    
I understand that a CCW permit only authorizes a person to carry a firearm and I understand that the person has no requirement to enforce the law.
I also understand that it is a sensible idea to inform the LEO that you have a "permit to carry" and a weapon. But if you are both authorised by the State to carry firearms, when you tell the LEO that you are carrying and have a permit and he checks that all is in order unless he has a reason to be suspicious of you, why should he feel the need to take your firearm off you and unload it, shoudnt he respect your "right to carry" and show you some respect as a citizen that is in full compliance with the law.

P.S. I am not being a smart arse here, I am trying to understand the culture (and law) of another country. Although our firearm laws here in Oz suck, this year, I will be buying nice .308 and .243 hunting rifles in stainless.
I have served in the military for nearly thirty years and have done two operational tours, so Im not a "newbie" when it comes to firearms. I also recognise that LEO have a difficult and dangerous job at times, and I am familiar with some procedures being carried out in the name of "officer safety"
I also recognise the right of the LEO to take your firearm if he has "just cause", even if you have a permit.
But everything else being equal when two people meet and thay are both authorised by the State to carry firearms why should one take the firearm off the other and unload it, unless there is a just reason.

    
    
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 03 2007 at 5:14am
Originally posted by digital digital wrote:

Originally posted by wolfgang2000 wolfgang2000 wrote:

Originally posted by digital digital wrote:

When you have been given the permission from your State to carry a concealed weapon, if the LEO wishes to take your weapon from you and unload it why doesnt he unload his as well. After all, you are both authorised by the State. You are both judged by the State to be competent and responsible people.


The answer to your question is responsibility. A LEO is the only member of our society other than the military that is under oath. A CCW is "authorize by the state" to carry a weapon, AND THAT IS ALL. The have NO enforcement responsibility at all. Nor do they take a "oath" to anything. Nor are they responsible to enforce any law or to protect anyone other than themselves.

This responsibility reason Most CCW laws dictate that a CCW inform the LEO that he is armed. Remember if you haven't done something wrong you wouldn't be under the scrutiny of the LEO in the first place!   
    

    
I understand that a CCW permit only authorizes a person to carry a firearm and I understand that the person has no requirement to enforce the law.
I also understand that it is a sensible idea to inform the LEO that you have a "permit to carry" and a weapon. But if you are both authorised by the State to carry firearms, when you tell the LEO that you are carrying and have a permit and he checks that all is in order unless he has a reason to be suspicious of you, why should he feel the need to take your firearm off you and unload it, shoudnt he respect your "right to carry" and show you some respect as a citizen that is in full compliance with the law.

P.S. I am not being a smart arse here, I am trying to understand the culture (and law) of another country. Although our firearm laws here in Oz suck, this year, I will be buying nice .308 and .243 hunting rifles in stainless.
I have served in the military for nearly thirty years and have done two operational tours, so Im not a "newbie" when it comes to firearms. I also recognise that LEO have a difficult and dangerous job at times, and I am familiar with some procedures being carried out in the name of "officer safety"
I also recognise the right of the LEO to take your firearm if he has "just cause", even if you have a permit.
But everything else being equal when two people meet and thay are both authorised by the State to carry firearms why should one take the firearm off the other and unload it, unless there is a just reason.

    
    


I think you answered your own question. The LEO has a scope of responsibility and jurisdiction of authority. You don't. the bottom line is because he can disarm you and he won't ever give up his weapon. you are not the only potential threat out there. he has a job to do and he doesn't know who you are. Just because your legal to carry doesn't mean you haven't decided to rob a bank today or steal a car or take pot shots at cops. When he pulls you over he has probable cause. you are already under suspicion. You are the closest most probable threat at the time. that's just the way it is.

I might add, not only are you not responsible for enforcing the laws, you are not allowed to enforce the laws, you have no authority to do so.
    
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 03 2007 at 5:17am
here is a good reseource for Concealed carry and gun laws by US state.


    packing.org
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 03 2007 at 5:57am

 

Mach,

Im not trying to get technical here but I grew up knowing that we had the right to enforce certain laws as citizens of this country and in some cases we even had the obligation to enforce the laws in the presence of a committed felony.  If this pandemic goes full bore we may even have to.

