Go Back  HuntingNet.com Forums > Non Hunting > Politics
NRA splits with Open Carry Texas on demonstrations. >

NRA splits with Open Carry Texas on demonstrations.

Politics Nothing goes with politics quite like crying and complaining, and we're a perfect example of that.

NRA splits with Open Carry Texas on demonstrations.

Old 06-05-2014, 03:56 PM
  #51  
Nontypical Buck
 
RobertSubnet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 3,771
Default

You're in restraunt on your turf when this little attention whore comes in with his rifle at the low ready. Tell me you are not going to pop him immediately.
Falcon no I would not "pop him immediately." However I do agree these two are doing a disservice to the 2A community simply by the way they are presenting themselves and their weapons to the public. Carrying low ready in a populated public area is really dangerous for everyone involved.

Now if I walked into a restaurant wearing my usual "corporate casual" IE: slacks, pressed polo, clean shaven, neat haircut and I had my AR slung over my shoulder (and *not* in low ready) would you feel different?

I was thinking some more about this whole topic today. People who chose to open carry long arms in public have a real opportunity as ambassadors for the 2A community. If I were doing this I would cooperate and work with my local sheriff. Let them know who I am, call them before I go out and let them know where I will be located. That way when the frantic calls come in - and they will - the police response would be along the lines: "yes we know who that is, he is OK but just to be sure we will check it out..." That can be very reassuring to the public "ohh...this guy is not a nut case after all." Make friends and be professional in your community: so when people talk about you - and they will - it will be along the lines: "ohh I know who you are talking about he is OK not a bad guy at all...."

The open carry movement has a real opportunity to do good and to educate....especially educate. But as Falcon says if you only want to be an "attention whore" then I agree...please keep the weapons at home.
RobertSubnet is offline  
Old 06-05-2014, 08:07 PM
  #52  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: WY
Posts: 2,054
Default

You "divide and conquer" guys are forgetting that the bad guys are getting a vote in this. They don't want gunowners portrayed as reasonable, or well-mannered. They want to find the nuttiest guy to interview and then make him the posterboy for the campaign to portray all of us as loons.

Some of you may not have seen the photos of the rifle-wielding OCers in Target? No, I don't typically shop there, so let's dispense with the whole "deviance" lecture.

In Wyoming, we don't even need a permit to carry concealed anymore. Some of us do submit to the requirements for a hard permit though in order to carry in states with reciprocal agreements. I'm not sure how many potential thieves were deterred at Lowe's or Starbucks in my county:

http://cowboystatenews.com/2014/01/0...heyenne-lowes/

http://www.wyomingnews.com/articles/...t#.U5EsGdHYTxA

The threat isn't always where or what you think it is. So, while the two in Falcon's picture don't exactly strike me as guys I might have to shoot it out with between the registers, they do strike me as guys I'm going to steer well away from. As will probably a lot of other store patrons. So, while I enjoy the ability to carry concealed into that store today, tomorrow will be the ubiquitous decal of the handgun, surrounded by a red circle with a line through it. Do you suppose the number of merchants allowing open carry in their stores is growing as a result of this little "demonstration?"

Yup, thanks guys. Thanks for protecting my right to carry. You don't secure a right to carry by poking people in the eye with it.

Last edited by homers brother; 06-05-2014 at 09:21 PM.
homers brother is offline  
Old 06-05-2014, 08:45 PM
  #53  
Fork Horn
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: DFW
Posts: 199
Default

You know I read here daily and rarely make a post unless I feel motivated for the simple fact that almost every thread never gains traction or goes south quickly especially in the long run. I see immediately the direction it is headed based on the posters and sometimes the topic is just toxic due to the over board labels used or the same old rhetoric. For the most part and I may not be the most knowledgeable on some topics but I begin to see the RED vs. BLUE STATES on subjects we should at least hold a common ground and I am not talking about the liberals here.

Open Carry Texas demonstrations are only advertised on social media between friends until it becomes a MSM event. All Posed photos are just that and did not disrupt a business nor cause the local LEO to be called out. This situation is blown out of proportion due to year old photos on individual social media pages but I doubt anyone researched that prior to making it a news event and any current events were held in the parking lot may have been promoted. Due the MSM and the whiners Open Carry Texas is now about to be charge with violation of the RICO law for holding a raffle in their latest event.

