[Sawdust]

Let's say I'm carrying openly on my own property and, for whatever reason (let's assume that they do *not* suspect me of commiting a crime), the police show up. Can they disarm me?

For example...say I wake up at night and I think that someone is in my house. SOP for me is to gather my family from their respective bedrooms and exit the house into the garage adjoining the bedrooms. Now we call the cops; when they arrive, I open the garage door to let them in.

I would be still armed at this time. I can see the possibility that they would ask for my weapon (maybe they think for their own safety; putting myself in their place, I can grudgingly understand the request). Do I have to surrender my gun?

I don't think that I should have to, and I especially don't want to in this situation. The officers are (presumably) going to leave me and my family and enter my house, and the last thing I want is to be gunless if they flush a BG my way.

So, what are my rights while on my property?

Thanks,

Sawdust

[Hkmp5sd]

Yes, for their own safety, they can disarm you until they determine who you are and whether or not you are a threat.

A good rule of thumb is to not be armed when opening the door to allow uniformed officers inside, especially when you are the one that called them and reported criminal activity. They don't automatically know the good guys from the bad guys.

[jnojr]

Well, right or wrong, if the officers decide you need to be disarmed, and you reject their decision, there's going to be trouble. You would face arrest and possibly being hurt or shot. Sure, later on, you would have grounds to argue your case, but there isn't much chance that you'll prevail.

[Richard.Howe]

In the spirit of the original question -- I've often thought about carrying my 4" 686 for snakes when cutting the grass. See any issues with open carry on your front lawn, while pushing the old Toro?

[oldfart]

There was a time several years ago when I was awakened in the middle of the night by someone knocking on my back door. Since the porch light was off I couldn't see who it was, so I kept a loaded gun in my hand until I had the door open. When I saw it was a police officer, I simply laid the gun on top of the refrigerator and continued the conversation. He didn't appear to be upset with me or my gun.

[Cosmoline]

I'm having similar concerns, magnified by the fact that my property is five acres of mostly woodlot. A month ago a trooper just wandered onto the lot, ignoring the enormous "NO TRESPASSING" and "BEWARE OF ATTACK DOGS" signs. He was trying to track down a witness who supposedly lived in the area. As it turned out the only dog on patrol was a friendly pup, but it could have just as easily been a much less agreeable adult. Or I might have been packing. I think I"m going to have to put up a tall fence to avoid any further problems. Unless you have a fence people are just going to wander onto your land. It doesnt' matter how many signs you put up, folks will just figure if they have something important to ask the sign doesn't apply to them. :rolleyes:

Whatever happened to standing at the road and yelling "hello the cabin!"

[Michigander]

I know of someone who was standing on his porch with a .22 rifle. The police came, I'm not sure who called them. The asked him to relinquish the rifle for the time being and he asked if he had to and they said no. He did not relinquish his rifle.

FWIW.

[sumpnz]

Far as I'm concerned if I'm on my own property, and the cops show up for something other than to arrest me I will not disarm unless I feel that it is the most reasonable thing to do. In that case they won't even have to ask. If they demand that I disarm they will have to convince me that I need to leave my property first. Once off my property I will disarm if requested, but they better have a darn good reason for me to leave my property voluntarily. Otherwise they can either leave the property or accept my being armed. If that gets me into trouble, well, that's what the courts are for. If they threaten to use lethal force to get me to disarm, well, I'll probably acquiesce, but soon as they leave I'll be calling a lawyer about filing a civil suit.

[Hkmp5sd]

that's what the courts are for.
It isn't a whole lot of fun being a test case for your interpretation of your civil rights. If the LEOs feel the need to disarm you, regardless of your reasoning, they will disarm you. Being dead or in prison with a felony conviction (and permanent ban on owning firearms) isn't the best option.

[Blackcloud6]

If that gets me into trouble, well, that's what the courts are for.

... and undertakers.

Your best bet is to obey the rules that Chris Rock puts out in his "How to Avoid being Beat up By the Police" video.

Look, if you get involved with a confrontation with the police, and your firearm is involved, you'll likely lose; eithe r the fight that will happen or the court case to follow.

Don't escalate a situation.

