How far does the 2nd Ammendment go?

[mountain mama]

http://www.2thedeuce.com/news/kdvr-elderly-man-shoots-thieves-txt,0,2612691.story
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/24231446/detail.html

An 82-year-old Wheat Ridge homeowner, Robert Wallace, was charged with attempted murder soon after police said he shot at two men stealing a trailer from his property in February.

One of the suspects, 28-year-old Alvaro Cardona-De Lorea, was shot through the eye, leaving him with brain damage and a disfigured skull.

The two men, illegal immigrants, went for months without being charged with a crime for the theft.

Colorado has a "Make My Day" law that allows a citizen to shoot only in the case of a home intrusion. My question *looking at Ken* is this: If the thief was shot in the eye, then that means that the escape vehicle was possibly facing the victim, Mr. Wallace, and could presumably have been being used as a weapon against him. Doesn't our second ammendment provide us with the right to protect ourselves from such bodily harm?

[justin_baker]

Well, they were stealing his trailer, but he wasnt in immediate danger. Stealing is not punishable by death anymore, so you generally dont have the legal right to use deadly force against someone trying to steal from you.(Unless they are busting into your house with a gun of course) It was unnecessary to shoot them in a legal sense.
Im not saying i agree with it, Mr Wallace had justification to shoot in my opinion, but its just not how our legal system works. Mabeye he should have just shot out the tires so they couldnt steal the trailer. That would have saved him a lot of headache.

[Rick]

I have to agree. I caught three kids trying to break into my truck earlier this year and approached them with weapon drawn. That was for my protection. I did not then and do not now think I would have been justified in shooting them. Even though the largest and oldest was facing me and less than 10 yards away.

The guy had a lot of options short of shooting them. He could have gotten a license number and called the police. Approached as I did and ordered them off the property. He could have held them at gun point until police arrived or fired warning shots.

Popping the guy in the eye sort of sets a precedence. The kid is just lucky the old guy didn't double tap him. Wonder what kind of grouping he could get at that range?

[Justin Case]

The law expects you to run away,,, if you can not run away from the threat and you feel your LIFE is in danger, only then can you legally use deadly force, As Far as the law goes, I do not think anything , including your home is worth a life, at least thats how I always heard it was ..

[Old GI]

This topic requires state-unique discussion. One size does not fit all.

[Rick]

Old GI is correct. Here in Indiana I do not have to announce that I am armed nor do I have to retreat.

[rwc1969]

Why aren't police officers held to this same standard?

[kyratshooter]

Police are there to intervene. That places them in an agressive posture and active self defense role. They also are expected to abide by a specific escilation of force doctrine.

Many states consider the presence of the intruder in the home as prima-facia evidence of intent to do harm. TN/KY has been that way for 50 years.

OGI is correct, states varry.

[SARKY]

I am just so tired of this crap! Let's just look at this in a logical manner.
Say the trailers worth was $2,000, and said owner makes $10.00 an hour(before taxes)
That means that these theives stole 200 pre tax hours of this persons life. probably closer to 250 hours post tax dollars.
Never mind that these bastons of society are here illeagally.
For those of you who haven't already, look up the word "INVASION" in the dictionary.
and if you don't think what is happening on our border is an invasion then more than likely you are unaware of the indoctrination the Mexican government does in their school system.....can you say reconquista!

[SARKY]

Well, they were stealing his trailer, but he wasnt in immediate danger. Stealing is not punishable by death anymore, so you generally dont have the legal right to use deadly force against someone trying to steal from you.(Unless they are busting into your house with a gun of course) It was unnecessary to shoot them in a legal sense.
Im not saying i agree with it, Mr Wallace had justification to shoot in my opinion, but its just not how our legal system works. Mabeye he should have just shot out the tires so they couldnt steal the trailer. That would have saved him a lot of headache.

Since you live here in the peoples republic.... have you read the state constitution? Article I, Section I
among other things, it lists you right to "protect property"
just what do you think that means????

[Ole WV Coot]

SARKY is 100% correct the way I see it. I will go so far to say vandalism is worse than stealing and I would deal with either the same way. My "castle" is kinda big and extends to the limits of whatever I might use and I don't believe in a "warning" shot. Could that possibly be why I have never had a problem living here 30+ yrs? I think anyone that could find my place knows what to expect.

