My buddy pulled his gun now what??

My friend pulled his gun on an unarmed woman running at his car.
The story I got was a woman was running toward his girlfriend in the pasengers seat and he felt threatend by her so he pulled his gun.This is all I know.The woman droped charges after he droped assault charges.The cops took his carry gun and his other gun in the trunk that was in a case.He now has a court date in 4 weeks to tell his story to a judge.

What do you guys think will happen??
He thinks he may only get his carry permit suspended for a short time.
I think he will loose it for good because it was an unarmed woman and he was in his car.He could have drove away,rolled up the window,worst of all it was 2 of them on one unarmed woman.

This all happened in florida

First of all it makes a HUGE difference in what state this occurred.

After that we'll all play the guessing game. Hope he has a lawyer.

Just because someone is unarmed doesn't mean they are not a threat, but in general you need to be able to explain WHY you thought them a threat.

And is there a duty to retreat in the state? That's why the location matters a great deal.

And you say he was in a position to file assault charges on her? So clearly she must have been doing more than just "running towards his car".

Sounds like your friend is in a tough spot... He could have made better choices and will now pay for them.

Depends on where this happened....it could be real bad...or it could be a "slap on the wrist"...geography matters.

Depends on what state it happened, but I'm thinking that even in a gun friendly state, he's going to have a tough sell to the judge.

Springmom

I'm sure there is more to the story of why this woman was running at the guy's car. Perhaps your buddy or his girlfriend had escalated the situation somehow, or his girlfriend had dropped her purse and the nice lady was returning it. But as you point out, driving away is a good solution.

well, if the running woman was charged with assault...and he can give good reason to that charge...

Depends on what state it happened, but I'm thinking that even in a gun friendly state, he's going to have a tough sell to the judge.



Agreed springmom.

Of course there is the "however"...

However, if his attorney is good, and the state is friendly, and the threat or perceived threar as real, who knows?

At least he didn't pull the trigger, he has that going for him as well.

if all charges were dropped on both sides why is he going to court?

Just to get his weapons back?

He would loose the permit to carry at minimum. If he was not engaged in one of the activities covered by the permit he will do some jail time in addition to loosing his cc permit. If there is alcohol involved or stalking or abuse, he could loose his right to purchase firearms.

Scott

What do you guys think will happen??


He's either going to hire a lawyer, or he's going to soon regret not hiring one.

All this happened in florida and the cops did charge him with a mistamener because there was a gun involved and thats why he has to go to court.He is going to get a lawyer this week and try to get his gun back soon.He said his CCW is still good.

The cops had a long talk with him about how stupid he was for pulling his gun under that situation.

PM sent

He may lose his permit, he will not loose it.

However, that is brandishing your weapon, a felony in some states.

My friend pulled his gun on an unarmed woman running at his car.

The story I got was a woman was running toward his girlfriend in the pasengers seat and he felt threatend by her so he pulled his gun.

A person "running" at a car is not a lethal threat unless there are other circumstances present. If she was unarmed, I fail to see how she was a legitimate threat, when your friend was in his MV and armed. All he needed to do was drive away to end the "threat." No need to pull his gun.

I have a FL CCW and although a person is legally allowed to defend themselves while in a motor vehicle without retreat, there still has to be a legitimate threat to justify aiming your weapon at a human being. A threat from a person outside of your motor vehicle unarmed, when you have a firearm, is a tough sell to argue self defense. And I'm not so sure an Agg Assault is a charge that a DA will "allow" a complainant to drop on their whim. Something ain't adding up.

I wonder if your friend is giving you scant details plus using a little creative license in the aftermath to improve his standing in your eyes.

Rule II: do not point your weapon at anything your not willing to destroy. Why would your friend want to destroy an unarmed woman?

It doesn't sound like your friend has the proper mindset to carry a gun. If that AA sticks, he won't have to worry about whether his license will get suspended or revoked. He'll have other concerns on which to focus.