Prudence would say to do what they tell you to do without arguement

[sumpnz]

Being dead or in prison with a felony conviction (and permanent ban on owning firearms) isn't the best option. Yes, but ... If they threaten to use lethal force to get me to disarm, well, I'll probably acquiesce, but soon as they leave I'll be calling a lawyer about filing a civil suit. I wouldn't want to spend the multiples of $10,000 on a suit, nor endure the stress of such a suit, but in the end I'd consider it money well spent. Notice though that in my post I was careful to at least try and make it sound like I would not be overly confrontational and at least make an attempt to assuage the police by either disarming before even asked, or leaving the property if .

[geekWithA.45]

I can't find the link to the threads, but Labgrade did not have a good experience.

Summary:

Labgrade goes out into his property armed to investigate strange goings on, wearing only thin shorts, without holster.

Cops and Labgrade stumble into each other in the dark.

Bad interaction, but no one is hurt.

Labgrade conducts himself reasonably, but imperfectly. Police conduct themselves a great deal less reasonably. Prosecutor conducts self badly. After 8(?) months and much moolah, Labgrade eventually pleads guilty to minor BS misdemeanor charges, rather than duke it out.

[Gordon Fink]

Concealed means concealed.

Well, somebody had to say it. :D

~G. Fink

Would save a lot of trouble anyway.

[P95Carry]

I think maybe it is hard to generalize .... circumstances and locations (and states) alter events. Oh and - the cop/cops, on the day!

I always carry ... open at home, concealed elsewhere ... and mow without being too concerned who sees. If (and statistically very unlikely) a cruiser stopped outside - maybe to ask some simple run of mill question, I would not expect much hassle and would not try and hide the piece.

If however I had called the cops for some reason (non urgent ) and they were making a specific call - to my front door, then I'd not be surprised to be asked to place the piece somewhere other than on my person, tho I'd aquiesce reluctantly.

If OTOH a visit was a follow up to an emergency then I reckon I'd either leave piece off once knowing it was (genuine) cops at door - or more readily agree to being (temporarily) disarmed.

Again tho - generalizations are not that easy.

[Andrew Rothman]

geekWithA.45 -

For the record, Labgrade, may he rest in peace, was not on his own property (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=58241). He was either in the road or on his neighbor's property, checking out some hubbub at the neighbor's house.

I agree that he was treated poorly, but he exercised some bad judgement (as I point out in my reply (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=58241#post712850)).

I'm not trying to speak ill of the dead. I'm just recounting what I told him directly.

And I still miss him. :(

[Double Naught Spy]

Sawdust, while you don't feel the cops should be able to confiscate your gun from you on your own property, the reason for doing so is pretty clear. First, they have no idea if you are the home owner or the suspected intruder. For all they know, the intruder might have tied up or killed your family including yourself. So they disarm you. It is the prudent thing for them to do.

Now think about it for a moment. The police respond to a 911 call about an intruder at your home and they don't know who you are. The police would not be surprised to find the intruder armed.

I can understand not wanting to be gunless should the cops flush him. With that in mind, if you suspect an intruder is in the home and the cops go in searching for the intruder, why are you staying so close to your house with your family? If you believe the intruder is still in the house, then you should be as far away from the threat as is reasonably possible, especially because you have your family with you.

Remember, the greater the distance you are away from the threat, the less likely the threat is to act on doing something to you.

If keeping your gun is an issue, then answer the door with the gun concealed. They are not likely to try to take from you if they can't see it or know it is there.

[Stand_Watie]

Cajuncoona

You know your neighbors a lot better than I do, would they call the police? While it's entirely legal every place that I've lived, I'd say whether or not it is likely to cause a problem is totally dependant upon local attitudes.

In rural east texas, no problem whatsoever except for that your pistol gets full of dust/sand if you don't have some sort of coverall type holster.

If I ever get the dang thing working right I'm going to use my little .22 revolver for a snake gun as it's just the right size for a pocket.

[2nd Amendment]

Some of this would depend on familarity. I know all the cops in the county. They know me to one degree or another. As such I find it highly unlikely they are going to ask me to disarm on my own property. That is going to make a big difference for anyone and one of the reasons I have always believed it's a good idea for people to know their local cops. At least those in more rural areas where there aren't that many cops you have to have at least a passing aquaintance with. Being known as one of the good guys, or at least not overtly dangerous, :) helps.

[SC_shooter]

In the spirit of the original question -- I've often thought about carrying my 4" 686 for snakes when cutting the grass. See any issues with open carry on your front lawn, while pushing the old Toro?