Is this a reflection on all gun owners? Well then let’s backtrack through all the media hype, California, George Zimmerman, Sandy Hook, the Colorado shootings just for examples, the type weapons used, the amass of ammo, intent but does this reflect on all gun owners? No! But, neither does anyone that makes their peaceful intent known on changes they want no different than any other organization trying to make a change that is not forced down with the Media Broadcasting their opinion bypassing all other processes.

The news media publishing gun owners, labeling and misrepresenting gun owners, social media anti gun, Mom’s against guns and gun violence pushing their agenda but a hunting web site forum where member’s actually side with the anti’s because they do not represent you is just like the Old Guard that holds the Republican Party Hostage. I am a traditional hunter and have never shot or used tactical style weapons yet I do not retaliate or belittle those that do.

If you do not believe the ranks have been infiltrated, the media dictates the opinion and we are secure sitting on our haunches because the written word says so then I guess we are done as an organization but no matter the end result Texas will not faultier if I have a say in it because I believe in my individual rights and I am not a member of any gun rights organization mentioned other than those granted by God!

On a side note my elderly Mom stated she was afraid of guns and I told her guns have never hurt anyone it was the person in control so I added that when I’m most scared is any time a LEO holds his hand on their holstered weapon while talking to me!

Divide and Conquer!

Last edited by ATracker; 06-05-2014 at 09:01 PM. Reason: Typo
ATracker is offline  
Old 06-05-2014, 09:08 PM
  #54  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: WY
Posts: 2,054
Default

Originally Posted by ATracker View Post
...but a hunting web site forum where member’s actually side with the anti’s because they do not represent you is just like the Old Guard that holds the Republican Party Hostage.
It's all absolute, isn't it? If I don't agree with you, then I'm against you? No wonder conservatism loses elections.

It's so cliche now that "guns don't kill, people do." We lament that the responsibility needs to be on the person who misused the gun, not on the gun itself. Personal responsibility, right? And here you are - blaming those who DIDN'T create the media ruckus, excusing the ignorant, short-sighted actions of those who did. It's the fault of the other gunowners who should have just blindly agreed with us. You play this right into the leftist's lap.

You guys made the bed, now we ALL have to sleep in it. Thanks. A lot.
homers brother is offline  
Old 06-05-2014, 10:01 PM
  #55  
Super Moderator
 
CalHunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern California
Posts: 17,553
Default

You've posted some interesting questions involving officer/public safety, tactics, laws (for both CA & OK) and whatever method of inquiry is used to determine if a shooting was justified in both jurisdictions. You've also posted some interesting thoughts on the NRA and to some degree, the direction this topic has taken. My thoughts in blue ink below so they can anser your questions more specifically.

Originally Posted by falcon View Post
CalHunter:

You're in restraunt on your turf when this little attention whore comes in with his rifle at the low ready. Tell me you are not going to pop him immediately.
When I read this 1st paragraph, I thought you meant arrest by the use of the word "pop." Then I read your 2nd paragraph and figured that you meant shoot, not arrest.

Your above scenario talks about what I would do on my turf or beat so my answer is from CA law (OK could honestly have different laws). Obviously the 2 gents in your picture below would get the attention of any of us in such a scenario. If I were on duty, you can bet that I would assess potential threats, contact them and investigate.

The guy on the left is obviously less of a threat and the guy on the right is potentially more of a threat. It looks like they're in some kind of coffee shop so yes, they would be directed to turn away from me, show their hands and not do anything foolish while I check the weapons they're holding, check them for any other weapons and hang onto their weapons until I concluded my contact and investigation (kind of SOP really). They would then be directed outside to conclude the investigation and determine if laws had been broken, charges or arrest(s) were necessary, etc. this is if they were cooperative and didn't elevate any threat levels.

In CA, they could not legally have loaded weapons in plain sight like that. CA has 2 kinds of carry permits--concealed and open. I'm not aware of any jurisdiction (the Sheriff of a County or Chief of a Police Department can issue permits although most police chiefs send people to the Sheriff's Department. Every Carry permit I've seen is for pistol(s) and is for concealed carry. Like Texas, CA tends to have less definitions for long guns but people carrying them in public do get noticed and police get called.


