Firearms + Alcohol = BAD ???

[CA_Libertarian]

imported post

yelohamr wrote:

Way back in one of my previous lives, about 20+ years ago, the CCW permit I got from SDSO there was a provision that I not consume alcohol while armed. I don't recall if it was on the permit or in the letter that came with it.

No restriction is binding, unless it is printed on the permit.

(Since nobody else is posting citations, I won't either... so there!)

========================================================

ETA: I can't do that... gotta lead by example, I guess... but the rest of you still need to stop acting like newbs with your baseless assertions!

12050 (b) & (c):

(b) A license may include any reasonable restrictions or
conditions which the issuing authority deems warranted, including
restrictions as to the time, place, manner, and circumstances under
which the person may carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm
capable of being concealed upon the person.
(c) Any restrictions imposed pursuant to subdivision (b) shall be
indicated on any license issued.

Keyword in that last sentence is "ON" the license. A letter accompanying the license is not 'on' the license. Rules printed on the application (as some counties do) aren't binding either. However, since we're in a "may issue" state, don't be surprised if your license is revoked if you don't obey your local tyrant.

 

[Streetbikerr6]

imported post

CA_Libertarian wrote:

Streetbikerr6 wrote:

...Here in Cali one must be in immediate danger...

Wrong. One must "reasonably believe" they are in immediate, grave danger. If the BG broke into your home, then you are presumed to have reasonably believed you were in danger.

...Meaning if a man 30 feet away is coming at you or anotherwith a knife, you are not in immediate danger. If he is in stabbing range and is motioning a stab then you may shoot...

Please cite a case to prove this assertion.

A state-mandated firearm training course I once took taught us that using lethal force would be legal and advisable in the above situation. The reason is that even if you shoot/obliterate their heart, the brain can function without new blood flow for 8 seconds. The training video (designed for LE) demonstrated that 8 seconds is enough time to charge 30 feet and inflict several life-threatening knife wounds.

The above applies to threats on the street, where you don't have the presumption of innocence and have to prove you were justified in shooting. If they're in your home, you don't have to prove anything. The DA has to prove you weren't in reasonable fear for your life.

..Here is a Texas story...a neighbor ran after 2 men that had just burglarizing his neighbors house, he shot both in the back and was let off the hook...

From reading the article in the link you provided, it sounds like Horn's case is going before a grand jury. He's not off the hook yet, and I wouldn't be surprised to see him indicted for premeditated murder. (He did tell the dispatcher, "I'll kill 'em" and then shot two men in the back...) Now, I don't know if they'll get a conviction to stick with a jury trial in Texas... but I don't think he's anywhere near "off the hook" just yet.

But you are right, Texas law is better than CA by far. My point is that your assertions about CA law are inaccurate.

You don't have to wait until you're mortally wounded to start defending your life. This is just CCW-instructor/Gun-shop FUD.

Don't put words in my mouth, I never said you have to be mortally wounded to defend yourself.

If a burglar breaks into your home, in California,you are not in immediate danger of your life, if you were, we would have a castle doctrine and you could shoot on sight. Now, your furniture and T.V. might be in immediate danger of being stolen, but your life is in good standing here in California. I am not saying I agree with this, I am just telling people, don't go shooting someone walking into your house because you can be charged with manslaughter like this man..

http://www.niagarathisweek.com/news/article/201388#

There's your case.

And as for the case of the Texas murder. He was let off the grand jury. Heis off the hook.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/5864151.html

Now as for your knife situation, if you could prove that to a jury of your liberal dumbass peers here in California, all the power to you, but I wouldnt risk it, because what is "reasonable" here in California is not the same to any other state. My point is, don't think you can just shoot a man walking into your house with a weapon like you can in Texas, you must first evaluate the situation and think like a jury would. What is reasonable to me, "this man walking into my house is going to kill me" is really "this man wants my tv, and then he is going to leave" to someone else.