[Old GI]

I think I may have mentioned this before, but ...... During one of my tours at Fort Bragg before internet, I asked a lawyer about self-defense shooting in NC. He said don't worry about shooting him on the porch and dragging him in; if you show threat that's all you need. I asked him for an example of a bad shoot and he related a story of an incident: A bad shoot happened when a guy shot an "intruder" in the back at 100 yards with his hunting rifle. Good enough explanation for me.:innocent:

[mountain mama]

Justin, I do not recall the 2nd Ammendment saying anything about running for my life. Could you please point that specific portion out to me?

Again, it is my presumption that the guy was about to be run down by these criminals and was using the gun for his own self-preservation. Even if I'm wrong, I still feel we should be able to secure our own property using force, if necessary.

[Justin Case]

state law and the Constitution are not always the same. In California, You had better be able to prove that your life was in immediate danger before you use deadly force,
http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/lethalforce.html

[Batch]

You cam eliminate from the equation their legal status in the states. At least for me.

Florida is a stand your ground state. But, you still need to meet certain exceptions to use lethal force.

My policy is pretty clear. I don't want to kill anyone for any reason. But, I would rather feel bad for killing a bad guy then feel nothing cause I was killed by a bad guy.

[Justin Case]

You cam eliminate from the equation their legal status in the states. At least for me.

Florida is a stand your ground state. But, you still need to meet certain exceptions to use lethal force.

My policy is pretty clear. I don't want to kill anyone for any reason. But, I would rather feel bad for killing a bad guy then feel nothing cause I was killed by a bad guy.

Yes, better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

[Rick]

This issue isn't about legal or illegal immigration, as I see it. It's about someone, anyone, stealing from you and your right to defend your property. I guess it's hard for anyone to say what they might do in the few seconds you have to make a decision when a vehicle is coming at you. However, I still think you have other options available.

The fact that the two individuals are illegal immigrants just makes it worse. It really doesn't matter because the home owner had no knowledge of where they were from or if they were here legally or not.

[Old GI]

I used to hear "Your rights end at the tip of my (rather sizeable) nose. Now, I think it's "A lot of your rights end at my property line."

[mountain mama]

The fact that these two are illegal immigrants only goes to show that they were behaving criminally even before the theft. In fact, both had been previously arrested on more than one occassion and if they had been deported under federal guidelines, this wouldn't even be an issue. As far as I am concerned, their "rights" ended at the border.

[rwc1969]

Maybe the shooter should sue the fedral govt then.

[SARKY]

state law and the Constitution are not always the same. In California, You had better be able to prove that your life was in immediate danger before you use deadly force,
http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/lethalforce.html

WRONG!!! all you have to do is say that you felt your life or that of your family was in danger.

[SARKY]

This issue isn't about legal or illegal immigration, as I see it. It's about someone, anyone, stealing from you and your right to defend your property. I guess it's hard for anyone to say what they might do in the few seconds you have to make a decision when a vehicle is coming at you. However, I still think you have other options available.

The fact that the two individuals are illegal immigrants just makes it worse. It really doesn't matter because the home owner had no knowledge of where they were from or if they were here legally or not.

Rick, if our borders were locked down and illegals were treated as they should be (law breakers) then they would not have been in a position to have been shot on US sovreign soil now would they.
the fact that they were illegal compounds the problem! I'm soooo sure some scumbag lawyer is bringing a lawsuit against the person who defended his property

[Justin Case]

WRONG!!! all you have to do is say that you felt your life or that of your family was in danger.

and you better be able to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt,, If asked if you could have retreated, you had better say no,, if there was a way out and you chose to stand your ground to protect your property, and you killed somebody, you are going down for manslaughter at the very least, If they prove you are a militant, for example you put more that one round in them and you have hollow points instead of ball ammo in your gun, you will most likely get a Murder charge, Its much more complicated than just casually saying , "I felt my life was in Danger" Justified or not, you WILL be handcuffed and taken down town while they decide what if any charges to file on you, If they can They WILL charge you , why? because they do not want to be sued by your victims family ,, among other things,,


Immediate, means "at this very second."
There is literally nothing more dangerous to you and your family than *not* understanding what is meant by "immediate" or "imminent" (depending on which term your state uses). This idea cuts through *all* emotions, fears, thoughts and suspicions and defines when you are - in the eyes of the law - justified to use lethal force.