The entire FAQ is informative on when you can use your FL CCW. I decided to import this one Q&A as it has direct bearing on the dialouge of this thread.

http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/self_defense.html


Q. What if I point my handgun at someone but don't use it?

A. Never display a handgun to gain "leverage" in an argument. Threatening someone verbally while possessing a handgun, even licensed, will land you in jail for three years. Even if the gun is broken or you don't have bullets, you will receive the mandatory three-year sentence if convicted. The law does not allow any possibility of getting out of jail early.

Example: In a 1987 case, a woman refused to pay an automobile mechanic who she thought did a poor job repairing her car. They argued about it, and the mechanic removed the radiator hose from the car so she couldn't drive it away. She reached into her purse, pulled out an unloaded gun, and threatened to kill the mechanic if he touched her car again. The mechanic grabbed the gun and called the police.

The woman was convicted of aggravated assault with a firearm and sentenced to serve a mandatory three-year prison term. The fact that the gun was not loaded was irrelevant. Even though she was the mother of three dependent children and had no prior criminal record, the statute does not allow for parole. Her only recourse was to seek clemency from the Governor.

At this point the woman has no charges against her.He is the only one going to court from charges from the sherrif dept.
My friend knows he made a mistake now,he said at the time he just reacted.
My friend is the one that called the cops after the gun was pulled and the woman backed off but also waited for the cops.

He's lucky he's just going to court. Unless he was bailed out of jail, he got a very lucky break and should be glad to only lose his CWP.

At this point the woman has no charges against her.He is the only one going to court from charges from the sherrif dept.

I am not at all surprised to learn this. As I said, your friend doesn't have the proper mindset to wield an instrument of deadly force. He should have never introduced his firearm into the situation.

Your friend needs an attorney. He may get out of this, it depends on why he felt threatened by the woman.

Not enough info to express an opinion. Just why did he feel threatened to justify the use of deadly force?

The fact that there is entirely too little information leads me to believe that you or your friend aren't telling the whole story.

He won't tell me anymore.
All he tells me is it's a long story.I think only the cops might know the whole story because they talked to all people involved.Another person also saw what happened and saw the gun
I think he afraid what might happen

http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/self_defense.html

My friend knows he made a mistake now,he said at the time he just reacted.

That very well may be the case, but w/ CHL you have to be more discerning, not less.

I wasn't there and, as such, really have no opinion on the issue. I am glad that nobody was shot or injured.

If he's learned anything I think he probably now has a little more insight into what deadly force means.

Thanks,
DFW1911

I told him pulling the gun is the last resort.He would have been better off driving away and accedentlly running over the person I think.
I think if he ever carry's again he will do so with more caution.
This might cost a lot of money to get out of,I found out on the link I posted about it could land him 3 yrs. in jail if convicted

I think only the cops might know the whole story because they talked to all people involved.Another person also saw what happened and saw the gun

They don't know the whole story either. They have several versions of what happened. What will most likely happen in court is that whatever version is the most plausible to the judge (bench trial) or jury is what will forever be the whole story, even if it's not really the whole story.

Your friend used very poor judgment and hopefully the worst that will happen is that he loses his CCW. That's probably the best solution for him and the public.

Jeff

I guess you all have never seen how quickly an unarmed person can cover ground, attack and inflict damage. Not everyone squares up or dances like a boxer. I saw this woman on TV, trained in Krav Maga, kick guys a$$es. She covered ground unbelievably fast and attacked with deadly intent. You'd be lucky to have time to even draw on her.

I would agree he probley should loose his CCW permit

He won't tell me anymore.
All he tells me is it's a long story.

Which, more than likely, translates into "I'm not going to tell you the whole story because you won't take my side and I know it.".

If he could have simply driven away (and that is a big "if" since we do not have all of the details), but instead pulled his gun, I don't see this going well for him.

He needs to shut up and get a good attorney.

There must be a lot more to this that were not hearing. Just why was the woman approaching the vehicle in the first place?

