what are the gun laws with CCW?

[gaseousclay]

I know this may vary from state to state but I was curious about the gun laws surrounding CCW and how the law interprets non-lethal confrontations with a firearm.

For example, there have been a lot of news reports on vandalism with regard to political lawn signs, whether you're Republican or Democrat. Now, my first train of thought is, if I caught someone spray painting a giant fallic symbol on my garage because they disagree with my political choices that's vandalism and trespassing. It's clearly not ok to shoot someone for tearing down my lawn sign or even for spray painting my garage, but at what point could you hold someone at gun point and what are the legal repercussions? My concern is that as soon as the gun comes out, the perpetrator will run immediately. The point i'm making is that I shouldn't have to put up with someone coming onto my property and destroying my personal possessions.

Another example is a news segment I saw the other night where two motorcyclists were intimidating a driver that caused him to pull over. Well, he pulled over in front of a police station, pulled out a gun and shot one of the cyclists in the face. Road rage is nothing new in this country but we've all experienced it in some form or another. If someone was driving recklessly and endangering your life or the lives of your family what would you do? I've seen people get out of their cars with crowbars in hand, so it just goes to show that people are capable of violence even if they're the ones at fault.

By the way, the above is just a hypothetical scenario. I have personally never had anyone vandalize my home nor have I had a physical confrontation with a driver because of road rage. I know gun ownership is a huge responsibility, so my question is where do you draw the line when it comes to protecting yourself and/or your personal property?

 

[pgdion]

You can draw or point a gun at the same point when you could shoot someone, not before. If there is no threat to you (significant threat, ie severe bodily harm or death) than you can not use your gun. Vandalism doesn't even come close.

The point i'm making is that I shouldn't have to put up with someone coming onto my property and destroying my personal possessions.

This is so very true, you shouldn't have to ... but often you do. The best course is to catch or identify the rats and then press charges including suing for damages.

Frustrating as heck isn't it gaseousclay?

 

[Webleymkv]

The best rule of thumb is that you should not pull a gun unless you are legally and morally justified in using it. That is not to say that if you pull a gun you must use it as the situation can and often does de-escalate with the presence of a firearm.

Most people would say that the litmus test for pulling/using a gun legally and morally is whether or not you had reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm. As frustrating, disrespectful, and disgusting as someone spraypainting pictures of male anatomy on your home is, I think we can all agree that it does not represent a threat of death or great bodily harm to you or your loved ones. I think that perhaps some cameras would be a better device for dealing with vandalism than a gun would.

 

[Frank Ettin]

I know this may vary from state to state but I was curious about the gun laws surrounding CCW and how the law interprets non-lethal confrontations with a firearm...

In general, display of a firearm in a threatening manner is, in all States, an assault of some type (although the laws of one or more State may call it by a different name) and is prima facie a criminal act. But in all States it will be a defense against a charge of assault (or any similar crime) if you establish that your assault satisfied the applicable legal standard for justification.

In most States the standard for justifying the threatening display of a gun is the same as for justifying the use of lethal force in self defense. In a few, it's a somewhat lesser standard. But in all States if you display your gun in a threatening manner, to avoid a conviction for assault, you will need to be able to at least show prima facie that your display of a gun in a threatening manner was legally justified.

In general, you will not be able to establish justification if you display your gun in response to vandalism, trespassing or other obnoxious or even criminal actions of another which fall short of presenting an immediate, potentially lethal threat.

 

[youngunz4life]

don't quote me but I have heard that drawing a gunduring the witnessing of a felony is justifiable many times.

one scenario that pops up sometime like in a survey as one example is the witnessing the bank robbery scebario ..... what do you do(each person specifically and counting various unigue facts - kids by your side, pregnant wife with you, person huddled next to you with toddler, disabilities, firepower, etc, etc)?

when do you say, you know I am not gonna just lie down and ignore this...of course it all depends on whether you freeze, whether you feel there is no accomplice watching behind the scenes, is the robber threatening life, being physically abusive, or is this just a note and no weapon, and so-on. I mean think about it. a person is reasonably in danger of losing their life and possibly you as well...or are you/they? common sense still does exist. not trying to be funny, usually you hear about the old guy who just instinctively takes care of business in these situations. mnay times it just makes sense to them to stand up and fight(successfully as perps run...sometimes one lives..another dies). usually DA agrees with old man. just sayin'

being on your property adds debate too...as you mentioned...when does it become ok? TX, NJ? 500,00 dollar vintage camero or lawn sign that says obama? principle of matter or money? for me it is a very dicey situation not for legal issues(which hold serious weight in themselves) but morally/ethically drawing a weapon is something that is extremely serious for obvious reasons. one could on his property do so maybe depending on the circumstances though especially if 911 gave them the go-ahead while they were on the phone(if they did)

 

[youngunz4life]

pgdion

You can draw or point a gun at the same point when you could shoot someone, not before. If there is no threat to you (significant threat, ie severe bodily harm or death) than you can not use your gun

emphasis in above quote added by me:

I think you would probably agree the threat can also be a situation that does not concern you if and when another innocent human being is having their life threatened?