If he isn't trying to kill you right now, you aren't justified to use lethal force.

It doesn't matter if he is standing there screaming and threatening to kill you, or if has said that he is going to come back and get you or -- in many states -- has just pointed a gun at you, demanded your wallet and is now running away -- those are not considered "immediate threat of death or grave bodily injury." Because he isn't trying to kill you at that exact moment.

Not understanding the meaning of this term will put you in prison for murder. At the very least it will endanger everything you own to litigation....and, odds are, you will lose if you pulled the trigger at the wrong time.
http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/lethalforce.html

[Rick]

I don't disagree with you, Sarky. All I'm saying is it could have been a couple of local good ole boys just as easy. The kid in my drive wasn't illegal. Remove those two illegals and stick two legal guys in their place. You still have the same issue.

[Batch]

if there was a way out and you chose to stand your ground to protect your property, and you killed somebody, you are going down for manslaughter at the very least,

Florida has removed the duty to retreat.



If they prove you are a militant, for example you put more that one round in them and you have hollow points instead of ball ammo in your gun, you will most likely get a Murder charge,


You shoot an attacker till they stop being any type of threat. That is very common self defense instruction. Also, if you are shooting ball ammo out of you firearm you are not very bright. Just do not use a hand load in a defensive weapon. Buying good performing jacketed hollow points from a store is good advice.


Its much more complicated than just casually saying , "I felt my life was in Danger" Justified or not, you WILL be handcuffed and taken down town while they decide what if any charges to file on you, If they can They WILL charge you , why? because they do not want to be sued by your victims family ,, among other things,,

In Florida if that can't prove you acted outside of self defense parameters then they can not arrest you.

If you are in a situation that requires the use of lethal force. You had better have thought your weapon selection, carry method and response out pretty good. You can drop a bad guy with your fancy nickel and ivory .45 cal pimp pistol. But, if he can just get off one shot from his Davis .380 and it is a lucky shot. The last thing you see might be him bleeding out on the sidewalk. While you bleed out beside him.

[Justin Case]

My Response was in reference to California,, I know it varies by state,,, I am not saying i agree with those laws,

[SARKY]

So you're Ok with an intruder in your home???!!! Don't you have a right to life, liberty and Property oops it was changed to the pursuit of happiness.
That is the problem and piss poor attitude we the people have fallen into. The Constitution is the law of the land (it says so in the Costitution) the rest is case law which for the most part is crap! Case law does NOT trump the Constitution. Even if these mindless judges think it does. There is a very good group of articles that were printed in BackWoods Home, which is now available in book form from them, entitled "The Comming Dictatorship" check out the section pertaing to fully informed juries/ jury nulification and tell me then why we don't just tear the corrupt system down and put it back the way it was meant to be???!!! If you haven't guessed by now, I'm a strict Constitutionalist and a student of history. Our history and culture has been rewritten by progressives starting with Woodrow Wilson. This was done for one and only one reason, to control the populace.
Justin, where do you get this info from,
The cops use hollow points, do you know why??? the cops are also taught to use double taps. And just what do you mean by millitant??? how would they prove that unless you are a member of the KKK or the black panthers or the weather underground??? If they are in your home, they ARE a threat to you and your family, why??? because they entered a home that they knew was occupied. That is called home invasion. If they are stealing your car, trailer etc. and you intercede, then they try to run you down now you are defending your life. But to let it go and say it's just property, when did we become a country of cowards! no wonder the rest of the world laughs at us.

[Pict]

I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.

In general the use of lethal force is predicated on three conditions. Ability, Proximity, and Intent to cause death or grave bodily injury. If one or more of these factors is absent you have a bad shoot on your hands.

Ability - The aggressor has to posses the means to inflict death or grave injury. An unarmed man may qualify if there is a sufficient disparity of force and the other factors indicate danger. A 200 lb man beating on a 110 lb woman is such a case. Two or more men beating on the 200 lb man is another.

Proximity - The aggressor has to be in close enough range to use the means he has to inflict death or grave bodily injury. In tactical terms for a contact weapon (hammer, knife) that means about 21 feet and I believe that has held up in court.

