gun laws


"No the DP does not stand for "Democratic Party" you smart A$$es."


(It stands fer "deranged person"...shhhhhhhhhh! Don't tell ennybuddy!)
 
"No the DP does not stand for "Democratic Party" you smart A$$es."


(It stands fer "deranged person"...shhhhhhhhhh! Don't tell ennybuddy!)

I can live with that. :biggrin
 
Texas has had a concealed carry license for years but just recently changed the law to allow anybody to carry a gun in their car without a license. They have also adopted the Castle Doctrine which allows you to protect yourself anywhere you go just as if you were in your own home and as long as it is judged a justified shooting, will protect you from civil lawsuits.

But you still have to use your head before you start waving it out your car window. I feel bad for your friend and I hope it works out in his favor but based on the description given, what he did was stupid.
 
I have a CC license and the course required to obtain the license is very detailed relative to the law and ethics of the responsibility of carrying a loaded handgun. One of the very first points made was that "brandishing" a handgun in order to intimidate was illegal. The gun can only be drawn and used when you are being threatened and in fear of your life or the life of those close to you after all other means of avoiding the threat have been exhausted. That's pretty much the law (at least in Oklahoma).
 
The gun can only be drawn and used when you are being threatened and in fear of your life or the life of those close to you after all other means of avoiding the threat have been exhausted.


Which means one is suppose to RUN, hide, call 911 (Oh ya! THAT'd be effective!) beg, and/or plead before you draw & fire - IF THE PERP HASN'T ALREADY PLUGGED YOU BY THEN???

Well, nutz to all that. Does anyone SERIOUSLY believe this kinda stuff should apply to just ONE PARTY in a situation like this? 'Cause it's fer DARN SURE the perp ain't gunna give a rip about nunna that.

'Far as I'm concerned, 'you threaten the life of 'me or mine' and I WILL shoot yur sorry self first and worry about crossin' all th' legal "T"'s and dottin' all th' legal "I"'s later. At least I'd stand a 'gooder' chance of being around to DO THAT after the fact.

This, "give the perp the first shot atcha", legal mumbo-jumbo irritates th' livin' beejeebers outta me...

Texus Pockets
 
Last edited:
Yeah DBTGT, but you Okies still have the "Make my day" law on the books.
 
We have three rules for guns in our home.

1. ALWAYS treat them as loaded. Even if you just checked it.
2. Only point it at something/someone if you intend to shoot it/them.
3. If you shoot something/somebody, make sure you kill it/them.

The third rule may sound harsh to some people, but it reinforces rule 2. Brandishing isn't on the list.
 
Which means one is suppose to RUN, hide, call 911 (Oh ya! THAT'd be effective!) beg, and/or plead before you draw & fire - IF THE PERP HASN'T ALREADY PLUGGED YOU BY THEN???

Well, nutz to all that. Does anyone SERIOUSLY believe this kinda stuff should apply to just ONE PARTY in a situation like this? 'Cause it's fer DARN SURE the perp ain't gunna give a rip about nunna that.

'Far as I'm concerned, 'you threaten the life of 'me or mine' and I WILL shoot yur sorry self first and worry about crossin' all th' legal "T"'s and dottin' all th' legal "I"'s later. At least I'd stand a 'gooder' chance of being around to DO THAT after the fact.

This, "give the perp the first shot atcha", legal mumbo-jumbo irritates th' livin' beejeebers outta me...

Texus Pockets
There is the element of personal judgement in play as to the interpretation of "fear of serious harm or death" but the key element "legally" is being threatened with a weapon of any kind (gun, bat, rock, tire iron, automobile etc.) It is not legal to use a gun to stop a fist fight or to shoot someone who is unarmed if you can easily escape the situation - requiring a lot of personal judgement calls in what is usually a short span of time. That is what our law says. That being said, I agree with everything you say whole heartedly. :thumbsup
 
Yeah DBTGT, but you Okies still have the "Make my day" law on the books.

Is that why you won't come visit me in T-town?:biggrin
 
bottom line, perhaps Aloha GT can buy at a police auction another GT...
while the former owner spends his time picking up trash along the road thinking about what a dumb thing he did.
 
:agree:
 
bottom line, perhaps Aloha GT can buy at a police auction another GT...
while the former owner spends his time picking up trash along the road thinking about what a dumb thing he did.

That may indeed happen. It wasn't the brightest thing to do. However, if an illegal alien without a drivers license did the same thing in CA, with an unregistered car the likely punishment would have been less severe. Certainly much less than the value of a GT.
 
That may indeed happen. It wasn't the brightest thing to do. However, if an illegal alien without a drivers license did the same thing in CA, with an unregistered car the likely punishment would have been less severe. Certainly much less than the value of a GT.


If that'd happened in 'Frisco I'd wager the LEO who arrested the illegal alien in that situation would pbly at LEAST be put on suspension for "profiling". Mebbe fired. I mean, a LEO there has marching orders that say he's to steer clear of arresting/hasseling/detaining illegals in that "sanctuary city", izzunt he? :lol

What a nut case place THAT is... :ack:bang:screwy::beer2::beer2::beer2:
 
I'm a bit confused about "Ed". Are you saying he DIDN'T/DOESN'T have a carry permit??? Is THAT the overriding issue here aside from brandishing it?

"Ed" did not have a permit (and probably won't be getting one in the near future). For the record, when I started this thread I was not advocating for or against gun laws. I simply intended to warn anyone against making the same mistake he did.
 
"Ed" did not have a permit (and probably won't be getting one in the near future). For the record, when I started this thread I was not advocating for or against gun laws. I simply intended to warn anyone against making the same mistake he did.

CCW, or not brandishing a gun in this case would be wrong unless you can convince the DA or jury that the other driver was trying to kill you with their vehicle. Without non-biased eye witnesses it would be a tall order to "prove."
 
"Ed" did not have a permit (and probably won't be getting one in the near future). For the record, when I started this thread I was not advocating for or against gun laws. I simply intended to warn anyone against making the same mistake he did.



Then that being the case, and setting aside the fact that THE CONSTITUTION says "Ed" didn't need to have a permit at all in this or any other situation, AND inserting instead the (evidently) overriding gov't view that the law IS whatever the gov't SAYS it is ... I'm afraid "Ed" is screwed.:bored

End of story. :dead: :beer2::beer2::beer2:
 
Thankfully Ed's life will not be ruined, but it may prove to be a costly lesson.
 
bottom line, perhaps Aloha GT can buy at a police auction another GT...
while the former owner spends his time picking up trash along the road thinking about what a dumb thing he did.

HiloDave and I got together, along with his lovely wife, over lunch recently when he relayed to me this story. I've been so busy and now traveling that I've been unable to follow up on the status of the case. I'll have one of my lawyer buddies check it out.
 
Ed's lawyer negotiated a plea bargain where Ed will have five years probation but no jail time. He will have to pay a substantial fine but he will get his car back. He has to pay to have it shipped back to Hilo from Honolulu and there will undoubtedly be storage fees and possible minor damage (for which he had to sign a waiver releasing the state/county from liability).

Could have been (a lot) worse.