You will get away with shooting the creep because you're a cop. i would get away with popping him because this is OK.
Although I think I know what you really mean, I would like to clarify for people reading this. In CA (OK could very well be different), as a cop, I do not get to just shoot somebody because they are carrying a rifle in public and then "get away with it." It's kind of a complex dynamic about when a cop (in CA) is justified in shooting a person BUT in general, the cop has to reasonably perceive a direct or immediate threat of death or serious bodily harm to either the cop or anybody else on scene. It doesn't mean we don't take precautions but it also doesn't give us the legal ability to just shoot somebody either.

In your supplied picture, the guy on the left is less of a threat and the guy on the right is more of a threat (somebody accurately pointed out he was carrying in a "ready" type of position or at least his hands were in such a position). Two guys like this would be in a very serious situation with LE Officers contacting them. Their failure to follow commands could result in them getting shot (it just depends on what they do or don't don't do beyond what is seen in the picture).

I've been in a gunfight where both of us were shot (I'm still here and he's not). That experience and almost 24 years of doing this job does influence and affect how I view these situations and even different photos that you and everybody else posts. I'm very well aware of how the post-shooting investigation works both from my shooting and others that I've responded to. Trust me, in CA, it can be a little complex.

As for your being able to get away with popping or shooting "the creep" in OK (I presume you're talking about the guy on the right), I'm honestly not familiar with OK gun and self defense laws. In general, I think OK laws would likely require just a little more reason but I really don't know OK laws. Maybe somebody more familiar with OK laws could jump in on that. Sometimes states can be very different in their laws.




http://victorygirlsblog.com/how-open...e-to-ban-guns/

Regular folks who could care less about gun rights or gun control are well aware of several nutcases who used long guns to murder bunches of folks, including kids. Yep, they are leery of people carrying long guns into businesses, especially restraunts.
That is simply common sense--they should be leery.

It someone came into the restraunt i frequent carrying a long gun low and ready he would be popped by multiple customers.
Hopefully such a situation doesn't happen or we'll learn about the legality of such a scenario.

Go ahead and support these attention whores. As for me, i'm very angry at the NRA for apologizing to these idiots. i will probably withdraw my considerable bequeath to that organization and endow a chair in honor of my favorite college professor.
I'm not "supporting" these people, nor am I calling them names. If you go back to my first post (post # 9) on page one of this topic, I don't believe anything I wrote "supports" these guys or their behavior. I did, however, point out my opinion that the NRA could have handled the situation differently and more professionally.

I realize my posted response got hijacked a bit out of context by Sachiko's response but that is partly due to her training as a scientist and just how she approaches things. As a cop, I tend to look at things differently also. In fairness, most of us tend to do that at one time or another.

I watched an interview of NRA's chris Cox at this pro-gun website and came away with a slightly different opinion of the NRA's apology than you.
http://gunsnfreedom.com/0603-nra-bac...deo-interview/

You're welcome to have your own opinion and certainly welcome and free to spend your money however you deem wisest. I think we likely agree on more than we disagree but I do see potential issues arising from this incident, some of it caused by the open carry people, some caused by the NRA and a whole lot caused by the anti-gunners. JMHO but you did ask for my opinion or at least response.

Last edited by CalHunter; 06-05-2014 at 10:04 PM.
CalHunter is offline  
Old 06-05-2014, 10:33 PM
  #56  
Typical Buck
 
ckell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: North Texas
Posts: 751
Default

Oklahoma recognizes Texas CCL. I am in OK from time to time and carry there.

Chapter 53 - Manufacture, Sale, and Wearing of Weapons
Oklahoma Firearms Act of 1971
Section 1289.25 - Physical or Deadly Force Against Intruder
Cite as: O.S. , __ __


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 an 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.

C. The presumption set forth in subsection B of this section does not apply if:

1. The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not a protective order from domestic violence in effect or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person;

2. The person or persons sought to be removed are children or grandchildren, or are otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or

3. The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, occupied vehicle, or place of business to further an unlawful activity.

D. 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.

E. A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter the dwelling, residence, occupied vehicle of another person, or a place of business is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

F. A person who uses force, as permitted pursuant to the provisions of subsections B and D of this section, is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force. As used in this subsection, the term "criminal prosecution" includes charging or prosecuting the defendant.

G. A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force, but the law enforcement agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

H. The court shall award reasonable attorney fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection F of this section.

I. The provisions of this section and the provisions of the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act shall not be construed to require any person using a pistol pursuant to the provisions of this section to be licensed in any manner.