Intent - The aggressor has to communicate by words or actions that he intends to inflict death or grave bodily injury. This is held to a "reasonable man" standard. Would a reasonable man conclude he is in immanent danger of death or grave bodily injury.

Some examples...

The guy at the grocery store chopping of the ends of the broccoli has a large knife and he is ten feet away but he is calmly going about his task. He has ability and proximity, but no intent. Now if the guy suddenly turns and slashes a customer and heads in your direction he is fully qualified.

You run into a man you have had issues with in the past in a parking lot and he becomes verbally aggressive, shouting obscenities, and threatening your life. He is on crutches and sporting a large leg brace as he slowly hobbles in your direction in a heated frenzy of killing rage. He has intent, and ability (the crutch), but not proximity because you can easily retreat from the danger. If he drops the crutch and pulls a gun it's a different story.

A 14 year old boy who weighs 85 pounds soaking wet flies into a rage and decides to tear you apart with his bear hands. You are a healthy 185 lb adult, he is within contact distance and lands a good one on you as he begins to flail away. He has intent and proximity, but his ability does not rise to the level of immanent death or grave bodily injury. Now if he suddenly picks up a machete it may be a different story.

There are other modifying factors such as your actions before they shooting. Did you escalate the aggression by word or action? Did you fail to withdraw from an escalating situation as reason would dictate?

Example: You have a road rage incident in which an aggressive driver repeatedly cuts you off, gives you the finger and speeds off. You follow him to an apartment complex park him in, jump out and start pounding on his trunk. He steps out of the car with a claw hammer and rushes you with hammer raised above his head. He has proximity, ability, and intent. You shoot him dead and then spend 20 to life in prison for manufacturing the situation in the first place.

It isn't easy.

Mac

[Rick]

Read, know and understand your state's law. It makes all the difference.

Indiana Castle Doctrine, which is law in this state.

SECTION 1. IC 35-41-3-2 IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2006]: Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; only and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.
(b) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, or curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.
(c) With respect to property other than a dwelling, or curtilage, or an occupied motor vehicle, a person is justified in using reasonable force against another person if the person reasonably believes that the
force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect. However, a person:
(1) is not justified in using deadly force; unless and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
only if that force is justified under subsection (a).
(d) A person is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person and does not have a duty to retreat if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or stop the other person from hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight. For purposes of this subsection, an aircraft is considered to be in flight while the aircraft is:
(1) on the ground in Indiana:
(A) after the doors of the aircraft are closed for takeoff; and
(B) until the aircraft takes off;
(2) in the airspace above Indiana; or
(3) on the ground in Indiana:
(A) after the aircraft lands; and
(B) before the doors of the aircraft are opened after landing.
(e) Notwithstanding subsections (a), (b), and (c), a person is not justified in using force if:
(1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime;
(2) the person provokes unlawful action by another person with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) the person has entered into combat with another person or is the initial aggressor unless the person withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the other person the intent to do so and the other person nevertheless continues or threatens to continue unlawful action.
(f) Notwithstanding subsection (d), a person is not justified in using force if the person:
(1) is committing, or is escaping after the commission of, a crime;
(2) provokes unlawful action by another person, with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) continues to combat another person after the other person withdraws from the encounter and communicates the other person's intent to stop hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight.

[Justin Case]

So you're Ok with an intruder in your home???!!! Don't you have a right to life, liberty and Property oops it was changed to the pursuit of happiness.
That is the problem and piss poor attitude we the people have fallen into. The Constitution is the law of the land (it says so in the Costitution) the rest is case law which for the most part is crap! Case law does NOT trump the Constitution. Even if these mindless judges think it does. There is a very good group of articles that were printed in BackWoods Home, which is now available in book form from them, entitled "The Comming Dictatorship" check out the section pertaing to fully informed juries/ jury nulification and tell me then why we don't just tear the corrupt system down and put it back the way it was meant to be???!!! If you haven't guessed by now, I'm a strict Constitutionalist and a student of history. Our history and culture has been rewritten by progressives starting with Woodrow Wilson. This was done for one and only one reason, to control the populace.
Justin, where do you get this info from,
The cops use hollow points, do you know why??? the cops are also taught to use double taps. And just what do you mean by millitant??? how would they prove that unless you are a member of the KKK or the black panthers or the weather underground??? If they are in your home, they ARE a threat to you and your family, why??? because they entered a home that they knew was occupied. That is called home invasion. If they are stealing your car, trailer etc. and you intercede, then they try to run you down now you are defending your life. But to let it go and say it's just property, when did we become a country of cowards! no wonder the rest of the world laughs at us.