Which, more than likely, translates into "I'm not going to tell you the whole story because you won't take my side and I know it.".

It could also mean that he is wisely keeping his mouth shut and letting his attorney speak for him. That is exactly what he should be doing.

Taken from...
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/self_defense.html

Q. What if I am in my vehicle?

A. A person has no duty to retreat in his lawfully occupied vehicle against a person who was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering or had unlawfully and forcefully entered an occupied vehicle or had unlawfully and forcefully removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the occupied vehicle.

Wishing your friend luck.

If he can afford an attorney, the investment would be well worth it.

A person has no duty to retreat in his lawfully occupied vehicle against a person who was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering

It's a tough call in Florida as thing stands now due to our new castle doctrine I can use deadly force to resist someone from entering my vehicle forcefully. I believe a lot of the hang up here is the fact that it was a woman who might have been trying to access the car. Mentally we all know a woman is every bit as dangerous as a man, but in practice I think a lot of us have trouble believing it in our hearts. Had the story read as follows: They got lost in downtown Orlando looking for the stadium ended up on the wrong street and while waiting at light stuck traffic a large man dressed like a gang banger rushed the car so my friend drew his firearm and told him to back off, many of the folks calling this a bad call would feel differently -- even though he was in no more or less danger in the second scenario.

Regardless, there is simply not enough information in the initial story to make a call on this, several things have been left out of the story.

1.) Where did this happen?
2.) Was it possible to move the car?
3.) What was the lead up to the rush towards the car?
4.) Did the woman actually touch the car?

I suspect that he will get off with warning, especially if he hires a good lawyer and he didn't say to much to the police.

Sounds like your friend may have a long hard road ahead of him.

I'm no lawyer but it sounds like they could get him on brandishing. He had very poor judgment and shouldn't have jumped the gun (sorry for the bad pun). If he keeps his right to carry then in the future he needs to analyze the situations better and make smarter decisions. Of course I wasn't there so maybe he had good enough reason, doesn't sound like it though:rolleyes:

I do not disagree with anyone here, because I can't. The sad case here is this, most of this discussion is at best, he is lucky if he gets off, but probably in a heap of trouble. What is the point in owning a gun, and carrying it, in a state that you are guilty first.

If a LEO feels threatened, he first draws his weapon, then determines whether deadly force is necessary. He does not care if the threat is armed.

This sounds like a very common situation where the LEO gives everyone a ticket, then lets the judge work it out.

I understand that the details are lacking, and the "unarmed woman" leads many to wonder, but it is outrages that we confine our discussions/efforts to wishing him good luck.

I am not a fan of unions, but it would be nice if there was a group, in his area, ready to stand up for a guy (If he was well intentioned).

I am glad that I live where the LEO's act like they are one of us.

(Sorry for the rant, if this guy was the threatening factor. I just get defensive of a man protecting his woman and/or children.)

A prime example of why we need more screening before handing out CCW permits. Some folks do not have what it takes to responsibly possess one.

A prime example of why we need more screening before handing out CCW permits.

FAIL

One more thing, the 2nd amendments intent is for one or many to defend them self. It may be rapped up in the concept of arming oneself, but it doesn't imply that one should arm them self, but only use those arms in their home or at the range. Ridiculous.

About a week ago, I read in a thread on thr where a writer explained that a person carrying concealed should be careful that his weapon not be noticeable, because that might be considered brandishing. I am grateful for threads like this, because they open my eyes to what is can be like elsewhere. This summer I will be crossing the country and I plan to carry where my permit will allow, but I realize that I may be the one in danger if I do.

Does anyone know of a link that clarifies, in very simple terms, what you need to know when you bring a weapon to a specific state? The information is out there, but not obvious. Also, it would be nice see what the general atmosphere is for or against gun owners. It would be nice to see graph for each state with 20 or so points compared.

Does anyone know of a link that clarifies, in very simple terms, what you need to know when you bring a weapon to a specific state?

http://www.handgunlaw.us

http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws/

Come on down to Georgia. We honor your ID permit and we don't have a brandishing law on the books as OC is perfectly legal for permitted individuals.