J. As used in this section:

1. "Dwelling" means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people;

2. "Residence" means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest; and

3. "Vehicle" means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property
ckell is offline  
Old 06-05-2014, 10:49 PM
  #57  
Typical Buck
 
ckell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: North Texas
Posts: 751
Default

Texas use of force and deadly force Laws.


Chapter 9 - Use of Force & Self Defense in Texas

This chapter covers the usage of force including deadly force, self defense, protection of property, protection of people, threats, and other issues. Please read through the laws in their entirety to gain understanding about the responsibility you hold as a gun owner. There are many misconceptions about the use of force in Texas.

Sec. 9.01. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:

(1) "Custody" has the meaning assigned by Section 38.01.

(2) "Escape" has the meaning assigned by Section 38.01.

(3) "Deadly force" means force that is intended or known by the actor to cause, or in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing, death or serious bodily injury.

(4) "Habitation" has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.

(5) "Vehicle" has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.


Sec. 9.02. JUSTIFICATION AS A DEFENSE.
It is a defense to prosecution that the conduct in question is justified under this chapter.


Sec. 9.03. CONFINEMENT AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE.

Confinement is justified when force is justified by this chapter if the actor takes reasonable measures to terminate the confinement as soon as he knows he safely can unless the person confined has been arrested for an offense.


Sec. 9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE.

The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force.


Sec. 9.05. RECKLESS INJURY OF INNOCENT THIRD PERSON.

Even though an actor is justified under this chapter in threatening or using force or deadly force against another, if in doing so he also recklessly injures or kills an innocent third person, the justification afforded by this chapter is unavailable in a prosecution for the reckless injury or killing of the innocent third person.


Sec. 9.06. CIVIL REMEDIES UNAFFECTED.

The fact that conduct is justified under this chapter does not abolish or impair any remedy for the conduct that is available in a civil suit.


SUBCHAPTER B. JUSTIFICATION GENERALLY

Sec. 9.21. PUBLIC DUTY.

(a) Except as qualified by Subsections (b) and (c), conduct is justified if the actor reasonably believes the conduct is required or authorized by law, by the judgment or order of a competent court or other governmental tribunal, or in the execution of legal process.

(b) The other sections of this chapter control when force is used against a person to protect persons (Subchapter C), to protect property (Subchapter D), for law enforcement (Subchapter E), or by virtue of a special relationship (Subchapter F).

(c) The use of deadly force is not justified under this section unless the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is specifically required by statute or unless it occurs in the lawful conduct of war. If deadly force is so justified, there is no duty to retreat before using it.

(d) The justification afforded by this section is available if the actor reasonably believes:

(1) the court or governmental tribunal has jurisdiction or the process is lawful, even though the court or governmental tribunal lacks jurisdiction or the process is unlawful; or

(2) his conduct is required or authorized to assist a public servant in the performance of his official duty, even though the servant exceeds his lawful authority.


Sec. 9.22. NECESSITY

Conduct is justified if:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct is immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm;

(2) the desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm clearly outweigh, according to ordinary standards of reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the law proscribing the conduct; and

(3) a legislative purpose to exclude the justification claimed for the conduct does not otherwise plainly appear.


SUBCHAPTER C. PROTECTION OF PERSONS

Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE

(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(b) The use of force against another is not justified:

(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;

(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);

(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;

(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:

(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and

(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor; or

(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences with the other person while the actor was:

(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02; or

(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section 46.05.

(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:

(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.

(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.

(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.

(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.


Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON.

(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.

(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.


Sec. 9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON.

A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third person if:

(1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31 or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and

(2) the actor reasonably believes that his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.


Sec. 9.34. PROTECTION OF LIFE OR HEALTH.

(a) A person is justified in using force, but not deadly force, against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent the other from committing suicide or inflicting serious bodily injury to himself.

(b) A person is justified in using both force and deadly force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force or deadly force is immediately necessary to preserve the other's life in an emergency.


SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY

Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY.

(a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.

(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or

(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.


Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY.

A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.


Sec. 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY.

A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or

(2) the actor reasonably believes that:

(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;

(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property; or

(C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.


Sec. 9.44. USE OF DEVICE TO PROTECT PROPERTY.