Edit: by the way looks like I was infact wrong on the fleeing prospect it seems. All the same, it is up to the court to put themselves in your shoes and reasonably believe you had to murder that person to stop them from harming you, instead of just injuring him.

[suP]21[/suP]People v. Newcomer, (1897) 118 Cal. 263, 273. ("[W]hen a man without fault himself is suddenly attacked in a way that puts his life or bodily safety at imminent hazard, he is not compelled to fly or to consider the proposition of flying, but may stand his ground and defend himself to the extent of taking the life of the assailant, if that be reasonably necessary [in the name of California self-defense].")

 

[mjones]

imported post

Streetbikerr6 wrote:

If a burglar breaks into your home, in California,you are not in immediate danger of your life, if you were, we would have a castle doctrine and you could shoot on sight. Now, your furniture and T.V. might be in immediate danger of being stolen, but your life is in good standing here in California. I am not saying I agree with this, I am just telling people, don't go shooting someone walking into your house because you can be charged with manslaughter like this man..

http://www.niagarathisweek.com/news/article/201388#

We do have a Castle Doctrine in the state of California...but its not as strong as some states have.

California's doesn't protect you from getting criminally charged, but it does 'guarantee' aquittal. It also does not protect you from a civil lawsuit.

The key factors for California's Castle Doctrine are that:

1. you know force was used to enter
2. no lawful reason for entrance
3. not a family member
4. doesn't live there

In essence, you are aquittedof all chargesif you use deadly force in your home if the person doesn't belong in the house, used force to enter & doesn't have a lawful reason for doing so (like search warrant)

Therefore, there is no need to prove immediate danger

198.5. Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or
great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to
have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great
bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that
force is used against another person, not a member of the family or
household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and
forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or
had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.

 As used in this section, great bodily injury means a significant
or substantial physical injury.



199. The homicide appearing to be justifiable or excusable, the
person indicted must, upon his trial, be fully acquitted and
discharged.

edit to add:
I forgot to ask, is that Niagara This Week story related to a California case?

 

[Streetbikerr6]

imported post

Your right it wasnt a california story, sorry about that, when I searched for the article I specifically searched for california articles, apparently it searched elsewhere.

Though your "Castle Doctrine" still leaves open a court to scrutinize if infact it was bodily injury or death that was in progress. You may only use enough force against someone to stop them from that force, once they are no longer a threat then you can't shoot them dead. If they are using a certain force such as hitting you, your not allowed to use a greater use of force like say a gun, unless a reasonable person were to believe that death was likely to be caused by the fists.

I still hold the firm believe that I wish this were like Texas, if a man walks into a house with a brick, I want to know I can shoot that man dead and not worry about getting thrown in jail.

It also leaves open where maybe the assailent did not "forcibly" enter your premises. What if your door was left open (edit: or unlocked)? What if yourupstairs and some guy is in another room going through some things in a bedroom?Are you expected to go downstairs and check if thefront door is bustedopen? a glass window broken?In Texas it does not matter, you can shoot him dead.

 

[mjones]

imported post

Streetbikerr6 wrote:

Your right it wasnt a california story, sorry about that, when I searched for the article I specifically searched for california articles, apparently it searched elsewhere.

Though your "Castle Doctrine" still leaves open a court to scrutinize if infact it was bodily injury or death that was in progress. You may only use enough force against someone to stop them from that force, once they are no longer a threat then you can't shoot them dead. If they are using a certain force such as hitting you, your not allowed to use a greater use of force like say a gun, unless a reasonable person were to believe that death was likely to be caused by the fists.

I still hold the firm believe that I wish this were like Texas, if a man walks into a house with a brick, I want to know I can shoot that man dead and not worry about getting thrown in jail.

It also leaves open where maybe the assailent did not "forcibly" enter your premises. What if your door was left open? In Texas it does not matter, you can shoot him dead.

That is an incorrect interpretation of the CA Castle Doctrine as written.