Citizens' Arrest

By David C. Grossack, Constitutional Attorney

Common Law Copyright 1994
All Rights Reserved

Not long ago the politically correct Boston Globe noticed a "shocking" new trend. It seems as if some citizens of Massachusetts were so fed up with crime that they have begun to intervene in petty street crime afflicting the streets of our cities. Thieves and pickpockets in Massachusetts should exercise caution in where and how they ply their craft as the chances that vigilantes pummel them and drag them to the nearest cop are definitely on an upswing. While the Globe is shocked at this healthy trend, students of the law should note that both a statutory and common law basis for a certain degree of "vigilante behavior" is well founded. Indeed, in an era of lawlessness it is important that readers be advised as to their lawful right to protect their communities, loved ones and themselves by making lawful citizens' arrests. The purpose of this essay is to simply explain the law and the historical context of the citizen's arrest.

First, what is an arrest?

We can thank Black's Law Dictionary for a good definition: "The apprehending or detaining of a person in order to be forthcoming to answer an alleged or suspected crime." See Ex parte Sherwood, (29 Tex. App. 334, 15 S.W. 812).

Historically, in Anglo Saxon law in medieval England citizen's arrests were an important part of community law enforcement. Sheriffs encouraged and relied upon active participation by able bodied persons in the towns and villages of their jurisdiction. From this legacy originated the concept of the posse comitatus which is a part of the United States legal tradition as well as the English. In medieval England, the right of private persons to make arrests was virtually identical to the right of a sheriff and constable to do so. (See Inbau and Thompson, Criminal Procedure, The Foundation Press, Mineola, NY 1974.

A strong argument can be made that the right to make a citizen's arrest is a constitutionally protected right under the Ninth Amendment as its impact includes the individual's natural right to self preservation and the defense of the others. Indeed, the laws of citizens arrest appear to be predicated upon the effectiveness of the Second Amendment. Simply put, without firepower, people are less likely going to be able to make a citizen's arrest. A random sampling of the various states as well as the District of Columbia indicates that a citizen's arrest is valid when a public offense was committed in the presence of the arresting private citizen or when the arresting private citizen has a reasonable belief that the suspect has committed a felony, whether or not in the presence of the arresting citizen.

In the most crime ridden spot in the country, our nation's capitol, District of Columbia Law 23- 582(b) reads as follows:

(b) A private person may arrest another -

(1) who he has probable cause to believe is committing in his presence -

(A) a felony, or

(B) an offense enumerated in section 23-581 (a)(2); or

(2) in aid of a law enforcement officer or special policeman, or other person authorized by law to make an arrest.

(c) Any person making an arrest pursuant to this section shall deliver the person arrested to a law enforcement officer without unreasonable delay. (July 29, 1970, 84 Stat. 630, Pub. L. 91-358, Title II, 210(a); 1973 Ed., 23-582; Apr. 30, 1988, D.C. Law 7-104, 7(e), 35 DCR 147.)

In Tennessee, it has been held that a private citizen has the right to arrest when a felony has been committed and he has reasonable cause to believe that the person arrested committed it. Reasonable grounds will justify the arrest, whether the facts turn out to be sufficient or not. (See Wilson v. State, 79 Tenn. 310 (1833).

Contrast this to Massachusetts law, which while permitting a private person to arrest for a felony, permits those acquitted of the felony charge to sue the arresting person for false arrest or false imprisonment. (See Commonwealth v. Harris, 11 Mass. App. 165 (1981))

Kentucky law holds that a person witnessing a felony must take affirmative steps to prevent it, if possible. (See Gill v. Commonwealth, 235 KY 351 (1930.)

Indeed, Kentucky citizens are permitted to kill fleeing felons while making a citizen's arrest (Kentucky Criminal Code 37; S 43, 44.)

Utah law permits citizen's arrest, but explicitly prohibits deadly force. (See Chapter 76-2-403.)

Making citizen's arrest maliciously or without reasonable basis in belief could lead to civil or criminal penalties. It would obviously be a violation of a suspect's civil rights to use excessive force, to torture, to hold in unsafe or cruel conditions or to invent a reason to arrest for the ulterior motive of settling a private score.