The justification afforded by Sections 9.41 and 9.43 applies to the use of a device to protect land or tangible, movable property if:

(1) the device is not designed to cause, or known by the actor to create a substantial risk of causing, death or serious bodily injury; and

(2) use of the device is reasonable under all the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be when he installs the device.
ckell is offline  
Old 06-05-2014, 11:15 PM
  #58  
Typical Buck
 
ckell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: North Texas
Posts: 751
Default

Texas is the state this thread is about. But OK has been brought up. OK concealed carry laws. for out of state coming in.

http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/oklahoma.pdf
ckell is offline  
Old 06-06-2014, 05:04 AM
  #59  
Boone & Crockett
 
falcon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Comance county, OK
Posts: 11,355
Default

Yep, ckell is well versed on TX concealed carry law. He wants open carry approved so the cops won't arrest him when his shirt accidently rides up over his holster.

Since 1968 i've spent untold thousands of hours and tens of thousands of my hard earned dollars in the furtherence of our gun rights. Then along comes a bunch of youngsters who crave attention. They have energized and emboldened the anti-gunners with their stupid anctics.

Tried to contact Chris Cox yesterday: Wanted to give him a piece of my mind. Contacted a member of the NRA board instead. The guy listened and said very little, afraid to commit himself.

i'll simply write it off to experience. i'm an old man with better things to do than fuss over the ill advised antics of a bunch of untrained gun toting cretins who have the support of a large portion of the gun rights movement.
falcon is offline  
Old 06-06-2014, 05:28 AM
  #60  
Little Doe Peep
Thread Starter
 
sachiko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Japan
Posts: 14,945
Wink

I've read every post on this thread, but nothing posted here has changed my opinion that the demonstration discussed was completely wrong.

I am not afraid of guns. I am a pretty good shot and I have a permit to carry a concealed pistol. But I am certain that no one outside of my immediate family knows that I carry.

I don't carry to make a statement about my second amendment rights. I carry for self-defense. And I think that is particularly sensible since I'm so small.

I am not afraid of guns and I am not afraid of "assault rifles." I am fully aware that an "assault rifle" is no more effective as a rifle than a gun with an attractive wooden stock. If someone were to propose a ban on "assault rifles" based on their ugliness, I would probably support it. (j/k)

Open carry is legal here, handguns and long guns. I approve of that. I just don't think you should carry that way. It makes some people a little, or maybe a lot, nervous. And I'm one of those people who gets a little nervous. I'm not afraid of the gun. Guns aren't dangerous. If someone is injured by a car because the driver was careless, drunk, or deliberately trying to injure someone, you don't blame the car.

I am concerned about the mental state of someone who feels they have to walk around displaying a gun. "Look at me, I'm carrying a gun." Michigan is "shall issue." Anyone without a criminal record can get a permit to carry a concealed pistol. That's "concealed pistol," not concealed weapon. You can't carry a machete under your coat.

There is absolutely no reason to carry openly. Why do it? To exercise your second amendment rights? Do you go to church just to exercise your first amendment rights? Do you criticize the government just to exercise your first amendment fights? Of course not. You have a reason to criticize the government or attend church. The second amendment gives you the right to carry, but what is your reason for carrying openly?

Back when I only had Miriam, I had bought groceries at Kroger. I always park at the edge of the parking lot no matter where I go because I like the exercise of walking to the store. When I came out with my groceries, I observed a full size van parked between my car and the store and a man sitting in the van. You couldn't see my car. I went back into the store and asked if some one could walk me to my car. The manager came, brought another guy, and the two of them walked out to my car with me, helped me load my groceries, waited until I had Miriam in her car seat and was safely locked in. I had apologized to the manager for being such a fraidy-cat, but he told me that I did exactly the right thing.

Okay, so now that I am carrying, what would I do? I would do exactly the same thing. I do not ever intend to place myself in a position where I might have to use my gun, if I can avoid it.

As I've said, open carry is legal in Michigan, but in that picture, the guy on the right would certainly get busted for brandishing if he were observed by a police officer. I'm not sure about the other guy. But a handgun in a holster is okay. A long gun in a sling over your shoulder is okay. But bring the gun into a ready to use position and you're "brandishing."

One caution here. As most everyone knows, my husband is a lawyer. He would warn you against reading statutes and concluding that you know the law. The law is what the courts say it is, not necessarily how you might read a statute. It seems they warn you in law school to not ever read a statute and conclude that you know the law. You have to always research what the courts have said about it.
sachiko is offline  

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.