I had hoped I wouldn't see these kinds of posts here. i quit another forum because i got that kind of treatment, and i sure hope carolina john and the other guy can kiss and make up. The sad part is, I agree with both of them. As a ccw instuctor, I can tell you that the parts of our laws on the use of deadly force inside the home have some very good origins. It is legal to use deadly force to stop an intruders unlawful entry, if the homeowner reasonably believes that a felony will be commited inside the home, and that there is no other way besides deadly force to stop him. After entry has been effected, the legal standing of the lawful occupant changes, and he may only use deadly force if there is an immediate threat of death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault. The home ownwr is under no obligation to retreat on his own premisise. The reasons for this are many, but suppose the roof of your house is on fire, and a first responder broke the door down to rescue you?suppose yopur neighbor had a heart attack, and his son runs over to your house to get you to help? Suppose an elderly person was weandering around after dark, and got lost? A crazy but harmless person? A drunk? I had that one happen to me. I am sure glad I didn't shoot him. He sobered up real quick when the lights came on, and he realized he wasn't in his own house.
If you read what happens after you shoot someone, you really don't want to shoot them . Don't be so hasty and possibly blood thirsty. you would know for the rest of your life you had taken some ones life, however worthless, unnessecarily. That is a hard thing to live with if you are a normal person.
For the most part, mr 40 is correct about open carry, and i applaud him for his stand on the issue. I also understand Carolina John's stand as far as tactics, etc. I personally worry less and less about being seen carying. I use the drive trhough at the bank, and I don't go into the bank in "open carry mode" because i don't want to tramatise the poor ladies who work there. they have been robbed several times, and i just don't want to cause them grief. I take the attitude of the apostle Paul. All things are lawful, but all things are not conveint. And he was big on not offending people, too.
Personally, I carry concealed, just not all that concerned about it. If you dress the part of a law abiding citizen, cut your hair the right way, use proper ediquette and speach/ speach patterns for the place you are in, you will have no problems. When you are nervous, act or look out of place, and if you seem beligerent, you will not win many friends, period. Just be cool, man. It will be all right.
And one more thing. Many time the leo you are dealing with has no idea what the law is on ccw anyway. If you start reading him the riot act, you are asking for trouble. If you are friendly, nice, patient, especially patient, you will probably be o.k. Excuse me, I'm sorry, I sure didn't mean to cause you any trouble, Man I hope I didn't mess up; those kind of things will get the leo to exercise patience, and call his supervisor, or the magistate on duty, and find out if you are in violation of any statute. "Well. I thought I was ok", will get you further at this point than"See, you idiot, I told you I was right."
I would not be so afraid of unjust prosecution as i would of handling something the wrong way and being known as an "@$$hole". Police are people too, and they will get you back if they can. Treat them with respect, and they are your best freinds.
Originally Posted by CarolinaJohn
I OC in Carolina. Have been for a couple of years. You get a lot of strange looks but all of the response from the LEO's has been positive. Be advised that there are one or two cities in NC that have banned OC. Maybe Chapel Hill or Durham, I don't remember.
Simply wearing a piece on your hip isn't GATTOTP (going armed to the terror of the people). Unless you are acting the fool or have it out in your hand or waving it about or something stupid like that, then you are not GATTOTP. You can refer to STATE v. ROBERT HUNTLEY. NC court ruled as follows:
A man may carry a gun for any lawful purpose of business or amusement, but he cannot go about with
that or any other dangerous weapon, to terrify and alarm, and in such manner as naturally will terrify
and alarm a peaceful people.
The court stated, although a gun is an "unusual
weapon," it is to be remembered that the carrying of a gun, per se, constitutes no (p.423)offence.
For any lawful purpose--either of business or amusement--the citizen is at perfect liberty to carry
his gun. It is the wicked purpose, and the mischievous result, which essentially constitute the
crime. He shall not carry about this or any other weapon of death to terrify and alarm, and in such
manner as naturally will terrify and alarm a peaceful people.
I think the key words in the case are "wicked purpose" and "mischievous result" and carrying it in a manner to "terrify and alarm".
FYI, the last time that GOTTOTP was prosecuted was about 50 years ago and that was a pickup truck load of klansman driving around waving shotguns.
Tags for this Thread