Cajuncoona,

I do this all the time but it's usually either a 38 snubnose or a 357 blackhawk. You would surprised how little time salesman spend at your house when you you come over to them when you're out doing yardwork and they get a glimpse of your hogleg.

I don't give a rat's ass whether my neighbors like it or not.

paul

[The Real Hawkeye]

So, what are my rights while on my property?You seem not to be aware that this is no longer the America it used to be. Things that are perfectly within your rights will get you killed by government agents, and the law will not punish them. It will be determined that the officer was justified in shooting you for your refusal to disarm yourself on your own property. You will be dead (unless you are faster on the draw and a decent shot) and he will receive psychological services to help him get over the supposed trauma caused by shooting you. You have the right to cut trees down on your property, to build structures there, to drain standing water, but all of these things will ultimately get you killed by government if you don't get the right permits first. I mean literally killed, because if you do not drop your drawers and bend over on demand, our government will quite literally kill you. So it is not so much any longer a question of your rights on your property because, although you have many, the government hasn't been in the business of protecting or respecting your rights in a long time. The days when the phrase, "A man's home is his castle," was a doctrine of law in this country are long since over. I, for one, am in favor of reining our government back in, and making it once again our servent rather than our master. This, however, is highly unlikely to ever happen. It will much more likely, based on the lessons of history, continue to get worse.

P.S. Most murder victims, in the history of the modern world, were murdered by their own governments. How unbelievable that it is government that wishes us to be disarmed by them, supposedly for our own good.

[FedDC]

There is no truly universal answer, but the most universal answer would be yes, the armed person encountered by the police will be disarmed until the situation gets sorted out and everyone figures out who is who and who did what to whom.

As far as refusing...I can see that going badly and ending up with matching silver jewelry on each wrist...or worse.

I would think that it largely depends on the circumstances as in, are the officers responding to a 911 call of an intruder or are they just collecting for the PBA. ALso, things are different in rural areas where people are more commonly armed on their farms as opposed to downtown DC where guns are a no no.

All in all, my thought is that respect and courtesy goes both ways. The Officer will ask nicely (Hopefully) and if a nice reply is given, everything stays friendly. If it gets ugly, it can get very ugly very fast with guns laying around.

[TonyB]

Right after I got married and moved to the "woods",my Father and I were shooting in the back yard.I had called the neighbors on either side to let them know we would be shooting.After about 20 minutes or so we were taking a break(it was winter and freezing).we walked back out side to find a LEO in the yard(up to his shins in snow)...I was holding my 10/22 w/ folding stock,and my Father had his .45 Detonics.We all kind of looked at eachother for a moment,and I said"what's up?"The Leo said"your neighbors called saying someone was shooting."I said I had told them I was going to,but he said they were people about a mile away....He looked around at where we were shooting(safe berm and stuff).He said"well it looks like you're being safe,I just had to check it out.Have a good day."
Never asked to disarm,no hassles at all.....gotta love my Town.
I have shot in the yard many times after with no one calling the cops and only one neighbor incident(she's bi-polar,and wanted to talk to me while I was shooting).....:cool:

[halvey]

In the spirit of the original question -- I've often thought about carrying my 4" 686 for snakes when cutting the grass. See any issues with open carry on your front lawn, while pushing the old Toro? Just thinking about that image makes me smile.:)

A nice lawn, a nice gun, the American dream house in the back....America...:)

[Sawdust]

Great discussion gentlemen; thanks for all of your replies...it has been interesting to see the myriad of thoughts.

I think that FedDC has summed it up the best; particularly his final paragraph.

Sawdust

[flatrock]

I would expect that if I called the police to my home about an intruder and they found me armed they would want to hold onto my gun until they had things sorted out.

I don't like it, but I understand it.

Of course the spot I would likely be locked in my master beedroom, and I'd ask them to clear the rest of the house before opening the door. I'd still be on the phone with 911, so they could verify that I was the one who called.

I need to find a good way to meet some of the local police. I know a number of them from where I lived previously, but I just moved to a new area.

If I ever have to call the police to come to my house I think it would be safer for me if they recognized me.

[Mixlesplick]

If you call 911 it may be a good idea to give a brief physical description of yourself. If the police get the description of the person calling they may be less inclined to disarm that person upon arrival. Just a thought.