Civil lawsuits against department stores, police departments, and even cult deprogrammers for false imprisonment are legend. Anybody who makes a citizens arrest should not use more force than is necessary, should not delay in turning the suspect over to the proper authorities, and should never mete out any punishment ... unless willing to face the consequences.

As the ability of the powers that be to hold society together and preserve law and order diminishes, citizen's arrests will undoubtedly be more common as a way to help communities cope with the wrongdoers in out midst.

http://www.constitution.org/grossack/arrest.htm

Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 03 2007 at 6:19am
Vtdoc,

Having been in law enforcement for most of my adult life, I would recommend you always tell an officer you're armed if stopped. He may well take your firearm during the duration of the stop and he might in fact check to see if your CCW is valid, but picture the misunderstanding if he happens to see the weapon or finds it on a pat down. Whats a little inconvenience if it helps everyone go home at night, right?

In KY firearms are allowed to be kept in the glovebox, but not the center console. I think storing a gun in either place is a dumb idea..........cars are frequently stolen and frequently broken into and a lot of times, by kids or teens. Now you have a stupid kid or young adult in possesion your weapon. If they're dumb enough to break into or steal your car, then you can imagine how dumb they'd be with a loaded firearm in their possesion. I say, if you have a permit to carry, then carry that firearm on you - that way you always maintain control over it and always have it immediately available to you should the need arise. After all, isn't that why you have the permit?
    
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 03 2007 at 8:40am
In Ky,

<<Isn't it true that if the car is in your name, when they call the plate in before your stopped, it will come back that you have a cdw license?>>

The answer in a nutshell is "no". Calling in a plate before a stop will tell the officer who the car is registered to - the make, model and vin# of the car the plates are registered to - the drivers license status of the owner and whether he's wanted by LEIN or NCIC on any outstanding warrants. Unfortunately, at this time information on whether the owner has a CCDW is not given - maybe someday.

Keep in mind though, that an officer does not always get that information back to him in a timely matter. If the computers are down or if it's running slow, it means he'll likely be stopping that car cold, with absolutely no addtional information other than the probable cause he has for stopping the car.

Also remember, the owner is not always the one driving the car. While the registered owner might be as clean as the board of health, it doesn't mean the current driver or occupants of that car........are.
    
    
    
    
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 03 2007 at 8:41am
Mach, your reply is dead on. This person has brought themselves to the attention of the LEO by some sort of infraction, traffic or otherwise. Taking control of that person weapon till the "stop" is over is prudent.

Cruiser, thought citizen arrest is viable. I would be very careful. When you take a action to limit someone's freedom, you will be civilly and possibility criminally responsible for these actions. To the best of my knowledge that is no law the "REQUIRES" a non-commissioned person to act, other than reporting, if they witness a crime.

In a situation where the infrastructure (police) is stretched to the breaking point, you may have to defend your self. You may even join with neighbors to defend each other. But that is a far cry from aggressive Law Enforcement.

RetiredCopper, (I'm one also ) I agree with you. The best place for you weapon is on your body. That said, I often reposition my weapon for easier access while driving. BUT when I leave my veh. my weapon is on my person.

Bottom line, KNOW THE LAWS OF YOUR AREA!!!!! Then apply some common sense.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 03 2007 at 8:51am
Wolfgang,

Congratulations on getting that retirement badge - hopefully you're still in one piece. I retired after spending what seemed a lifetime, in Detroit. Where'd you do your time?
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 03 2007 at 2:57pm
Originally posted by retiredcopper retiredcopper wrote:

Wolfgang,

Congratulations on getting that retirement badge - hopefully you're still in one piece. I retired after spending what seemed a lifetime, in Detroit. Where'd you do your time?


