With the Bashing of California taking place over the SKS and other confiscations coming up, I have been wondering how many states are really pro firearms in their laws or lack of laws regarding guns. Some of the criteria would be if open carry is allowed,if citizens can buy and sell firearms between them without restrictions, if it is easy to get a concealed weapons permit,and if one can carry a loaded firearm in his or hers vehicle. My gut feeling is that the "decent states" are mainly in the south and west And are their any really free states as far as firearms regulations. Let the War between the States begin!
How many states are really profirearms in their laws?
- Thread starter Ivan8883
- Start date
IDAHO State Constitution:
""The people have the right to keep and bear arms, which right shall not be abridged; but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to govern the carrying of weapons concealed on the person nor prevent passage of legislation providing minimum sentences for crimes committed while in possession of a firearm, nor prevent passage of legislation providing penalties for the possession of firearms by a convicted felon, nor prevent the passage of legislation punishing the illegal use of a firearm. No law shall impose licensure, registration or special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition. Nor shall any law permit the confiscation of firearms, except those actually used in the commission of a felony. (Art. I, * 11)""
That is pretty much the extent of our gun laws. Open carry and "in the car" carry is permitted. CCW is "Shall Issue" and costs $12 for 6 years. No sales restrictions other than the Fed crap. Pretty cool so far.
After the Columbine shootings, our state legislature had its first and only "knee-jerk" gun-law reaction. They tried to pass a law which would allow CCW holders to carry in a public school. I don't think it got really far but you gotta admire their spirit.
""The people have the right to keep and bear arms, which right shall not be abridged; but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to govern the carrying of weapons concealed on the person nor prevent passage of legislation providing minimum sentences for crimes committed while in possession of a firearm, nor prevent passage of legislation providing penalties for the possession of firearms by a convicted felon, nor prevent the passage of legislation punishing the illegal use of a firearm. No law shall impose licensure, registration or special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition. Nor shall any law permit the confiscation of firearms, except those actually used in the commission of a felony. (Art. I, * 11)""
That is pretty much the extent of our gun laws. Open carry and "in the car" carry is permitted. CCW is "Shall Issue" and costs $12 for 6 years. No sales restrictions other than the Fed crap. Pretty cool so far.
After the Columbine shootings, our state legislature had its first and only "knee-jerk" gun-law reaction. They tried to pass a law which would allow CCW holders to carry in a public school. I don't think it got really far but you gotta admire their spirit.
John Hunter
New member
Indiana a "Northern" State has RKBA in it's state constitution and is very firearm friendly.
------------------
John - NRA - Lifer
------------------
John - NRA - Lifer
Byron Quick
Staff In Memoriam
Georgia seems to do alright, I suppose. Shall issue state. The main thing I'm pissed about is that when our CCW law was passed, open carry without permission was canned.
Texas!
I live in Nazi New York, so take what I'm saying with a grain of salt. Perhaps some Texans can affirm my understanding of Texas state law.
There are 31 states that have concealed carry laws. But how many states have laws to protect you if you shoot someone?
From what I understand, in Texas you can shoot to defend yourself, other people, or your property. As the joke goes, "He needed killin'" is an approprate defense in Texas state court.
In New York, if robbers won't leave my house and continue to load up their truck with my stuff while smashing the rest with a baseball bat, I can't fire until they commit a life-threatening act towards me or my family. Also, if they slip on my kitchen floor and are paralyzed, they'll sue ME.
If only I could convince my wife to move, I would.
I live in Nazi New York, so take what I'm saying with a grain of salt. Perhaps some Texans can affirm my understanding of Texas state law.
There are 31 states that have concealed carry laws. But how many states have laws to protect you if you shoot someone?
From what I understand, in Texas you can shoot to defend yourself, other people, or your property. As the joke goes, "He needed killin'" is an approprate defense in Texas state court.
In New York, if robbers won't leave my house and continue to load up their truck with my stuff while smashing the rest with a baseball bat, I can't fire until they commit a life-threatening act towards me or my family. Also, if they slip on my kitchen floor and are paralyzed, they'll sue ME.
If only I could convince my wife to move, I would.
Tortuga--legally, I believe you are correct. In practice, I'm not sure that all Texans are allowed such latitude any more. Texas would be a better place if they were.