Look , I said I didnt agree with it, But it IS the law, and Yes , state law DOES Trump the Constitution ,, where have you been ,, ? Tell you what, you go right ahead and shoot somebody that is driving off in your car in California and see what happens,, I dont know Why you are getting snippy with me, I provided the source for my info,, You on the other hand are just babbling on,, Oh, and by Militant, I mean that if you do kill somebody in your home, you WILL be sued for wrongful death by the victims family , If you shoot sombody with an assault rifle for example, and you are known to go out and play army every weekend, you can rest assured that will not look good for you, a smart lawyer will use that against you, You would stand a much better chance if you use a 38. Yes, Cops are taught to fire two rounds into the chest,, but THEY ARE TRAINED in the use of deadly force,and Escalation of force. Citizens are not, THAT MATTERS,,, as far as you being a Constitutionalist,, Fine,, but how long has the 2nd amendment been trumped by state laws ,,,,??


Lethal force is justifiable only in a situation of immediate and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to oneself, or to another innocent person one has the right under law to protect.

Trespassing, theft and insults are not grounds for the firing of a gun. Only when killing or crippling force is used or is about to be used against the innocent can a similar level of force be employed by the citizen defender.


Fight Or Flee

The use of deadly force should always be a last resort. Although one is not legally required to flee an intruder in one's own home, on the street, many states have a requirement to retreat before using deadly force against an assailant. Even so, the wording of these "retreat requirements" is generally such that one is expected to retreat only if he or she may do so in a manner which is safe to them and to other innocent persons.


Many states have passed into law "castle doctrines" that seem to allow the home owner to shoot any intruder they find in the home. However, that is an incorrect interpretation. All the castle doctrines and the laws throughout our land, permit use of deadly force against a home intruder only if thee citizen reasonably believes that he is immediately and seriously threatened by that person, or that another member of the family is.

The shooting of a fleeing felon, while it may be justified by certain rare and extraordinary circumstances, is generally forbidden. The primary holding of the law is that once the criminal breaks off the attack, he is no longer placing anyone in immediate danger and therefore can no longer legally be shot in self defense. The law permits killing force to protect in the here and now, not to avenge in the aftermath.
HERE IS THE SOURCE , One of hundreds > http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3197/is_n3_v37/ai_12462185/?tag=content;col1

and BTW,, stop assuming i am defending these laws, Because I am NOT, I think people should have the right to protect their lives and property, I am just passing on what i know to be the law in California, do i think people should kill someone over property ? NO, because you are not only taking their life , you are also affecting their families, Their Mothers and children, If you want to protect your property, The best way is to INSURE it, in MY opinion, However, I would have No problem killing somebody that is trying to kill me.

[Old GI]

Hey Sarkey

"... the cops are also taught to use double taps. ...


Does that mean two kinds of beer?:innocent:

[Rick]

Tastes great, less filling.

[Old GI]

Oh, I understand now.

[Batch]

Justin you take an 18 year old article and mis-quote it as a source? Really?

Listen, some of us carry daily. Law enforcement certainly doesn't mean they have more training. For many cops they qualify and that is it.

Some of us have trained and continue to train to try and stay ahead of the curve. Just the training alone is good enough to avoid situations 90% of the time.

The thing about calling us militants is crazy. You are abdicating using less lethal force when saving your life is the reason you are fighting.

Massad Ayoob always says use factory +P JHP in you gun. So the reference is BS unless MA is a militant as well!