I used to live in MA, and although the Bay State has fewer off limits places for license holders than GA, printing your concealed weapon will get you aggressively arrested nine out of ten times in PRMA.

Glad I don't have to deal with that crap anymore.

A prime example of why we need more screening before handing out CCW permits. Some folks do not have what it takes to responsibly possess one.

-1 Rooter, the permit doesn't negate your right to defend yourself, it only negates certain laws the permit holder must abide by. If this guy was O.C.ing, he would still be dealing with same problems (outside of possibly loosing his permit).

I agree with lacoochee, there isn't enough info. However, I will side with the gun owner, who puts forward the effort to get a permit to carry concealed. Generally, the well intentioned person is the one who attempts to abide by the law.

Well I guess its smart your friend isn't talking about a pending legal case against him.

However, I get the sense from what you have said his reluctance to explain what happened may be for other reasons then being prudent.

The golden question here is; Why was this woman running at his car?

If they has some sort of negative interaction prior to this where the woman indicated she may use violence against him or his girlfriend, then pulling his gun may have been justified.

If it was just a random event where he looks over and sees a woman who is a stranger running at him and pulls a gun......well then he is in trouble.

It sound like there was some sort of interaction prior to him pulling his gun, i.e. he agreed to drop the assault charge against her.

Anyway....speculating seems to be an internet pass time. ;)

If she was attempting to enter the car, then he shouldn't have been charged. No one has clarified that. I just read this webpage, it explained this new Florida law.

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=188

It seems that your campsite is also protected.

Moga, if you wanna quote me, quote it all.

Any idiot in my area with the money for the class, who hasn't been caught commiting a crime, and isn't mentally retarded, generally gets a CCW permit. Open carry, concealed carry, doesn't matter to me. If you have the mentality that you need to pull a hogleg to quell something as minor as the OP posted, you have slipped through the cracks and should have been screened out.

I support the 2nd and advocate CCW, but believe the ease in which they are received creates a ticking time bomb situation. There is insufficient screening of applicants--I am sorry if that statement hurts some folks' feelings.

The 2nd amendment wasn't written with conceal permits in mind.

Any idiot in my area with the money for the class, who hasn't been caught commiting a crime, and isn't mentally retarded, generally gets a CCW permit. Open carry, concealed carry, doesn't matter to me. If you have the mentality that you need to pull a hogleg to quell something as minor as the OP posted, you have slipped through the cracks and should have been screened out.

I support the 2nd and advocate CCW, but believe the ease in which they are received creates a ticking time bomb situation. There is insufficient screening of applicants.

And how exactly do you propose that screening "catch" people like the friend of the OP before he's issued a CWP?

I think that people should be judged by the crimes they commit when they're committed. Forget about all that screening hogwash. That line of thought I hear enough from the Feinsteins and McCarthys of the world as it is. If this guy committed AA against an unarmed woman, FL will revoke his CWP and he'll go to jail. Problem solved.

Leave it up to those that can't discern the criminals from the law abiding to decide who is or isn't the ticking "timebomb" and none of us will have CWPs unless we can pass some a-holes psychological profile/moral character test, like they have in NYC or LA. No thank you.

BTW, I don't think the tone or intent of your opinion was harmed or altered by leaving out the second sentence of your post. The spirit of your opinion was distilled effectively by quoting your sentiments toward more restricted CWP issuance, which were found in the first sentence.

One other thing I got to admit. I'm surprised to hear opinions such as yours from someone that resides in OH. That is your state of residence, right? No matter. I thought for sure you'd be from a state that severely restricts CCW, like Jersey or Maryland. Some of the expressions and thought patterns that you use, such as gun carriers as time-bombs, referring to typical license applicants as idiots, your stated support of RKBA right before you say something that obliterates its spirit, and referring to the threshold for the issuance of a firearm license as too low and too widely available, sound as if they were lifted directly from the press office of VPC or similar. Curious. To each their own, however.