For example, in Austin--which IMHO is kind of a strange place, probably the most liberal area in Texas, and therefore hopefully an exception to the rest of the state--a concealed handgun licensee was indicted for first-degree murder because he shot and killed a man who had broken into his girlfriend's vehicle. It seems that the licensee chased the suspect with the intention of holding him for police (so that nobody else would have their vehicle broken into by this thug), while his girlfriend was dialing 911 on her cell phone. The suspect turned at one point, and the licensee, supposing the thief might be armed, shot and killed him with a .380. The thief was not armed.
Personally, I think the licensee was a hero, although I wouldn't have done what he did (since the criminal was fleeing). However, his action turned out to be ill advised, to say the least. The local DA immediately and prejudicially pronounced that the licensee had pursued the suspect with the intention of killing him (obviously not true), and presented a murder charge to the grand jury. The gun haters came out in force, using the Austin newspaper's message board to broadcast the licensee's home address and phone number, saying "let's tell this murderer what we think of him." A substantial part of the local and state media--especially the big-city papers--went into a feeding frenzy, proclaiming that the licensee was a vigilante (however, I'd say the people who presumed his guilt were the real vigilantes). The grand jury returned an indictment.
I don't know if the case has come to trial as yet, although about two years have passed since the shooting.
Anyway, to me, it sounds like Texas ain't what it used to be, to its everlasting loss.
JMHO.
[This message has been edited by jimmy (edited July 07, 1999).]
For example, in Austin--which IMHO is kind of a strange place, probably the most liberal area in Texas, and therefore hopefully an exception to the rest of the state--a concealed handgun licensee was indicted for first-degree murder because he shot and killed a man who had broken into his girlfriend's vehicle. It seems that the licensee chased the suspect with the intention of holding him for police (so that nobody else would have their vehicle broken into by this thug), while his girlfriend was dialing 911 on her cell phone. The suspect turned at one point, and the licensee, supposing the thief might be armed, shot and killed him with a .380. The thief was not armed.
Personally, I think the licensee was a hero, although I wouldn't have done what he did (since the criminal was fleeing). However, his action turned out to be ill advised, to say the least. The local DA immediately and prejudicially pronounced that the licensee had pursued the suspect with the intention of killing him (obviously not true), and presented a murder charge to the grand jury. The gun haters came out in force, using the Austin newspaper's message board to broadcast the licensee's home address and phone number, saying "let's tell this murderer what we think of him." A substantial part of the local and state media--especially the big-city papers--went into a feeding frenzy, proclaiming that the licensee was a vigilante (however, I'd say the people who presumed his guilt were the real vigilantes). The grand jury returned an indictment.
I don't know if the case has come to trial as yet, although about two years have passed since the shooting.
Anyway, to me, it sounds like Texas ain't what it used to be, to its everlasting loss.
JMHO.
[This message has been edited by jimmy (edited July 07, 1999).]
Hello my friend Tortuga!!
As a Texan, I'll add to your post. You stated that "in Texas you can shoot to defend yourself, other people, or your *property*.
Correct with one addition. You can also use deadly force to protect the property of a third party. This essentially makes the Texas citizens an integral part of "law enforcement". See actual text below:
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 form 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.
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.
That's just a small section but there is great lattitude in the law - and gratefully so. If I am correct, there are about 330,000 CHL's issued to date. Much too few. More folks need to take advantage of this opprotunity.
Join NRA, GOA and vote!
CMOS
As a Texan, I'll add to your post. You stated that "in Texas you can shoot to defend yourself, other people, or your *property*.
Correct with one addition. You can also use deadly force to protect the property of a third party. This essentially makes the Texas citizens an integral part of "law enforcement". See actual text below:
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 form 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.
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.
That's just a small section but there is great lattitude in the law - and gratefully so. If I am correct, there are about 330,000 CHL's issued to date. Much too few. More folks need to take advantage of this opprotunity.
Join NRA, GOA and vote!
CMOS
Jimmy,you are confirming what I have been hearing about the Austin area. Alex Jones not only is on shortwave nation wide, but has a FM program in Austin and tells how the state capitol is a NWO stronghold. Retina scans, thumb scans, police harassmentof patriots, and cameras located in neighborhoods to monitor " gun violence" are some of the control factors in Ozone austin. If you can get his Fm show ,I would recommend it for hard hitting investigative reporting. Texas has a ton of great patriots of all races ,but she is under the gun right now by Federals. Texas was once a independent nation and it was questionable how she became part of US after Mexican War(Senate never approved annexation) THis is really another stiry.
