Question for Massad Defensability of BU gun or extra ammo

Since a armed civilian doesn't have a mandate to pursue and engage but rather to withdraw from a confrontation it would appear that carrying extra ammo or a backup gun could be construed by disreputable lawyer types as a "Rambo"
image or mentality or even impersonation of a LEO. How do you counter that in the context of a justifiable shooting?

TIA and keep up the great work. :)

Confound that with the fact that most Defensive Gun Usage (DGU) does not involve discharging the gun, would suing someone who had been carrying a loaded gun would be useful to the same sleazy lawyer?

Good point - not only that, it's not authorized/allowed by most states' CCW laws. Having said that, I don't need a CCW law to do so. The 2nd amendment is my authority to carry a backup. But I do not carry a backup, except on extremely rare occasions, when I think I'm going into a high-crime area late at night or something.

Good point - not only that, it's not authorized/allowed by most states' CCW laws.

What states prohibit carrying a back up?

The lawyer question again!

The basic answer is that the DA can use emotional presentations to act negatively against you. There is real world and research evidence to demonstrate that.

You need to:

1. Avoid extreme presentations - BTW, a BUG isn't such. I mean nutso stuff on the internet or raving about killing to friends, etc.

2. Make sure you really know when to shoot and how to talk to the law after it

3. Get a lawyer who is knowledgable about these sorts of issues. For example, the Federal code and others have rules against inflammatory statements. Does your lawyer know the research about weapons and emotional priming - does he or she actual know something about weapons to defuse such DA statement?

From my reading of the literature - I think a BUG is quite defensible as is extra ammo by a competent attorney.

What states prohibit carrying a back up?

My state of New Mexico for one: " A licensee shall only carry one (1) concealed handgun at any given time."
I've been on record stating no need for a b.u.g. for civilians..period!!!

I've been on record stating no need for a b.u.g. for civilians..period!!!


That your choice Me I carry 2 . Its faster than a reload . If you want just one then be happy. But don't try to tell others what they need .
Ruger didn't see no reason for more than 10 round mag. I thought he was a nut and never bought another Ruger.

By way Ky is a Concealed Deadly Weapons state. we can carry many different weapons all at once. Not just a pistol. Our state Gov trusts its citizens and doesn't ristrict us.

My state of New Mexico for one: " A licensee shall only carry one (1) concealed handgun at any given time."
I've been on record stating no need for a b.u.g. for civilians..period!!!

I'd move to civilization, then. 'Course, that means I'd have to take my own advice (bloody Cook County!).

I've been on record stating no need for a b.u.g. for civilians..period!!!

I can think of a couple. Murphy's Law goes into effect and your primary decides to quit working at the most inopportune moment or your strong hand becomes disabled and you have access to a BUG on your weak side. There's two and I wasn't even trying.

What states prohibit carrying a back up?

My state of New Mexico for one: " A licensee shall only carry one (1) concealed handgun at any given time."
I've been on record stating no need for a b.u.g. for civilians..period!!!

Mad Magyar the man said States you know plural not state so what other states have such a stupid pointless law and why would you "go on Record" trying to dictate how many tools people legally use to defend themselves ?

What's the logic in it ? Has there been a rash of people who carry a BUG losing it and having criminals find it , what ?

If the state recognizes the right/need for a person to carry a weapon at all common sense should recognize the possibility that as with any mechanical device it could fail , and in a lethal confrontation an immediate replacement being available would be far more useful than attempting a quick repair job of the primary weapon .

Saying that a person is allowed to legally carry a weapon yet a single weapon only makes as much sense as limiting a person to only owning a single steak knife in their kitchen , after all at dinner why not make people share one knife ? The food will get cut up so they can eat it , perhaps a bit slower than trusting everyone with their own knife but the job will get done .

You have a sig line that states self defense is a God given right yet you side with absurdity here , if it is justifiable then it is so by any and all means necessary and/or available at the time and to intentionally limit ones means is just absurd .

I've been on record stating no need for a b.u.g. for civilians..period!!!

Does that mean that you are running for public office?

I can think of a couple. Murphy's Law goes into effect and your primary decides to quit working at the most inopportune moment or your strong hand becomes disabled and you have access to a BUG on your weak side. There's two and I wasn't even trying.

Murphy's Law is for losers: don't know your weapon, don't practice CQC, don't know your ammo, you're in lousy physical shape, weak resolve, etc.....Well, let's add a few more "what if" scenarios: 1. You inadvertantly drop your weapon because of a panic attack but you know you get the b.u.g before you get shot.:rolleyes: 2. Instead of pushing off the safety, you hit the mag release...:rolleyes: 3. The BG is effective in a gun-grab but you are prepared with your B.U.G.:rolleyes: I have 3 more, but that will suffice.
First of all, I answered the question...N.M. What I state on the record had to do with a previous post that was similar...Nothing more, nothing less...You can carry all the pistols you want, legal or otherwise, that's your business...:)

Mad Magyar the man said States you know plural not state so what other states have such a stupid pointless law and why would you "go on Record" trying to dictate how many tools people legally use to defend themselves ?