 

[JohnKSa]

You can draw or point a gun at the same point when you could shoot someone, not before.

I don't know the laws in your area, but in TX, there is a different (and lesser) standard that must be met to draw/display a firearm as opposed to actually firing it at a person.

In TX, one can legally draw/display a firearm when force alone (not deadly force) is justified while one can only shoot when deadly force is justified.

...at what point could you hold someone at gun point and what are the legal repercussions?

It is, as far as I know, always safe to say that you can hold someone at gun point when you would be justified in shooting them. However, depending on your local laws, it might be legal to hold someone at gunpoint if they are engaged in certain types of criminal activities and there is no other reasonable way to stop them even in circumstances when deadly force isn't legal. That said, it's generally not a great idea to try to apprehend criminals yourself. If they want to leave, let them--unless it seems very likely that they are simply retreating to cover to renew or stage an atack. In other words, unless allowing them to leave puts you in immediate and serious danger, it's best to let them leave.

Trying to hold someone at gunpoint is dangerous and, from a legal standpoint, it can be problematic both from a criminal and civil perspective. I haven't figured it all out--I tried once and decided it wasn't worth the trouble to untangle it all.

At any rate, I finally realized that I didn't actually WANT to keep criminals in close proximity to me.

My concern is that as soon as the gun comes out, the perpetrator will run immediately.

That is my hope. Best place for criminals is far away from me and mine.

The point i'm making is that I shouldn't have to put up with someone coming onto my property and destroying my personal possessions.

You shouldn't have to, but the best use of firearms by civilians is to prevent or stop crimes, not to apprehend criminals and certainly not to punish them for what they've done. Other uses of firearms are either illegal or will place you in significant jeopardy as far civil lawsuits are concerned.

 

[Tom Servo]

I think you would probably agree the threat can also be a situation that does not concern you if and when another innocent human being is having their life threatened?

There is no "one size fits all" answer. Every situation is different, and none of the folks giving advice will be there to explain your actions to a jury.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

There is no "one size fits all" answer. Every situation is different, and none of the folks giving advice will be there to explain your actions to a jury.

Plus there are 52 sets of laws to be dealt with -- 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Federal law. There cannot be one answer that fits all.

For example, I have seen Frank Ettin write many times that sef-defense is an "affirmative defense" in cases of homicide. As I understand what Frank has written, that means if you are charged and go to trial, you admit that you killed the guy and the state can just sit back while YOU have to prove that you were justified in fearing for your life and using deadly force to defend yourself.

But in reading the law in my state, it is fairly clearly stated that the use of deadly force in defense of the self is justified and, if someone is arrested and tried for homicide in a purported self-defense situation, it is the state's responsibility to prove to the jury that your use of deadly force was NOT reasonable and that your fear for your life was NOT reasonable.

So, to reiterate the restatement of the obvious, there truly is no "one size fits all."

 

[Frank Ettin]

...But in reading the law in my state, it is fairly clearly stated that the use of deadly force in defense of the self is justified and, if someone is arrested and tried for homicide in a purported self-defense situation, it is the state's responsibility to prove to the jury that your use of deadly force was NOT reasonable and that your fear for your life was NOT reasonable....

Do you have a citation?

The way it usually works in States in which the defendant does not have the burden to prove justification, he at least has the burden of producing evidence to support the inference that all elements necessary for justification are present (i. e., a prima facie case), and only then would he be entitled to a jury instruction on self defense and would the prosecution thus have the burden of disproving justification. And as a practical matter, the less convincing the defendant's self defense story is, the easier it will be for the prosecution to overcome it.

And in my cursory research of Connecticut law, it appears the in Connecticut the defendant does have the burden of producing evidence of justification. In State v. Skelly, 124 Conn.App. 161 (Conn. App., 2010), the court notes (at pg. 166, emphasis added):

... a defendant has no burden of persuasion for a claim of self-defense; he has only a burden of production....

But again, that might not be much of a practical difference. The less persuasive the defendant is, the easier it will be for the prosecution to meet its burden of persuasion.

 

[youngunz4life]

good points. i really agreed with john's post.

as far as my post:

actually though it doesn't matter what state you are in and juries also shouldn't be an issue(not anymore than they would be if you defended your life anyways).....you have the right to use deadly force if your life is in jeorpardy or if someone else's life is in jeopardy. That doesn't ever sway but obviously these things can get dicey, yes.

