Barbecue Forks as Defensive Weapons

[eye95]

This story raises some questions:

Does Utah have a Castle Doctrine in its law that applies to barbecue forks?

When the house-sitter successfully removed the burglar from the house, did he have the legal authority, while wielding a barbecue fork, to chase the thug down?

After the burglar left the property, was it legal to continue to pursue him while brandishing the fork?

Does the man being stabbed with his own barbecue fork mean that open carry of barbecue forks is a bad idea because bad guys will target the man with the fork first, will grab the fork, and will turn it on the open carrier?

Most importantly, since this story did not involve OC of a properly holstered handgun, will I catch grief for posting this thread?
__

Seriously, though, one real question: Would not a firearm have been far more effective in stopping the burglar from even fleeing the house? It is far easier to outrun a MWABF than to outrun a supersonic projectile.

Man fights off burglar with barbecue fork, police say

Landon Ledingham was house-sitting for his parents early Tuesday when he heard an intruder inside their Provo, Utah, home.

www.whio.com

 

[solus]

Thanks for yet another interesting and intriguing WHIO [aka cox broadcasting] “fork’g” newspeek article...

In the interest of furthering the long arm of justice, i have called and informed the Provo LEs i have seen their perb roaming around in this area!

The owner’s young son just might not be old enough nor know how to access nor use the caregiver’s firearms...Hummm?

To respond to your question, there just might not be any pursuit and physical altercation iprescribed to deal with trespassers in UT!

Absolutely will you not catch any grief about posting nonsensical newspeek self defense articles as we all need a good laugh...

I just hope his caregivers give the lad a severe tongue lashing as the boy almost died over his testosterone bravado mentality.

 

[Firearms Iinstuctor]

The legal use of force applies to any weapon improvised or not.

What can be used as a weapon is limited by your imagination and what is on hand.

The retention of that a weapon so it is not use against you is the same concept if it is improvised or not.

 

[eye95]

The legal use of force applies to any weapon improvised or not.

What can be used as a weapon is limited by your imagination and what is on hand.

The retention of that a weapon so it is not use against you is the same concept if it is improvised or not.

Well, my remarks were mainly tongue in cheek.

However, clearly our lawmakers don’t get that a weapon is a weapon when they pass special protections for firearms ownership and carry, but not for knives or clubs or..., thinking that the word “arms” in the 2A is referring only to firearms.

 

[Firearms Iinstuctor]

EYE

More info for you.

On 21 March of 2016, the Supreme Court issued a remarkable and, apparently to the Court, non-controversial decision. In the Caetano PER CURIAM decision (pdf), the Court held that:

The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008), and that this “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v.Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010).

While the decision, which was unanimous, has far reaching implication beyond mere stun guns, stun gun bans have already started falling like dominoes.

 

[eye95]

Thanks for the info.

It’ll be nice when we can carry a knife without worrying about cops harassing us.

IIRC, there was a case some years ago when an OCer was stopped for carry. Eventually the cop realized that the carry was legal, but by then, he’d found a knife, and arrested the carrier for CCW. At some point in the legal process the stop was ruled illegal, making the search for and the seizure of the knife illegal.

Still, the carrier may have beaten the rap, but he did not beat the ride.

The 2A says “arms”, not firearms.

 

[solus]

The Right to Keep and Bear … What? – Brain Shavings

Quote
Starting with the Declaration of Independence, we find that it specifically mentions arms only once.

First, a few modern definitions of “arms” present themselves. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary defines the noun arm as “a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense; especially: firearm.” Black’s Law Dictionary defines the word arms as “anything that a man wears for his defense, or takes in his hands as a weapon.”

Federal law fails to define “arms” explicitly, but does identify some sub-groups of arms. For example, the National Firearms Act (“NFA”) does not define arms in general terms, but does exhaustively list what items count as “firearms” under Federal law, including shotguns, rifles, machine guns, silencers, and the catch-all terms “any other weapon” or “destructive devices.

To define “arms,” we can turn to any of three main schools of constitutional interpretation that currently hold sway in American law. To line up with most commentators I will call them the “living document” school, the “framers’ intent” school, and the “textualism” school. The Emerson court subscribes to the textualism school, and I think rightfully so. Unquote

This article is quite an interesting read...