Do your own research....I mentioned my own state. This forum reaches all 50 states & beyond...The reason for the omission from other states is simply this: many that spout about CHP's and they would do this & that, and carry this & that....DON'T have a permit or they would know their state law....;)

Never carry a backup but I do carry two extra speed loaders with my revolver or two extra mags when I carry 1911.

Murphy's Law is for losers: don't know your weapon, don't practice CQC, don't know your ammo, you're in lousy physical shape, weak resolve, etc.....
...is to keep from being a loser. Murphy's Law, which was put forth when the US began building aircraft at an unprecedented rate for WWII, states, "If anything can go wrong, it will go wrong."

Could your primary handgun be disabled by a gunshot? Could you be cut or shot in your primary arm before you have the chance to terminate the threat? Could you be using your primary hand to deflect your assailant's weapon? Could you be exiting your vehicle in such a manner that it would only be practical to draw with your secondary hand? These are some of the reasons that I carry a handgun behind each hip (and why I try to plan my trips so that I dont' have to exit my vehicle in New Mexico).

I think most of you miss the point. If you practice with the gun and can hit what you shoot at. You may need only one shot. If that one shot causes the BG to slow down so that you can get away from him, and you run and get out of the way and call the police. I think the DA will call that a good shooting, and will not press charges against you.
Other wise you may have to answer when does self defense turn to murder.

I don't carry a backup. However, I would never presume to tell others what they should or should not do ESPECIALLY when referered to as 'civilians'. You do realize, that police are civilians, right? Do you want to make distinctions between citizen needs and LEO needs?

I used to carry a BUG here in NM, prior to the change in our CCW law that limited you to one weapon. Unlike others, I can think of plenty of reasons why a civilian (or anybody for that matter) might need a BUG, and I will be doing my part to get our law amended to remove this ridiculous provision, as well as to amend our law to allow us to carry where alcohol is served.

To answer the original poster:

Yeah, an attorney with an unmeritorious case will throw anything at you he can. He'll try to make you look paranoid for carrying two guns and spare ammo...but he'll try to make you look paranoid for carrying a gun in the first place.

My experience is, they'll bring it up and we'll shoot it down, no pun intended.

FWIW, I carry spare ammo and backup.

Best,
Mas

Oneiron:

ONE bad guy? ONE shot ending your trouble?

You are optimistic.

Even if you have only one bad guy, why would anybody deliberately fire just one shot from anything larger than a derringer?

--Travis--

First of all I am an old man, and I have COPD. So my case may be different from a younger man. I could , I believe fire more than one round, but If one round did the job why shoot again? Every living thing I have shot at I killed except for the first time I shot at a deer with an old 8mm rifle. I remember the first time I shoot at a living thing. It was a red bird. I shot it with a bb gun. I told my self then I would never shoot at any living thing for fun because it was not fun. That bird was beautiful and singing. After I shot it it was just dead. Don't ever draw you gun unless you intend to kill what you shoot. If you draw the you must shoot. If you don't the BG will take that gun away for you and use it on you.
Being optimistic is not the problem. I have no doubt I will hit what I shoot at. I just don't want to be forced to make that draw. Now I hold to the big and slow theory. I carry a 44 Special. And I shoot it every week. I hold to the Navy policy of 6 round each month except it now is 6 rounds every week.

...is to keep from being a loser. Murphy's Law, which was put forth when the US began building aircraft at an unprecedented rate for WWII, states, "If anything can go wrong, it will go wrong.

Your sarcasm detector appears in need of service. :evil:

The only example I need to think of is the off-duty cop who stopped the shooting in Trolley Square over a year ago. He is a hero, who did everything exactly as he should have, and saved lives. HOWEVER; he locked open. If that bad guy had had a partner, that story would have been much worse.

I find it a bit disingenuous to say; "I need to carry a gun because we live in a world where bad things happen, and you never know when or where; but I know that when it happens nothing will go wrong with my gun, I know there won't be more than one bad guy, and I won't be injured, running, or jacked up on adrenaline when the shooting starts."

If you carry, you must practice assuming that your attacker will continue to charge you after you shoot them. You must know how to draw, fire, reload, and fix a malfunction with your weak hand only. You must know what to do if there is more than one attacker. This is the field we are working in.

Virginia is another state that permits the carrying of only one handgun at a time.