[madcowburger]

Cosmoline has the right idea about a high fence, and I do mean a *high* one. Signs don't have any effect. But a lot of these characters are too fat to climb, or even to walk more than a few steps from their cars.

If I ever have any real estate with any significant acreage, and the money to do things the way I want on it, I think I'll adopt a *layered* approach to keeping public as well as private sector intruders the hell out.

The whole perimeter of the property would be fenced, or as much of it as feasible, depending on the terrain. (I'd like a fair proportion of it to be pretty rugged, even straight up and down, or close to it.)

If feasible, there would be a long private drive from the nearest public road, and there would be a gate, kept locked, across the entrance to the drive.

Further in, more formidable obstacles would be encountered, the further in, the more formidable. If there's a creek or dry creek bed or wide, deep ditch that needs to be bridged, I might consider some sort of bridge that could be withdrawn or hastily taken down or taken apart.

The house itself might not be so much a single building as a complex of buildings facing a central courtyard. The buildings' backs would face outward. There'd be either no external windows there or else only very small ones, more loopholes than windows. Even upper floor windows would be heavily shuttered.

Any gaps between the structures would be walled. I mean a high, thick wall, with some kind of overhang at the top to make scaling it trickier. The main entrance to the courtyard would be gated, even double-gated, in the manner of a gatehouse, if that could be afforded and arranged. Maybe with a sharp right-angle turn or two worked in there, to make vehicular ramming attacks tougher.

Anyhow, if anyone from the private or public sector wanted to attack, rob, or disarm me, or otherwise violate my rights, they'd have to get to me first. No, that would be second. First they'd have to figure out if I or anyone else was even in there. They might not know for sure until they tried to force entrance.

Even if I spoke to them through the gate(s), or via an intercom, or even if I showed myself on a high balcony or terrace, and they started ordering me to disarm, how would they make me do it? (Other than sniping me from far off, I mean.) Suppose I just bade them a good day and a polite farewell, went back in, buttoned up, and waited? How bad would they want it? Even if they really wanted to give me the patented Donald Scott treatment, they'd have to work a lot harder to do it. They couldn't just walk up and kick in the door like they did his back in 1992.

MCB

[The Real Hawkeye]

MCB, I like your idea. While in Eugene Oregon I met someone with a situation very similar to what you describe. My girlfriend knew this very wealthy married couple. They invited us to their home. She'd been there a few times before. We drove to the base of a mountain where a narrow private road took us up. After fifty yards or so, there was a gate with an intercom. You pushed the button to ring them, and then a voice responded. There was also a video camera so they could see us at the gate from the house. After they determined it was us, they electronically opened the gate. Now you had to drive another couple hundred yards up the mountain side. They owned the mountain, apparently. Eventually we came to the top, where their developed property was. A very large estate house, with a few other structures around it. There was a heliport as well, with a helicopter. There was also a private chapel with their own full time priest, who lived in his own private rectory on the grounds (They were traditional Catholics). The gun room was a walk in vault, with a bank style vault door. It doubled as a bomb shelter, with it's own filtered air supply, and stored essentials. It was quite a sight to see.

You don't have to be that elaborate, however. Jeff Cooper has some house designs that would be quite secure against both types of intruders. He bases them on Medieval castle and keep designs. Some concepts are such as constructing so that no one may approach any doorway without entering a "death funnel," i.e., they must walk a corridor parallel to the wall to get to any doorway. Then double doors. Additionally, there is a gun port from the house which would allow a person inside to direct fire down the "death funnel" at will, eliminating any massed threat. Also, the narrowness of the corridor makes battering rams impossible. Sounds cool.

[madcowburger]

Yes, I read that chapter in his book, back in the Eighties. The schematic drawings and general advice were helpful to me as far as they went, but I could have used more specifics about some things.

I understand that Col. Cooper's house, the Sconce, embodies some of those tactical principles, but I don't know much about its general, overall design. I only ever saw one picture of it, and I couldn't tell much about it, not even its main construction material.

Anyhow, it sounds like your friends there in Eugene, Oregon have a nice setup there. I congratulate them, and Col. Cooper too, on knowing how to live and having the means to do it. Unfortunately I imagine that if I ever do anything along these lines at all, I will have to do things more cheaply than I would like.