I don't know how things are where ever you live. But in my state, the people that shouldn't have licenses have been made ineligible for its issuance years before they even think of getting a GFL due to their own idiocy. In addition, GFL holders, according to the Georgia Bureau of Investigation given in testimony to the Georgia Assembly only two months earlier, have a lower incident of law infractions of any type than do GA law enforcement. We are not idiots, drunken rednecks, cowboys at the ready to settle any dispute with a gun, or any of the other stereotypes that non-gun owners tend to form about CCW holders. I tend to think that license holders are among the most law abiding in other states given what I've read about license revocation rates in MI, NC, TX, VA, FL, LA, and other places. OTOH, you seem to have a very dim impression of licensees. I'd be interested to hear the reason for this opinion if you are willing to continue this dialouge in a meaningful way.

I agree mewachee. If the suspect woman was truly a threat as deemed by the law, then the friend of the OP should not have been charged. Being that he was charged, coupled with his reluctance to be fully forthcoming in details with his bud, only cements in my mind that the facts in their entirety don't support his actions.

Ya' know, I hate to sound like a bitter, old biker, but this story violates one of the "rolling codes of honor."

Rule Number Seven, "Never interfere in a fight between two women."

Most times, even if you're trying to protect a battered woman, she will sober up, bail out her drunken townie husband and file charges against you before the whole matter gets played on "COPS."

In fact, the only time I stuck my nose into a fight involving my wife was when she yelled out, "Hey, dummy, get me a wet rag, this stupid tub o' lard is bleeding on my good dress..."

Don't do it, son. Ever. Ever. No matter how much it tugs on heart strings. Even if your friends belittle you at the moment it is happening. By the time the tequila haze has cleared, the lawyers have been consulted, a week's wages have been lost and your buddies are now denying they saw anything--you'll be there, holding the bag.

In the old days, biker woman used to wear a patch saying, "Property of The (fill in the name) MC." We got smarter.

We no longer own, we just 'rent.'

And one other thing rooter. Can you provide any anecdotal evidence to back up your assertion that the licensing process in FL or in any other state of your choice has seen their share of exploding CCW timebombs which could have been caught with better administrative controls? How about any data that shows how often licensees break the laws governing lawful firearm use or any other laws in general? Can you give us anything that substantiates your characterization of firearm license/permit holders as some type of threat waiting in the wings unbeknownst to the licensing authority and society?

Moga, the hogleg comment was not directed at you, it was a generalization and had nothing to do with the fact that you quoted only a portion of what I said. And FYI, a hogleg is slang for a gun. I am an Ohio transplant but technically not a resident, and I'll only be here for a short time before moving on. I grew up in a very gun friendly state. Unfortunately, the only way I see to thoroughly screen folks is by assessing their psychological traits. I knew what I said would not be popular, but it is how I feel. You do not have to agree and I do not aim to change any viewpoints.

Ever hear about one bad apple spoiling the whole bunch? Somewhere, someone is keeping tally of the actions of these time bombs and idiots, and it will be used to pass legislation to rescind shall issue laws. I support better screening to keep the minority from messing it up for you and me. If you do not think we have idiots with CCW's running around, I have some oceanfront land for sale in South Dakota.

And one other thing. Can you provide any supporting data to back up your assertion that the licensing process in FL or in any other state, which you feel is entirely too lax, has contributed to the number of resident law breakers in any statistically significant way? I'd also be interested in this data if you have it. Sure, see post #1 of this thread for starters.

I see where you are coming from but there isn’t any practical way to accomplish it. Unfortunately there isn’t a screening methodology for ‘stupid’. I’m not implying that the scenario described by the OP was stupid as I don’t know the facts. But many bad shootings do center around ‘stupid’.