IMHO one gun is enough.

Man, being imperfect, cannot make anything that is perfect. Anything made by man can fail and it will fail at the most inopportune time.

Better to have it and not need it that to need it and not have it.

Pray for the Best, Prepare for the worst.

Frankly, my personal belief is that the subject is really a non-issue.

That being stated the matter is one of practicality more than anything else. I cannot believe that one would be subject to any more legal jeopardy by merely have another piece on his person than if were carrying an extra hi cap. Practically speaking the weight issue plays into it, plus there are environmental issues in areas with hot climates.......Kinda difficult to conceal one, let alone two on a typical Florida July day....but Florida really doesn't care. Pack ten if you wish, then add your tactical knife and a full belt of ammo plus various impact weapons that fit the statuatory permissible description.....! Florida has never had any problem with its stance in the matter



Can ANYONE give ANY example of ANY sort of legal problem caused by carrying multiple firearms ANYWHERE?

As MA suggests, if its a good shoot its a good shoot, it is preferable to keep breathing and deal with the ancillary issues at a later time.

When all is said and done you will either be judged by 12 or carried by 6 of your neighbors. Those of us who carry a back up when we think we need it hope to live to be judged as to have done the right thing. Those who choose less leave their life to fate.

One of Massads reports on after action shooting was about the great FBI shootout in Florida. It took men with more than one gun to kill the BGs and good men may have lost their lives from only haveing one gun.

Any state with laws that limit your ability to self protection is a state with stupid people at the helm. Vote em out and get people who believe in your ability to protect life.

jj

Got one for ya local, Dogrunner:State of Florida v. Zane Britt, a murder trial in the Tampa area a few years ago. Prosecution made a huge deal out of arguing that having two guns, a Ruger .357 on his hip and a Smith Airweight .38 in his pocket, meant that he was looking to kill someone on the night in question.

Took about two minutes to explain it to the jury. Britt was acquitted. As I said earlier, they'll bring up these arguments, but a properly prepared defense team will win them.

best,
Mas

FWIW, I carry spare ammo and backup.

Let's see:

LEO
expert witness on the use of lethal weapons
statements in print about the ethics of lethal force


I think you would be darn near suit-proof. :)

It seems to me as though any suit against you would be ended by handing the jurors a copy of In the Gravest Extreme, which has - to my mind - extremely clear explanations of the ethics of the use of lethal force. The writing is clear, concise, and easily understood - even by a jury.

I am guessing no attorney comes after you, no matter what you are carrying.

Mike

MA: Re: Britt.

Interesting. Hadn't heard about that one. My bet is that it consisted of an inexperienced (translate: desperate & stretching) ASA shotgunning his presumed case.

As any LEO with any time knows full well, the cream of the law school crop doesn't go to work for the SA's office...........not with all those SL issues staring him down........sorta offends the prospectus for gettin' that new BMW ya know!

The fact that the issue failed is proof that it is truly a non issue. Likely even more so now that the "stand your ground" law is such.

JustinL, if your gun malfunctions or kB's due to bad ammo, or whatnot... will one gun "be enough" then? It'll be too late for you to tell me you were wrong all along.

Limiting citizens to one gun only, is nothing less than a criminal law, and only logic says so.

I don't give a crap what law says I can only carry one gun, I'm still carrying 2 or more, because that's a corrupt law they made, and thus is right we disobey such garbage. The 2nd Amendment trumps any of these garbage laws, so technically, I'm upholding the law, which is my natural right to keep and bear ARMS! Yes, multiple guns of my choice!

The founding fathers broke the law of their day... would people today say they were wrong for doing it? If so, then we'd have not gained independence BY FORCE! We'd have still been under the crown, and its tyranny! We'd not have the Bill of Rights like we see it today!

So, we need to protest these criminal government laws that limit GOOD citizens from carrying enough arms for THEIR defense, not the governments' defense.

It's obvious why one would have a back up gun (or guns). In case of malfunction or kB, you have the backup. The same reason why you carry backup magazine(s): in case one is screwed up at the worst time!

It doesn't take a genius to understand this stuff; but to the dimwitted sheep among them, it's like climbing a 10,000 ft. wall. Amazing.

MA: Re: Britt.

Interesting. Hadn't heard about that one. My bet is that it consisted of an inexperienced (translate: desperate & stretching) ASA shotgunning his presumed case.

As any LEO with any time knows full well, the cream of the law school crop doesn't go to work for the SA's office...........not with all those SL issues staring him down........sorta offends the prospectus for gettin' that new BMW ya know!

The fact that the issue failed is proof that it is truly a non issue. Likely even more so now that the "stand your ground" law is such.