Its a semi-confusing statute because it is written from the standpoint of the accused - the defending homeowner

If the 4 conditions I mentioned are met, you are allowed to presume the intruder is there to cause great harm or death to you. In other words they are statutorily a threat to you.

I'll further your Texas example a bit...if a person uses force to enter your home in CA and you shoot them dead, you will be aquitted of any resulting charges of homicide. There doesn't even need to be a brick...

You are correct in that the intruder must use force...simple solution don't leave the door open.

Trust me, I'd love to see a much stronger protection ... especially in the home. The key point to this side discussion is that, generally speaking,in the home you do not need to justify use of force...198.5 statutorilygives it.

 

[Theseus]

imported post

I am not against it and actually practice things like clearing, loading, drawing, and even stripping the firearms while drinking.

I will normally do it with snaps, but still do it.

 

[Streetbikerr6]

imported post

mjones wrote:

Streetbikerr6 wrote:

Your right it wasnt a california story, sorry about that, when I searched for the article I specifically searched for california articles, apparently it searched elsewhere.

Though your "Castle Doctrine" still leaves open a court to scrutinize if infact it was bodily injury or death that was in progress. You may only use enough force against someone to stop them from that force, once they are no longer a threat then you can't shoot them dead. If they are using a certain force such as hitting you, your not allowed to use a greater use of force like say a gun, unless a reasonable person were to believe that death was likely to be caused by the fists.

I still hold the firm believe that I wish this were like Texas, if a man walks into a house with a brick, I want to know I can shoot that man dead and not worry about getting thrown in jail.

It also leaves open where maybe the assailent did not "forcibly" enter your premises. What if your door was left open? In Texas it does not matter, you can shoot him dead.

That is an incorrect interpretation of the CA Castle Doctrine as written.

Its a semi-confusing statute because it is written from the standpoint of the accused - the defending homeowner

If the 4 conditions I mentioned are met, you are allowed to presume the intruder is there to cause great harm or death to you. In other words they are statutorily a threat to you.

I'll further your Texas example a bit...if a person uses force to enter your home in CA and you shoot them dead, you will be aquitted of any resulting charges of homicide. There doesn't even need to be a brick...

You are correct in that the intruder must use force...simple solution don't leave the door open.

Trust me, I'd love to see a much stronger protection ... especially in the home. The key point to this side discussion is that, generally speaking,in the home you do not need to justify use of force...198.5 statutorilygives it.

If you are correct and you can use deadly force on them, why then do they include "bodily injury" in there?

The law states in california for self defense you can use as much force to stop the assailant as they are using. That means if they are using bodily injury like firsts, you can fight back with fists. If they are using deadly force, you can use deadly force back.

So if that law were so that any forcible entry to the home constitutes a threat of death, then what is the need to include bodily injury if it were not meant to leave it up to the courts as to decide which force (injury or death)was being used?

Edit: basically what I am asking is- if a man forcibly breaks into your home with nothing in his hands and no hint of him having any sort of weapon, then by the statute you stated he is providing danger of death or great bodily injury. I would assume you would not just be automatically let off the hook for shooting that man to death when in the statute says "bodily injury or death". I highly doubt that that clause automatically lets you "off the hook" of any other law in the books. For instance, say you shoot him, he falls down crawls around for a bit, lays against the wall and tells you hes sorry, then you go up stairs, re load your gun, go down stairs, point it at his head as he is fallen over passed out and you blow his brains out. By your logic of this statute, you are free and clear because he forcibly entered your home. Where by my logic says you are not free in clear because there are OTHER laws that apply to this situation, such as this man did not pose an immediate threat of death to you, so you may not use deadly force against him. My point is, there are other laws that apply to the situation of someone forcibly entering your home that can not be ignored.

 

[mjones]

imported post

Streetbikerr6 wrote:

If you are correct and you can use deadly force on them, why then do they include "bodily injury" in there?