[Justin Case]

I am just telling you what the law in California is,, Take it or leave it, I dont really care , I dont care who carries ,, doesnt matter, the law is the law,, here is another source http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/lethalforce.html
maybe militant is a bad word, like i said, if you shoot somebody, you will find yourself in court, defending the shoot, and if you shot someone with the 38 you keep in your nightstand you will fare better than you will if you shoot somebody with an ak47,,

dont believe me, I dont care,, here is another link, http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Deadly+Force

here is some more,
http://www.bing.com/search?setmkt=en-US&q=use+of+deadly+force+california

BTW, I didnt mis quote anything, those are direct quotes from the article,

also, I carry a 45 auto combat commander all the time,, I was not referring to ANYONE here with the term Militant, it was a general comment,

[SARKY]

Look , I said I didnt agree with it, But it IS the law, and Yes , state law DOES Trump the Constitution ,, where have you been ,, ? Tell you what, you go right ahead and shoot somebody that is driving off in your car in California and see what happens,, I dont know Why you are getting snippy with me, I provided the source for my info,, You on the other hand are just babbling on,, Oh, and by Militant, I mean that if you do kill somebody in your home, you WILL be sued for wrongful death by the victims family , If you shoot sombody with an assault rifle for example, and you are known to go out and play army every weekend, you can rest assured that will not look good for you, a smart lawyer will use that against you, You would stand a much better chance if you use a 38. Yes, Cops are taught to fire two rounds into the chest,, but THEY ARE TRAINED in the use of deadly force,and Escalation of force. Citizens are not, THAT MATTERS,,, as far as you being a Constitutionalist,, Fine,, but how long has the 2nd amendment been trumped by state laws ,,,,??

So if any state institutes slavery, the state law trumps the Constitution? I'll have to see if I can get a referendum going on that.
What makes you think i'm not trained on the use of deadly force? One of my mos' was as an armed courier.
Liberals and progressives have abused all of the Constitution over the years.



HERE IS THE SOURCE , One of hundreds > http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3197/is_n3_v37/ai_12462185/?tag=content;col1

and BTW,, stop assuming i am defending these laws, Because I am NOT, I think people should have the right to protect their lives and property, I am just passing on what i know to be the law in California, do i think people should kill someone over property ? NO, because you are not only taking their life , you are also affecting their families, Their Mothers and children, If you want to protect your property, The best way is to INSURE it, in MY opinion, However, I would have No problem killing somebody that is trying to kill me.

I'm not assuming anything. however, heated discourse is a great way to show the flaws in what the government has done to us.

[sgtdraino]

Police are no longer trained to "double-tap." That is old. Current thinking is "shoot to stop." You shoot the threat, until the threat stops being a threat.

State law does not trump the Constitution. State law can trump federal law, in certain circumstances. State law can be more restrictive (and often is) than federal law (making something illegal that the feds have not outlawed), so long as it does not violate the Constitution. But this isn't really "trumping" federal law, it's simply passing a law forbidding something that federal law does not address (whatever isn't forbidden, is permitted). That is why the NRA and other gun rights advocates are keen to get a more specific interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, because if the Supreme Court interprets it properly, state law cannot countermand that.

Whether or not states can flaunt (ignore) federal laws (but not the Constitution) is a gray area. Obviously Calfornia seems to think it can. But if it came to a showdown in federal court over such matters, my suspicion is that federal law would win out.

Case in point: The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act permits current and retired LEOs to carry concealed in any state, regardless of that state's laws on the matter (with certain specific exceptions). LEOs were charged with violating state concealed carry laws in both NY and DC, and both cases were dismissed because those officers were exempted by the federal LEOSA, which trumped state law.

[randyt]

I recently received my michigan concealed carry. Interestingly the laws have changed recently in michigan. The law is now called "stand your ground legislation" we are no longer required to retreat. Also there is a change in the law that provides for assisting another person in need of defense.

[ravenscar]

how far does the 2nd ammend. go? how far does a airsoft bb go?

[kkbmtgg]

Since you live here in the peoples republic.... have you read the state constitution? Article I, Section I
among other things, it lists you right to "protect property"
just what do you think that means????


I know what it should mean and what it's original intent was but today, in California as we know it....It means nothing! Ahh yes, I long for the days when Cali was a free American state, it was a great place then.

[SARKY]

That is why I plan to be out of this state within 3 years.

[SARKY]

Justin, I am curious as where you heard/learned that state law trumps the Constitution? The illogic of that statement has me worried for our Republic. By your logic, a state could reinstitute slavery. Think about it. The local laws and law enforcement will arrest you no matter what in a shooting matter even if there is a ton of obvious evidence staring them in the face. It's a matter of CYA for them.

[SARKY]

Justin, I have to prove my life was in danger???? I believe that I am innocent until proven guilty! It is up to the DA to prove that my life wasn't in danger. And if the perp has any kind of rap sheet, good luck to the DA.