The sunnyl state of Alabama is very gun friendly. CCW's are approved by the local sheriffs office. In Calhoun county where I was, all it took was $10 and they do an instant NICS check on you. If all is clear they issue the license on the spot and your legal. Took me all of 10 minutes. I haven't heard of any Alabama counties where it was a problem to get a CCW permit, but odds are there is at least one.
Regards,
Rob
------------------
It's amazing what a large group of stupid people can accomplish.
-----------------
Regards,
Rob
------------------
It's amazing what a large group of stupid people can accomplish.
-----------------
A Texan myself, I am afraid that Texas is going to go the way of so many other states in reference to gun laws.
Right now, we do have the CCW (for $140 to the State) but they really put you through hoops just to get the blasted thing, but it IS "shall issue."
(The license requires a course ~10-15 hours, a shooting proficiency certificate, fingerprinting run through Tx LEO computers and the FBI, and practically the blood of your first-born). Oh, the course also requires training in "non-violent dispute resolution." (pphtthtthtt)
We can also carry loaded long-guns in our vehicles, although it's been quite a while since I saw someone with an actual rifle or shotgun on the rack in the back window of their F-150.
I suppose I should be thankful that I do live in a state that at least has a CCW, but I am scared that we will go the "way of the dinosaurs..."
All I can say is, I hope that, when I get my CCW soon, that I never have to use my gun on anyone. The laws are quite open to interpretation, and there are quite a few DA's out there who are liberal, anti-gun, pansies.
In city of Dallas (per policy), you are automatically arrested when you shoot someone in self-defense. The instance is treated as a homicide, and responding officers aren't even allowed to give their opinion on whether it was self-defense or not!
I'm not so sure that even saying "I was in fear of my life" would save you in all instances... Grand juries will sometimes indict you, based on the "totality of the circumstances," not considering the legality of the situation. They say "you shot him because he tried to steal your TV?"
SORRY, but ANYONE coming into my house through the window will get shot, whether he was coming for my TV or my bread machine or (especially) my life. In that split second, you don't have time to think about,or ask him what he wants....
Why should we have to????
ok, I'll get off my soapbox now... (check blood pressure, pop a Nitro tablet under tongue...take several deep, cleansing breaths...)whew, Im okay now!
------------------
"...What will you do without freedom? Will you fight?... Fight, and you may die, run and you'll live, at least a while. And dying, many years from now, would you be willing to trade all the days from this day to that, for just one chance, to tell our enemies, that they may take our lives, but they'll never take our FREEDOM!!!"
Right now, we do have the CCW (for $140 to the State) but they really put you through hoops just to get the blasted thing, but it IS "shall issue."
(The license requires a course ~10-15 hours, a shooting proficiency certificate, fingerprinting run through Tx LEO computers and the FBI, and practically the blood of your first-born). Oh, the course also requires training in "non-violent dispute resolution." (pphtthtthtt)
We can also carry loaded long-guns in our vehicles, although it's been quite a while since I saw someone with an actual rifle or shotgun on the rack in the back window of their F-150.
I suppose I should be thankful that I do live in a state that at least has a CCW, but I am scared that we will go the "way of the dinosaurs..."
All I can say is, I hope that, when I get my CCW soon, that I never have to use my gun on anyone. The laws are quite open to interpretation, and there are quite a few DA's out there who are liberal, anti-gun, pansies.
In city of Dallas (per policy), you are automatically arrested when you shoot someone in self-defense. The instance is treated as a homicide, and responding officers aren't even allowed to give their opinion on whether it was self-defense or not!
I'm not so sure that even saying "I was in fear of my life" would save you in all instances... Grand juries will sometimes indict you, based on the "totality of the circumstances," not considering the legality of the situation. They say "you shot him because he tried to steal your TV?"
SORRY, but ANYONE coming into my house through the window will get shot, whether he was coming for my TV or my bread machine or (especially) my life. In that split second, you don't have time to think about,or ask him what he wants....