Texas has one of (if not the most) stringent CHL programs in the country. Yet we still get a zinger now and then. A few years ago we had one. Perp is breaking into car. Owner arrives and perp jumps into his own car to escape. Owner pulls his gun and attempts to shoot out the tires of fleeing car. Fortunately no one was hurt but this simply screams of ‘stupid’. He went through the same process to get his CHL as did I.

Like Forest said “Stupid is as stupid does.”

Sure, see post #1 of this thread for starters.

You do realize how much of a straw-man that comment is, right?

At last I checked, FL has issued more than 1.3 million CWPs since 1996. There are over 640,000 active FL permits as of 4/30/08. One incident doesn't even begin to make your case for more stringent controls considering how many people with FL licenses actually exercise common sense every day while carrying their guns. Can you say "statistically insignificant?"

Are you sure you aren't a closeted anti?

I agree Elza, the only ways to thoroughly screen are invasive, costly, time consuming, and not foolproof. I do not have an answer as to the perfect screening process, but sitting through a class, taking a test, passing a simple background check, and packing a gun seems a little loose to me.

The mentality of some that it can only be handled reactively offers little consolation to the survivors of an innocent bystander killed because Bubba with a CCW decided to save the day by drawing and firing a round when it was not necessary.

You do realize how much of a straw-man that comment is, right?

At last I checked, FL has issued more than 1.3 million CWPs since 1996. There are over 640,000 active FL permits as of 4/30/08. One incident doesn't even begin to make your case for more stringent controls considering how many people with FL licenses actually exercise common sense every day while carrying their guns. Can you say "statistically insignificant?"

You asked, I gave you a place to start. Lets not pretend that this is the only incident in Florida. We both know that there are likely many incidents, both reported and unreported. If you would like to pay me to research it (my going rate is 75.00 per hour with a 2 hour minimum for such tasks) I'll provide a complete six sigma statistical report.

Are you sure you aren't a closeted anti? Are you sure you are not trying to take this low road and make it personal?

Before we get any further off topic, its nighty night time for me. Good evening all.

Are you sure you are not trying to take this low road and make it personal?

Certainly not. Given your comments, I didn't think my question was below the belt, since you kinda opened yourself up to that criticism.

Touche.

Rooter, I think you are way off base here.

Moga, +1.

Moga is right on.

Rooter you do sound an awful like you have been drinking the water in north Jersey.

Mostly, I still can't get over the fact that someone other than my great grandfather used the phrase "hog leg" naturally in a sentence in 2008. ;)

More to the point Rooter, in the early 80's the FBI conducted an intense study of several psy profile testing methodologys and arrived at the conclusion that NONE of them could indicate future performance. In specific mention was the MMPI, which is still a fall back for the admn cya types.

Simply stated, it is impossible to predict future behavior. Any and all of those test modalities are at their core subjective as hell and fail to do what they purport. Further, the intrusiveness of such an approach is such that it is on it's face the equivilant of the Jim Crow 'poll tax', serving to discourage the excercise of a civil right.

By the way, you in LE?


See FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 2/82...pps 18 thru 20.

I really dont think there is enough info present here to start making justifications or condemnations. Happens here a little too much.

I hate to admit, however, there are a lot of folks that I think should not have a permit to carry a pack of gum. If I feel like Im having a bad day (getting mad or something), I actually take my gun off and leave it at home. I would rather be killed by a mugger (if it comes to that) rather than pull on someone b/c they cut me off in traffic or "look like they are going to mug me". It sounds stupid, I know, but its a choice on my part to regulate my behavior. I only carry if I am going to a place I dont 100% trust (downtown or surrounding areas). Heck there was a story of someone here in Indy (proud and stating it on another forum) that he reached for his weapon (didnt pull it or sweep his shirt aside, but reached for it) b/c a Walmart greeter would not let him leave until he showed him a reciept. Too many are the Rambo, Kill em all and let God sort them out, death before dishonor, paranoid types that have access to not only weapons, but also the ability to carry them. And, unfortunately, this ability to carry gives them a power complex in many cases that is highly unjustified in ANY situation. They believe themselves peace officers, not understanding that the permit is for THEIR defense, not society at large. If the police have no mandate to protect me (as per that supreme court case, I cant remember), then it is not my job to protect society unless something threatens the constitution (which our mandate to protect that as civilians is very well defined)

I am not saying further screening is necessary or less screeening is necessary. However, individuals should take the time to look at their personalities and deem it justifiable for them to have a firearm licence.