The law states in california for self defense you can use as much force to stop the assailant as they are using. That means if they are using bodily injury like firsts, you can fight back with fists. If they are using deadly force, you can use deadly force back.

So if that law were so that any forcible entry to the home constitutes a threat of death, then what is the need to include bodily injury if it were not meant to leave it up to the courts as to decide which force (injury or death)was being used?

Because you (as the defender in your home) are allowed to cause either great bodily harm or death provided they used force to enter your home.

For generic self defense - not in the home (or if force wasn't used to enter the home) then you cannot use unneccessary force to stop the threat like. Just likeyou are describing.

 

[Streetbikerr6]

imported post

mjones wrote:

Streetbikerr6 wrote:

If you are correct and you can use deadly force on them, why then do they include "bodily injury" in there?

The law states in california for self defense you can use as much force to stop the assailant as they are using. That means if they are using bodily injury like firsts, you can fight back with fists. If they are using deadly force, you can use deadly force back.

So if that law were so that any forcible entry to the home constitutes a threat of death, then what is the need to include bodily injury if it were not meant to leave it up to the courts as to decide which force (injury or death)was being used?

Because you (as the defender in your home) are allowed to cause either great bodily harm or death provided they used force to enter your home.

For generic self defense - not in the home (or if force wasn't used to enter the home) then you cannot use unneccessary force to stop the threat like. Just likeyou are describing.

Ok so if you shoot the man in the leg, he slumps over and passes out, you go upstairs to reload and come back and shoot him in the head, your free and clear? I say thats incorrect, there are other laws at play.

By the way the law says

Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or
great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to
have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great
bodily injury to self,

Which means

Any person using force intended to..

1.cause death or

2. cause bodily injury

shall be presumed to believe there was a threat of

1. death or

2. bodily injury.

I hold that they do not cross one another. 1 has a relationship with 1, and 2 has a relationship with 2.

 

[mjones]

imported post

Streetbikerr6 wrote:

Ok so if you shoot the man in the leg, he slumps over and passes out, you go upstairs to reload and come back and shoot him in the head, your free and clear? I say thats incorrect, there are other laws at play.

I'd call that scenario a wobbler...personally I wouldn't do it, but that's on moral grounds, not legal ones.

You've mentioned 'other laws' several times now, please put them up for us to read & discuss.

Streetbikerr6 wrote:

Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or
great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to
have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great
bodily injury to self,

Which means

Any person using force intended to..

1.cause death or

2. cause bodily injury

shall be presumed to believe there was a threat of

1. death or

2. bodily injury.

I hold that they do not cross one another. 1 has a relationship with 1, and 2 has a relationship with 2.

In general terms for use of force in CA 'great bodily injury' & 'death' are synonymous to each other. In other words, defense of oneself from great bodily injury justifies deathto the aggressor as amethod of stopping the attacker from causing great bodily harm.

Unfortunately, I don't know that I can cite an authority for that in CA Statute or Case Law.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

California may be the place to prove CA_Libertarian right.

Even in Virginia, where OC is not just acceptable but also normal, the majority of members (as I have witnessed personally at meets) seriously "freak the f*** out" at the mere thought of OCing and drinking.

I wouldn't be surprised if many Californians agreed with CA_Libertarian's views (which I share totally) if -- or once -- they accept the guns themselves.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

mjones wrote:

As long as someone takes full responsibility for their actions...I could care less if they're armed, drinking, sober or wearing a pink bunny suit.

Either friday or saturday night of every week (sometimes both nights) I have a shot of Patron on the rocks combined with a Miller Lite. I drink the two over the course of about 4 hours while legally CCW.

Neither my gun nor my knives have ever hurt anyone.

Unpossible! :what:

 

[demnogis]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

mjones wrote:

As long as someone takes full responsibility fortheir actions...I could care less if they're armed, drinking, sober or wearing a pink bunny suit.