Why should we have to????
ok, I'll get off my soapbox now... (check blood pressure, pop a Nitro tablet under tongue...take several deep, cleansing breaths...)whew, Im okay now!
------------------
"...What will you do without freedom? Will you fight?... Fight, and you may die, run and you'll live, at least a while. And dying, many years from now, would you be willing to trade all the days from this day to that, for just one chance, to tell our enemies, that they may take our lives, but they'll never take our FREEDOM!!!"
Thanks to all the Texans who followed up on my response. And CMOS, it's good to see you too, my friend! I'm frustrated with AR15.com.
Let me tell you all a little about New York State. That way, you'll be happier about where you already live.
If you want to own a handgun in New York (State or City), you need to attend an NRA pistol training course. Then you go to a gun dealer and purchase the gun you want. Note that you can NOT touch the gun when making your purchase decision. It's also illegal to try out someone else's handgun at the range to see if you like it. In fact, it's illegal to touch a real handgun during the required NRA training class. It's like buying a car without touching, driving, or sitting in it.
Once you've paid for the gun, it stays in the dealer's safe until your application is approved. The NY application requires fingerprints, three signed and notarized character references, pictures, fees, copy of the NRA training certificate, etc. Then you wait 6 months. They will use any reason imaginable to turn you down and they'll wait until the end of 6 months before they tell you you're rejected. For example, if it's filled out in blue ink instead of black, it's rejected. There are companies here that specialize in helping people apply for a permit.
Once you're approved, you can then pick up your handgun. If you want to buy another one, you then purchase it and the dealer keeps it again in his safe. You file for an amendment to your application that includes the handgun's serial number. This only takes two months to process.
Once you have three handguns, the police schedule a visit to your home so that they can see that your guns are properly stored so that they can't be accessed by children or thieves.
But, this only lets you own a handgun and keep it in your home. You can NOT carry it with you. Obtaining a CCW permit is another issue.
In New York City, a CCW permit is simply not an option. Maybe if you're a coin dealer and make home deliveries, you can get one to carry while you're working. Don't even think of carrying when you're not making a delivery though! The City is run by Nazi wanna-be's. You even have to register the shotguns and rifles you keep in your closet.
With the exception of some areas, it's possible to get a CCW permit in the rest of New York State. You do have to meet with a local judge for a character evaluation, etc. But you can get one.
One exception is where I live, Westchester County. Let me give you a little background on Westchester County. It's the county just north of New York City. It has cities with malls and large corporate buildings (but nothing like New York City), but it also has lakes, streams, mountains, and borders the Hudson River. It's really quite a beautiful place to live. Population is around 900,000. It's also the home of MANY corporate international headquarter buildings of some major companies, including IBM, Pepsi, Kraft, MasterCard, etc.
Out of the 3,107 counties in the United States, Westchester County rated 6th in personal income level. Where I am, land now runs around $380,000 an acre and there are other towns where it's several times that. We also have one of the lowest unemployment rates in the nation.
Clearly, we're the scum of the earth. How in the world could "these type of people" be trusted with a handgun?!
I could go on and on about the gun control nonsense here, but I'd just bore you even more. Just be happy where you live now!
[This message has been edited by Tortuga (edited July 08, 1999).]
Let me tell you all a little about New York State. That way, you'll be happier about where you already live.
If you want to own a handgun in New York (State or City), you need to attend an NRA pistol training course. Then you go to a gun dealer and purchase the gun you want. Note that you can NOT touch the gun when making your purchase decision. It's also illegal to try out someone else's handgun at the range to see if you like it. In fact, it's illegal to touch a real handgun during the required NRA training class. It's like buying a car without touching, driving, or sitting in it.
Once you've paid for the gun, it stays in the dealer's safe until your application is approved. The NY application requires fingerprints, three signed and notarized character references, pictures, fees, copy of the NRA training certificate, etc. Then you wait 6 months. They will use any reason imaginable to turn you down and they'll wait until the end of 6 months before they tell you you're rejected. For example, if it's filled out in blue ink instead of black, it's rejected. There are companies here that specialize in helping people apply for a permit.
Once you're approved, you can then pick up your handgun. If you want to buy another one, you then purchase it and the dealer keeps it again in his safe. You file for an amendment to your application that includes the handgun's serial number. This only takes two months to process.