I'm not Mas, and I don't presume to speak for him, but I believe the prosecuting attorney in the Britt case used everything at their disposal to try and "make a case" against the defendant. That is what prosecuting attorneys do. Sometimes they are basing their decisions on preconceived notions and values that are not consistant with the reality of the situation, which is why we have defense teams. As far as the "shotgunning approach", it's been my expirience that they frequently do that.

I don't give a crap what law says I can only carry one gun, I'm still carrying 2 or more, because that's a corrupt law they made, and thus is right we disobey such garbage. The 2nd Amendment trumps any of these garbage laws, so technically, I'm upholding the law, which is my natural right to keep and bear ARMS! Yes, multiple guns of my choice!


Oh boy, you are nothing more than a criminal. Sorry, but part of being a "Good Guy or Gal" is living within the framework of society's laws. I may not agree with a law, and will work within the framework of the law, politics and the court system to change things, but until it is changed I still try to follow "the letter and spirit of the law."

Sorry, but your statement, to me, smacks of self centered "me first and everyone else be damned" egocentrism. When I carry a handgun concealed in New Jersey I am forbidden by New Jersey law to carry hollowpoint ammunition. I don't agree with the law, but will load my handguns(s) with EFMJ's until the law and or court cases determine that I can carry hollowpoints in my gun(s).

I am not a lawyer, and I didn't stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night, just referring to an opinion by the NJ State Attorney in regards to LEOSA and off duty LEO's carrying in that state if they are not residents of New Jersey.

BikerRN

BikerRN,

Back in the late 1700s... would you have told the founding fathers of this nation to NOT declare independence? To NOT go to war over such a thing? Because, technically, what they did was "illegal" to do, as well.

If you try to "work within the system" and the system is corrupt... then what? Hmm?

Why didn't Thomas Jefferson say "Ah, screw it! We don't need me to write this Declaration of Independence! We can just work within the system to get these changes! Yeah!" ?

So, you'd have been on the British side of things back then, huh?

Were the founding fathers "criminals" for disobeying their current laws under the crown?

If the law banned the RIGHT to protest the government for grievances, the RIGHT to freedom of religion, the RIGHT to free speech, etc. would you bend over and obey it like a good lil sheep?

And last I checked, me carrying my arms is a RIGHT, not a PRIVILEGE. So, any government forcefully restricting and/or banning such things in my hands is literally a CRIMINAL act in the first place, since it infringes upon my 2nd Amendment (which IS law that government MUST obey) right to keep and bear arms.

So, who now, is the true criminal?

Stop being a follower, and start beiing a leader. If everyone was like you back in the late 1700s, this nation wouldn't have had a dream of becoming independent... I guarantee you that right now, sir.

Some of you fail to see the "reality" of the situation.

Bubba may have some fun with you in prison. We still have a system of laws and it's application. There are ways to change the laws if one so desires. Yes, these ways are slow, just look how long it has taken concealed carry to catch on, some states still don't have it.

The reality is that the LEO's will work within the framework of the law to make a case against you. Another reality is this, "The law is what the local prosecutor says it is." Get over it and deal with it. If you don't like something, work to change it, I do.

What I don't do however is ignore an existing law just because I don't agree with it, that is what criminals do. Are you a criminal? Trying to relate to the Declaration of Independance and a local law is "apples and oranges".

Sorry, there are too many idiots in here with opinions and I'm through with this thread.

BikerRN

The founding fathers broke the law of their day... would people today say they were wrong for doing it? If so, then we'd have not gained independence BY FORCE! We'd have still been under the crown, and its tyranny! We'd not have the Bill of Rights like we see it today!


They also spent years working within the system so as to have their grievances addressed while remaining loyal subjects of the crown. Rebellion was a last resort.

How much time have you spent working within the system to change things?

+1 to buzz knox. There are far more boxes to consider than the cartridge box.

There are far more boxes to consider than the cartridge box.


I like that!!! Is that a Doug original?

They also spent years working within the system so as to have their grievances addressed while remaining loyal subjects of the crown. Rebellion was a last resort.

How much time have you spent working within the system to change things?

Very true, they did work for years and years but still found it time to break the Kings law and do the right thing. Our country was formed by men who fought the same kind of tyrany that exist today.

jj

jj

Inspired by "The ballot box, the soap box, the jury box, and the cartridge box."

I'm sure it's been a sentiment used by others. :D

Very true, they did work for years and years but still found it time to break the Kings law and do the right thing. Our country was formed by men who fought the same kind of tyrany that exist today.

Tyranny?

Excessive taxes to support foriegn governments. Oppressive property laws that allows government to seize our land if it gives them a better tax base. Allowing illegals to cross our borders and kill our citizens at the rate of 25 per day. Etc Etc

jj