 

[youngunz4life]

I can also understand where both immediate posts are coming from(the two just before me on each side of the coin). Yeah just saying this was self-defense has degrees of iffyness lol. masked guy dead on your daughter's floor at 3am, woman shot in a domestic at a grocery store before you unload on perp to save her(and in the process of eliminating the threat the perp dies), etc will hold more weight than a guy drunk outside a bar who got in a fight, shot a man with no witnesses(or witnesses with conflicting reports) that claims he feared for his life beause the dead man went to strangle him and said he was gonna kill him.

my only point is deadly force is justified not only to save your life, but that also it can be used to save another's life even if you aren't threatened.

 

[Don P]

Here in FLA brandishing said firearm will get you 3 years in the gray bar hotel whether it is loaded or NOT and loss of your CCW permit. Our law states that a CCW should NOT be used to gain the upper hand in a confrontation. among many other no no's in the statutes for CCW.

 

[youngunz4life]

would if the person involved is an offduty officer? they follow the same laws. why on the news does it show in FL an offduty cop pulling a gun on a felon to stop a robbery? he was commended for his actions...honestly, if the CCW holder wasn't a loser I tend to feel he would be commended as well so while I hear what you're saying...common sense still exits. also, brandishing and drawing a firearm are two different things(I think...I might be wrong about that but basically you do NOT brandish a weapon unless it is being used - you do not use a weapon to intimidate or scare someone but that doesn't mean a weapon must be fired if it is drawn).

 

[Pointshoot]

Perspective and a cool head are required.

In the Old West they hung horse thieves. Why was that ?

Because in the remote circumstances that people often found themselves, if a man was denied his horse as a means of transportation - he died.
That is hardly the case with most property stolen or vandalized today.

Are you going to shoot someone for spray painting your house ? Really ?
The best remedy in such circumstances is adequate homeowners insurance and some maturity. (Though having a big dog in your yard might also help.) One draws a firearm if they are willing to use it for the purpose of protecting life or limb.

Frankly I can't think of a politician worth posting a sign for, much less 'defending' said politician's sign.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

There's a lot you don't understand.

would if the person involved is an offduty officer? they follow the same laws. why on the news does it show in FL an offduty cop pulling a gun on a felon to stop a robbery?

An off-duty police officer is still a police officer. In most states, off-duty police officers are regarded as peace officers 24/7/365. They don't revert to being non-LEOs when they go off shift. They still have power of arrest. In a great many states and jurisdictions, department rules in fact require officers to carry when off-duty.

also, brandishing and drawing a firearm are two different things(I think...I might be wrong about that but basically you do NOT brandish a weapon unless it is being used - you do not use a weapon to intimidate or scare someone but that doesn't mean a weapon must be fired if it is drawn).

Brandishing a weapon is using it to intimidate. Actually drawing and firing a firearm is NOT brandishing. In most states, displaying a handgun as a direct response to a threat is also not brandishing, whereas flashing a handgun because you're losing an argument and you want the other person to know you're a big dawg IS brandishing. But ... we have 50 states worth of laws, plus Washington, DC, plus Federal law. Different laws may define "brandishing" differently (or not at all). Under some definitions, a handgun must be drawn from the holster in order to constitute brandishing. In other jurisdictions, just pulling back your jacket to display a handgun in a holster or tucked into your waistband could be considered as brandishing.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Indeed most laws define "brandishing" a gun in terms of displaying a gun in a threatening or intimidating manner, or for the purpose of threatening or intimidating, or something to that effect.

 

[youngunz4life]

thx for the posts/replies

 

[youngunz4life]

http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2012...-attempted-murder-in-shooting-at-modesto-bar/

yeah as sortof mentioned earlier in thread, booze establishments often cause serious defects or flaws to self-defense claims. it doesn't say if the arrested officer had been drinking (in all honesty it is purely speculation to assume so & the reporter doesn't seem to know if blood test was taken which I am guessing did occur). I think the officer is covered under LEOSA to carry off-duty though but that isn't the issue(murder is). you think you had a bad day, this guy's takes the cake...

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I think the officer is covered under LEOSA to carry off-duty though but that isn't the issue ...

Again, there seems to be much you don't understand.

The LEOSA applies to Federal officers only when they retire, and it does not apply to any officers just because they are off-duty. The purpose behind the LEOSA was (and is) to allow law enforcement officers from one state to legally carry concealed firearms in states other than the state where they are sworn officers. In other words, it's effectively a national CCW for police officers (and retired police officers if they maintain their weapons qualification). Federal officers can already carry in all states. The LEOSA doesn't even address simple off-duty status.

A Federal officer is a law enforcement officer in all 50 (or all 57) states and the District of Columbia, and if authorized to carry a weapon at all he is authorized to carry a weapon whether on or off duty (with, perhaps, certain specific exceptions). If he is not authorized by his agency and position to carry a weapon, the LEOSA doesn't do anything to override that.