Either friday or saturday night of every week (sometimes both nights) I have a shot of Patron onthe rockscombined with a Miller Lite. I drink the two over the course of about4 hours while legally CCW.

Neither my gun nor my knives have ever hurt anyone.

Unpossible! :what:

Seriously? Patron followed by Miller Lite? :banghead:

At least give it the courtesy of Corona, or Dos Equis...:lol:

 

[marshaul]

imported post

lol... pwnt!

 

[Nopal]

imported post

demnogis wrote:

marshaul wrote:

mjones wrote:

As long as someone takes full responsibility fortheir actions...I could care less if they're armed, drinking, sober or wearing a pink bunny suit.

Either friday or saturday night of every week (sometimes both nights) I have a shot of Patron onthe rockscombined with a Miller Lite. I drink the two over the course of about4 hours while legally CCW.

Neither my gun nor my knives have ever hurt anyone.

Unpossible! :what:

Seriously? Patron followed by Miller Lite? :banghead:

At least give it the courtesy of Corona, or Dos Equis...:lol:

OK, Dos Equis is passable, but Corona? Isn't Corona recycled beer? I'm pretty sure that's what the "R" in the name stands for.

Patron deserves a Bohemia, or at least a Negra Modelo. Salud!

 

[marshaul]

imported post

Good point. I myself am generally uninterested in Mexican beer, but coincidentally (or perhaps not) both Bohemia and Negra Modela are actually something I'll pay for alongside a burrito.

 

[CA_Libertarian]

imported post

Streetbikerr6 wrote:

...The law states in california for self defense you can use as much force to stop the assailant as they are using. That means if they are using bodily injury like firsts, you can fight back with fists. If they are using deadly force, you can use deadly force back...

Again, I'll have to ask for a citation.

(FYI, this is what my dad always told me as a kid, but he can't cite any statute or case law about it, and can't even say where he heard this. So I'm curious where this comes from.)

Nothing personal, just don't like it when FUD is being spewed around here. (And I will continue to refer to any unsubstantiated claims as "FUD" until they are substantiated. It's not my obligation to prove you wrong, it's your obligation to prove you're right.)

If you are right, I definitely want to know so I don't make the mistake of doing something I believe is legal. If you're wrong, then one of us here may needlessly die for fear of going to jail because of some FUD.

So, I'll again ask... Please include a citation to code or case law (and not just a journalistic article, but an actual case citation where we can view the decision in full) for each of your assertions.

 

[CA_Libertarian]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

Good point. I myself am generally uninterested in Mexican beer, but coincidentally (or perhaps not) both Bohemia and Negra Modela are actually something I'll pay for alongside a burrito.

Sort of off-topic... but I just wanted to say thanks for recommending these. I do love authentic Mexican food, and have tried neither of those beers.

Even further off-topic... best beer I've ever had: Sam Adams Cream Stout.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

CA_Libertarian wrote:

marshaul wrote:

Good point. I myself am generally uninterested in Mexican beer, but coincidentally (or perhaps not) both Bohemia and Negra Modela are actually something I'll pay for alongside a burrito.

Sort of off-topic... but I just wanted to say thanks for recommending these. I do love authentic Mexican food, and have tried neither of those beers.

Even further off-topic... best beer I've ever had: Sam Adams Cream Stout.

Well, that's not a Sam Adams I've tried. Looks like I've got a new beer to try as well.

 

[CA_Libertarian]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

Well, that's not a Sam Adams I've tried. Looks like I've got a new beer to try as well.

I'd never heard of it, and actually just grabbed it from the fridge at my dad's house thinking it was one of their rootbeer sodas (Wheinhardt's is what they usually have, I think). Much to my surprise - and delight - it was the best beer I've ever had... and I've put away some beer in my time...

Dad didn't find it too amuzing when he found out I stopped by and drank the last one, though.

(By the way, BevMo sells it for ~$9/6-pack; only place I've seen it, and well-worth the price.)