Once you have three handguns, the police schedule a visit to your home so that they can see that your guns are properly stored so that they can't be accessed by children or thieves.
But, this only lets you own a handgun and keep it in your home. You can NOT carry it with you. Obtaining a CCW permit is another issue.
In New York City, a CCW permit is simply not an option. Maybe if you're a coin dealer and make home deliveries, you can get one to carry while you're working. Don't even think of carrying when you're not making a delivery though! The City is run by Nazi wanna-be's. You even have to register the shotguns and rifles you keep in your closet.
With the exception of some areas, it's possible to get a CCW permit in the rest of New York State. You do have to meet with a local judge for a character evaluation, etc. But you can get one.
One exception is where I live, Westchester County. Let me give you a little background on Westchester County. It's the county just north of New York City. It has cities with malls and large corporate buildings (but nothing like New York City), but it also has lakes, streams, mountains, and borders the Hudson River. It's really quite a beautiful place to live. Population is around 900,000. It's also the home of MANY corporate international headquarter buildings of some major companies, including IBM, Pepsi, Kraft, MasterCard, etc.
Out of the 3,107 counties in the United States, Westchester County rated 6th in personal income level. Where I am, land now runs around $380,000 an acre and there are other towns where it's several times that. We also have one of the lowest unemployment rates in the nation.
Clearly, we're the scum of the earth. How in the world could "these type of people" be trusted with a handgun?!
I could go on and on about the gun control nonsense here, but I'd just bore you even more. Just be happy where you live now!
[This message has been edited by Tortuga (edited July 08, 1999).]
Tortuga,
After reading your post, I am indeed glad to live in Texas! whew!
------------------
"...What will you do without freedom? Will you fight?... Fight, and you may die, run and you'll live, at least a while. And dying, many years from now, would you be willing to trade all the days from this day to that, for just one chance, to tell our enemies, that they may take our lives, but they'll never take our FREEDOM!!!"
After reading your post, I am indeed glad to live in Texas! whew!
------------------
"...What will you do without freedom? Will you fight?... Fight, and you may die, run and you'll live, at least a while. And dying, many years from now, would you be willing to trade all the days from this day to that, for just one chance, to tell our enemies, that they may take our lives, but they'll never take our FREEDOM!!!"
"How many states are really profirearms in their laws?"
One and only one, Vermont. All others are oppresive, its just a matter of degree. Idaho has been mentioned, and yes, it is very resonable, As is Montana, where a lot of bars require you to display your sidearm in plain view. There are others of notable mention, but Vermont sets the standard by which all States could take a good lesson.
One and only one, Vermont. All others are oppresive, its just a matter of degree. Idaho has been mentioned, and yes, it is very resonable, As is Montana, where a lot of bars require you to display your sidearm in plain view. There are others of notable mention, but Vermont sets the standard by which all States could take a good lesson.
Tortuga,
I feel terrible.
1) My daughter lives north of Syracuse and can not leave NY because her ex-husband and his family could afford a better divorce lawyer than she had. Well, she can leave; but not with her son. So she's stuck in a third-world dictatorship.
2) The Bill of Rights should apply in New York. The tyranny you live under is proof that this can happen anywhere in the United States, including Vermont, Arizona, Alaska, and Texas. All it takes is a little time and the isolation of our government from the people.
At the moment, I feel our government is pretty isolated from us all.
-------
All,
The Bill of Rights is dead folks, they're just breaking the news to us slowly.
I feel terrible.
1) My daughter lives north of Syracuse and can not leave NY because her ex-husband and his family could afford a better divorce lawyer than she had. Well, she can leave; but not with her son. So she's stuck in a third-world dictatorship.
2) The Bill of Rights should apply in New York. The tyranny you live under is proof that this can happen anywhere in the United States, including Vermont, Arizona, Alaska, and Texas. All it takes is a little time and the isolation of our government from the people.
At the moment, I feel our government is pretty isolated from us all.
-------
All,
The Bill of Rights is dead folks, they're just breaking the news to us slowly.
Well, y'all are correct about TX being shooting friendly, but for the profirearms question I'd have to disagree. Idaho, Vermont, and several others mentioned here sound much more friendly to me. I'd want to move to Vermont or Idaho (from Austin, btw) except my blood freezes too easy, and you can't shoot Jack Frost.