To be honest, I feel this sort of arguement and the OP friend's situation/incident gives antis ammunition for their arguements. Too many people on the planet now, and too many ideas of "everyone's out to get me" (a common problem with congested areas). I have learned ways of looking at my environment, but not being paranoid. FROM WHAT IT SOUNDS LIKE TO ME (this is my OPINION, not fact, so lets keep this civil), the OPs friend was a little jumpy (Ive met folks that own permits that if you let out a loud fart, they would draw). Its not to blame the system or the permit situation, but potentially the person. However, like I said before, there is not enough info posted to give an accurate view of the situation.

Many times, I believe the Anti's have a few points that are true. This will get people angry, but if I have an anti-friend or family member, I ask for their view point and listen to them. I analyze their arguement, then give my view on the issue (not my OPINION on the issue, there is a huge difference). Too many people plug their ears whenever anything anti comes along (doesnt even have to be guns, any politics) and yell at the top of their lungs. Why not keep things "High Road"? The easiest way to combat that which opposes you is to understand it, by knowing their points of arguement as well as your own (I learned that in college-school :D). Know your enemy.

Well, we could start with a genetic testing for predisposed mental and political leanings at birth; then destroy the batch that we don't like. What do we do with the few that make it through? Oh I have it, destroy everyone, then there will be no chance that one bad apple will get through.

Come on, the constitution and the law should not discriminate against any group, except those that act against them. Some of us are Alpha Dogs, and we will stare down the bad guys, this is not a mental condition.

I agree Elza, the only ways to thoroughly screen are invasive, costly, time consuming, and not foolproof. I do not have an answer as to the perfect screening process, but sitting through a class, taking a test, passing a simple background check, and packing a gun seems a little loose to me.

If you think that is a little loose, try it up here in New Hampshire where the "sitting through a class" and "taking a test" parts are unnecessary. :eek:

The mentality of some that it can only be handled reactively offers little consolation to the survivors of an innocent bystander killed because Bubba with a CCW decided to save the day by drawing and firing a round when it was not necessary.

Your mentality that it should be handled proactively offers little consolation to the survivors of a crime victim murdered because the victim was unable to prove that he would not misuse a concealed firearm and so did not have adequate tools for his own defense.

+10 for Moga and Mewachee.

Based on BattleChimp's post, if I were a member of the decision-making council, I would vote that he not have a permit, given his admitted inability to control his emotions, requiring that he self-disarm before driving. Is that reasonable, BCP?

The last thing we need is more government intrusion into determining who can, and who cannot, exercise God-given rights in this country.

If you read it all the way through, I did not agree with more or less screening for permits. Like I said about the anti arguement, read/listen to all of someone's arguement before making a comment.

That being said, Then according to my arguement (as I posted), then yes, I should not have a CCW. I dont get angry in traffic, however, we all have bad days. We may be short with people. If I feel that I am having a bad day, I self-disarm. Not too many other people can claim they have enough self control to do so. Its not that I fly off the handle, but I dont want ANY, and I MEAN ANY reason to even draw a weapon in anger. I have noticed in recent posts where people fill their hands, its usually something done in the heat of anger/passion/ignorance, not necessarily in defence. I have filled my hand ONCE for defense. I do not like it. But, I have never filled my hand in anger because of my views as stated in a previous post.

I guess, if I had to take a side (as I seem to be forced to here) about more or less control, then I choose less. Humans should be able to control their tempers/nerves enough to carry a weapon responsibly. Realistically, if they were a jumpy nutcase, screening or not, they would carry anyway, one day pulling a hogleg on a SUV with kids because someone didnt use a turnsignal. Its just like the ridiculous idea of waiting periods for guns: All the most horrific shootings in our country done in states/cities with waiting periods were with guns purchased then waited upon. If someone is going to shoot someone else, nothing will stop them from doing so.