I put in 27 years in Baton Rouge. I still get around. But I'm nowhere as limber as I use to be.    
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 03 2007 at 3:25pm
May,
 
I have a S&W 9mm and a .357 magnum with a 4 inch barrel. I really like the .357. It is a medium frame, so it is fairly heavy. I am not a big person.
I am also looking for something a little smaller.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 03 2007 at 3:36pm
Originally posted by Cruiser Cruiser wrote:

Im not trying to get technical here but I grew up knowing that we had the right to enforce certain laws as citizens of this country and in some cases we even had the obligation to enforce the laws in the presence of a committed felony. If this pandemic goes full bore we may even have to


Cruiser,

While you are 100% right on a theoretical lawful level, in today's litigious society, there are some points that your defense attorney will bring up in preparation for your trial after trying to make a citizen's arrest:

1. you have no training in legal statue definitions
2. you have no training in adhering to suspects civil rights
3. you have no training in the use of appropriate measured force.
4. you have no training in the judicial use of lethal force.
5. you have no training in what defines probable cause.
6. you have no training in observation
7. you are not sworn to uphold the law or the constitution.
8. the suspect was under no legal obligation to obey your orders.
9. you don't have proven proficiency with your weapon.
10. your attempt to make a citizen's arrest probably; violated the suspects civil rights, caused undo pain or injury or death from excessive force, did not have probable cause, or caused injury to innocent people.

11. You aren't covered by any state or federal tort law in the performance of your assumed duties as a private citizen

Even if none of these things were a factor, it will cost you a lot of money to prove it.

Of course this will vary by town, county, state and DA.

During a sever pandemic, if the cops can't come after the BG, so that you must do something about it, (other than self defense), they probably aren't coming after you for taking care of business.

Just something to think about before trying to stop that armed robber coming out of the bank.
    
    
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 03 2007 at 3:45pm
Originally posted by tigger2 tigger2 wrote:

May,

I have a S&W 9mm and a .357 magnum with a 4 inch barrel. I really like the .357. It is a medium frame, so it is fairly heavy. I am not a big person.

I am also looking for something a little smaller.


tigger,

Like all of my posts they are 100% pure opinion, of which half is wrong. That being said, if you are looking for a small light wt carry weapon with good stopping power, take a look at the Glock 27. It's .40 cal, 10 rounds with one in the chamber and very small and concealable. It's a great off duty weapon.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 03 2007 at 4:43pm
Mach,
 
I look forward to your replies since they usually fill in gaps in posts left behind.  Your points are extremely well taken and even if only 50% right, still need to be addressed.  Yes, I am not a lawyer nor am I a sworn LEO, but I am hyper-sensitive to your other points and do have extensive training in many of the other well stated points.  I'd never worry about a bank they are insured!  I am mostly concerned with the preservation of individual rights and liberties and I for one will have no hesitation excersicing my own civil rights in the event some perp ever crosses my path again.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 03 2007 at 5:43pm
thanks.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 03 2007 at 5:47pm
Cruiser,

I do have official training in some of those areas also, which is probably why I am hyper sensitive to them. But I also live in a state that requires people to retreat from deadly force by jumping out a 2 story window!!! YGTBSM! I'm not a lawyer either. I will like you step in and do what I have to do to protect clearly innocent people. I need to be able to look in the mirror on occasion and like what I see. I won't try to arrest anybody, but I will use lethal force if required to protect innocent people. But I have to know they are truely innocent. The problem is once you step up to the plate, circumstances can change. there are many situations where I may not be able to tell a BG from an off duty cop in the amount of time I have. That is why I have pause in all of this. I have "chair flied" many possible situations ( comes from the jobs I have had) and many have possible bad outcomes even when they seem clear cut at the beginning.

I certainly agree if TSHTF, more of us will be doing what is required to uphold the law.

I too enjoy your comments. I have kind of a direct devils advocate approach, I'm glad you don't take my approach personally, It isn't meant personally. After rereading my long list, it now seems kind of abrupt. I should re-read before I post!
    
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 03 2007 at 6:57pm
Originally posted by tigger2 tigger2 wrote:

May,

I have a S&W 9mm and a .357 magnum with a 4 inch barrel. I really like the .357. It is a medium frame, so it is fairly heavy. I am not a big person.

I am also looking for something a little smaller.


Tigger both of the weapons you have are nice weapons. Like mach stated the Glock 27 in 40 is a fine weapon and round. I personally have the Glock 26 which is the 9 mm version of the same pistol.