Jimmy, your report on that shooting in Austin was missing or incorrect on a few facts, and I also thought he was NOT indicted, but ain't sure. First, when they surprised the guy in the act, he just walked away, so "chased" is not as good a description as "followed". This went on for a considerable distance, so that the LEs responding would definitely have some questions about the claim of the perp breaking into the car, that one, way over yonder about 3-4 blocks away, long since out of sight. Most important, though, is the perp did not turn, he was shot in the back. And he was unarmed and had zero of their property with him. I think any LEO wishing to claim he was doing his job is going to pursue that shooting farther, not just take the shooter's word for what happened. The saving grace is that the shooter can be clearly heard on the 911 tapes telling the guy, repeatedly, that he was armed, and to "keep your hands in sight or I will shoot you." And he had a witness with him as well. But I seem to recall that the witness did not see the shooting itself and did not witness the perp removing his hands from clear view, as the shooter claimed he did. IOW, she did not contradict him, but she was unable to support his claim either.
All in all, it would not have offended me if that shooter had to go to trial, I have some questions about all that myself. It might have been best to put it to a jury under the circumstances. But as I say, I recall that the GJ refused to indict, maybe wrong. Interesting side note, the punk had been in Austin only a week or so, been in all manner of legal troubles in some other state and according to his family the poor boy moved down here to "get his life together". Right. And was breaking into other people's cars instantly after arriving. I've always wondered if he moved here from a state which did not have concealed carry, hadn't yet learned that if that's your definition of getting your life together, a CCW state is not the place to go!
The rest of your comments about the media are right on target, seems like EVERY time a ccw holder shoots someone they go completely nuts. I find it strange that there doesn't seem to be the same reaction to someone shooting an intruder in their home as to a CCW holder shooting an attacker on the street. It's almost as though we're moving to CCL as the bad guy instead of the gun. The press is simply fanatical on the subject of CCL.
Another interesting fact is the amount of time it took, right in the middle of downtown Austin, for a police car to respond to the 911 call involved. And without a cell phone, I can guarantee this guy would be in deep trouble.
[This message has been edited by Larry P. (edited July 14, 1999).]
Jimmy, your report on that shooting in Austin was missing or incorrect on a few facts, and I also thought he was NOT indicted, but ain't sure. First, when they surprised the guy in the act, he just walked away, so "chased" is not as good a description as "followed". This went on for a considerable distance, so that the LEs responding would definitely have some questions about the claim of the perp breaking into the car, that one, way over yonder about 3-4 blocks away, long since out of sight. Most important, though, is the perp did not turn, he was shot in the back. And he was unarmed and had zero of their property with him. I think any LEO wishing to claim he was doing his job is going to pursue that shooting farther, not just take the shooter's word for what happened. The saving grace is that the shooter can be clearly heard on the 911 tapes telling the guy, repeatedly, that he was armed, and to "keep your hands in sight or I will shoot you." And he had a witness with him as well. But I seem to recall that the witness did not see the shooting itself and did not witness the perp removing his hands from clear view, as the shooter claimed he did. IOW, she did not contradict him, but she was unable to support his claim either.
All in all, it would not have offended me if that shooter had to go to trial, I have some questions about all that myself. It might have been best to put it to a jury under the circumstances. But as I say, I recall that the GJ refused to indict, maybe wrong. Interesting side note, the punk had been in Austin only a week or so, been in all manner of legal troubles in some other state and according to his family the poor boy moved down here to "get his life together". Right. And was breaking into other people's cars instantly after arriving. I've always wondered if he moved here from a state which did not have concealed carry, hadn't yet learned that if that's your definition of getting your life together, a CCW state is not the place to go!
The rest of your comments about the media are right on target, seems like EVERY time a ccw holder shoots someone they go completely nuts. I find it strange that there doesn't seem to be the same reaction to someone shooting an intruder in their home as to a CCW holder shooting an attacker on the street. It's almost as though we're moving to CCL as the bad guy instead of the gun. The press is simply fanatical on the subject of CCL.
Another interesting fact is the amount of time it took, right in the middle of downtown Austin, for a police car to respond to the 911 call involved. And without a cell phone, I can guarantee this guy would be in deep trouble.
[This message has been edited by Larry P. (edited July 14, 1999).]