A CCW would allow a jumpy guy to carry legally (nothing wrong so far), but they would be punished the same as a non-ccw-er if its an illegitimate shooting. The only problem, is that if a CCW-er does an illegitimate shooting, then it ruins it for the rest of the CCW community.

Well, we could start with a genetic testing for predisposed mental and political leanings at birth

However, this assumes that the society chooses the right values and views.

For example, the Spartans set a standard, and killed the rest of the children.

And what about me? I'm bipolar. But for the first thirty years of my life, it was an asset. Being tough and contrary got me through living in the home of an alcoholic, a cycle club and as a professional bill collector.

I hate to quote trashy movies, but a fine actor, Richard Crenna is his role of Col. Trautman remarked, "What you call hell he calls home."

Frankly, I needed to be bipolar. My brother, a normal, suffered for many years.

To this debate, what does a differing point of view mean to those with CCW licenses? It means everything.

The OP pulled a firearm. He knows that he is responsible for that firearm, every round, and all provisions of the law which provides him with this privilege.

And you know something, to him, this action might have proved prudent, and I would not second guess those actions or his state of mind. I will add that he also knows he has to carry the full weight of society's laws.

But we don't live in Sparta. We are a society of complex people with adverse opinions.

I would have done nothing. A screaming woman, spinning around in a parking lot, threatening death, with blood and spittle streaming from her lips (excuse me, poetic license) in the act of a deranged townie? BTDTBTTS.

I call that "Tuesday."

I wasn't there so I can't really comment on your friend's dilemma. I will say however, that his first instinct should have been to retreat from the threat if possible. If getting in the car, locking the doors and driving away was possible, he should have done that. If not, locking the doors and calling 911 should have been the next step. If she then pulls a weapon, different story.

What do you guys think will happen??
It depends on how much he gave away. If he blabbed to the police, oh boy.

1. Pull out all the stops with the best lawyer available and refuse to deal, maybe a prosecutor will decide it's not worth the People's resources;
2. Blab to cops and prosecutor and plea deal, and lose lots of rights.

People that carry guns will lose their rights and threaten my rights by acting in ignorance.

My friend talked to a lawyer 1000 bucks to start on case .He did say they keep changing the charges and he was worried they would come arrest him at work.
Found out the woman only could have been charged with battery not assault.

My friend talked to the cops too much about guns what they carry ,what caliber they use and how often they shoot.

Your friend needs to sell any other guns he owns or any other property he has of any value to raise the money to pay for a good lawyer. Defending yourself in court is not something you do on the cheap. The possible consequences of no defense or a bad defense will change his life forever.

Jeff

The Tourist, complete sarcasm. I stand on the side of God given right, and that society should only take the right if "you" prove your inability to carry exercise such right or follow "good" law.

the state has the right to continue with any charges it seem fit to,even tho both partys dropped their charges,its going to be up to the district attorney

Rooter you do sound an awful like you have been drinking the water in north Jersey.

Actually, the water is very good in north Jersey. It's the politics that are in the sewer.

The Tourist, complete sarcasm.

I'm sorry, but I thought I directed my coments to the real issue when I bold/underlined the words "this privilege." It is my belief that while CCW licenses are a great thing and I wish my state had one, I'm sorry that this concept is viewed as a privilege (which can be taken away) rather than the enumerated right as intended by The Framers.

In point of fact, I thought I had offered the same idea that you wrote.

And let me add another thing, lest I be misquoted for someone other's postulate.

Unless the woman running at the car was Ziva David or Raye Hollitt, I think firearms was a bit over the top.

The woman could have simply been a concerned citizen returning a dropped bottle of Viagra.

Without the facts, any supposition is a rush to judgment.

Too little real information, too much wandering.