If you are going to sell one, you might think about selling both. Get matching calibers and magazines. Like the Glock 17 and a 26. (both 9 mm) OR a Glock 22 and a 27. Both are 40 S&W. You can use the magazines from the larger weapon (17/22) in the smaller weapon of the same caliber, 26/27. That way you only have to worry about 1 type of ammo. Just food for thought.
    
Back to Top
TERMS 1 View Drop Down
Advisor Group
Advisor Group
Avatar

Joined: March 13 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 172
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote TERMS 1 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 03 2007 at 7:10pm
In the state of MI you have to apply for a CCW. It used to be that you had to sit infront of a CCW board and state your reasoning for your supposed need to carry. Now you fill out the paperwork, get a background check, supply two pasport photos (1 for on the permit), take a CCW class (basically a joke) and then in about 6 weeks you get your permit in the mail. There are multiple restrictions on where you CAN'T carry your weapon, (school, church, bar, hospital and stadium for example).

If we are stopped by the P.D. we are required to state if we are carrying or not. Supposedly the name on the CCW is cross referenced with the name on the registration of the vechicle (license plate). Also our drivers licenses have the magnetic strip with our information on the back, (can anyone say "comrade, your pasport please?").

I origionaly got my CCW when I was working as a SWAT Medic and I still carry my Glock 30 in a shoulder rig even when I'm on my motorcycle. Whether I'm going "up north" or "down-town".


    
Credibility is like virginity, once it is gone- it is gone forever.
Back to Top
detpat View Drop Down
Senior Advisor Group
Senior Advisor Group
Avatar
Location: Pennsylvania

Joined: March 02 2006
Location: pgh pa
Status: Offline
Points: 367
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote detpat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 03 2007 at 9:51pm
i have significant leo training and service but i will not intervene utilizing lethal force unless there is SIGNIFICANT risk of life.   i won't initiate a lethal force encounter in any other circumstances.  i have seen too many situations go bad, including "victims" who later turn out to be less than straight forward, or even start legal "consultation" against their saviors.  talk about ungrateful!

  the most important thing is to situationally aware and don't allow yourself to be put in a situation where you can be identified as a weapon carrier.  that will put you in a bad position where you may have no choice but to engage on disadvantaged terms.  pay close attention to the situation andif you think you may be searched, or your life directly threatened [badguy decides to kill witnesses or orders you to do something that makes you fear for your life] then engage on your terms.  otherwise think of your family or those that depend on you and avoid escalating the situation.  especially in a shtf your death or serious injury may result in the deaths or serious danger to your loved ones. 


oh yeah, i live in PA which is a must issue state.  open carry is also legal here.  that means that if you don't fit into certain defined legal catagories you may not be denied a permit for any other reason.

pat
never underestimate the power of human stupidity
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 03 2007 at 9:59pm
Digital,

" I will be buying nice .308 and .243 hunting rifles in stainless. "

Can you do this legally down under ???

I thought gun ownership was illegal in Australia.

Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 04 2007 at 1:59am
Originally posted by detpat detpat wrote:


i have significant leo training and service but i will not intervene utilizing lethal force unless there is SIGNIFICANT risk of life. i won't initiate a lethal force encounter in any other circumstances.


Pat,

I agree completely. For me, I will never initiate a lethal force encounter, but i will be first to use it to protect my family. Means, ability, intent, with no way to retreat. For me to step in and protect innocent people other than my family,the intent part pretty much means I already have seen someone else taken out with the intent to continue to take out others. As a civilian, I won't ever initiate a lethal force encounter, I will only respond to one with lethal force when the BG has the means ability and intent to inflict sever bodily harm or use lethal force against an innocent person. In my mind the letal force encounter is already in full swing if I jump in.

The Fed law that allows cops, to carry concealed outside their jurisdiction requires the cop to respond as a civilian. I think that may be very difficult to due for most. Act like a cop in your home state, act like a civilian everywhere else, including the requirement to retreat if able and that depends on the juristiction someone is in. They don't make it easy.
    
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 5>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down