I wish I was the kind of genius who could do a lot with a little. I hope that by carefully selecting a building site with some natural defensibility I might save some construction costs and time. The right piece of land itself might be relatively cheap too, since I doubt it would be any good for farming or for ordinary housing or commercial development.

MCB

[artherd]

The only way I will accept disarmament is with a sizeable police protection contingent, and removal from the scene.

If that isn't an option, I would politely ask that I be allowed to remain armed, show ID that I lived there, etc.

In the end, if the officers belive there to be an immediate threat to officer safety, they are authorized to disarm and detain any person.

[joab]

the last thing I want is to be gunless if they flush a BG my way. Another good reason for LEO to disarm you.
They have no way of knowing how familiar you are with firearms or tactics. This is your huse you most likely are jumpy and pumped up and armed and ready a bad comination when dealing with people who are not familiar to you or you to them..
If I was the cop that you called to help you out I would disarm you if I could if I did not have the power to do that I would leave.

[The Real Hawkeye]

Another good reason for LEO to disarm you.
They have no way of knowing how familiar you are with firearms or tactics. This is your huse you most likely are jumpy and pumped up and armed and ready a bad comination when dealing with people who are not familiar to you or you to them..
If I was the cop that you called to help you out I would disarm you if I could if I did not have the power to do that I would leave.Joab, this reasoning could apply both ways. I don't know that the responding officer is not a loose cannon. I don't know him from Adam, never having seen him before. Should I insist, therefore, that he hand me his sidearm as soon as he enters my property, for my own safety? If he refuses, should I neutralize him, again for my own personal safety? How do you like it now that the shoe is on the other foot?

[Art Eatman]

This thread is another example why I so often comment that there's no "One size fits all." The deal will vary with urban vs. rural. It will vary with the "atmosphere" of a community. Some of us will know or have acquaintance with the responding officers; others won't.

The officers can't readily know who's a good guy and who's not, so that's gotta be factored into the equation. If you as a complainant have felt the need to be armed, the officers are supposed to know they're headed into a potentially dangerous situation. So, cut them some slack; they're nervous, just as any of us would be in those circumstances.

We may or may not like the laws under which we live. Well, tough. They exist. Period. So, the law says that responding officers CAN and MAY (or even SHALL) control the situation as they see fit. To me, then, there's no point in creating any more problems than already exist. For me, if I've felt the need to ready myself to use deadly force, and have called the cops for assistance, I see no need to worry further after they arrive. If my disarming makes them feel safer, fine by me. I'm not saying I like it, but I dislike unnecessary hassle even more.

Heck, if I give grief, the next time I need help the response time might be measured in weeks...

:), Art

[joab]

Joab, this reasoning could apply both ways. I don't know that the responding officer is not a loose cannon. I don't know him from Adam, never having seen him before. Should I insist, therefore, that he hand me his sidearm as soon as he enters my property, for my own safety? If he refuses, should I neutralize him, again for my own personal safety? How do you like it now that the shoe is on the other foot? If you dont want to allow the cop to do the job that you call him to do because he is trained to do it , don't call and ask for his service.
If you are scared that the BGs are still in the house go stand outside with one of the other LEOs or by their cars.
The shoe is in no way on the other foot, why in the world would I request a service and then demand that the service technician surrender his tools as I tell him how to do his job.
My opinion comes from 20+ years as a pest control service tech and manager. The most frustrating thing we have to deal with is the home owner that thinks we are just some $5/hour high school dropout that they have to tell how to do the job.
Like the cop, although less important, I am doing something the HO is unwilling or unable to do. I have training and education that you have very little clue of except what you have heard or seen on TV, but yet somehow you know better than than the pros.

[liliysdad]

Chances are pretty good that if you call the police for an active burglar in your home, with a weapon, etc, that when the police arrive, you will be cuffed and detained, for your safety, and the officers, until the house is cleared, and it id determined who is who...this is standard practice. If you refuse to disarm, you will be disarmed...Period. No cop in his right, sane, mind will allow the homeowner, or anyone else, to run around an active crime scene with a weapon.

[Sindawe]

liliysdad said:

No cop in his right, sane, mind will allow the homeowner, or anyone else, to run around an active crime scene with a weapon.

So when on an active crime scene, do you disarm other LEOs? They are running around with weapons. :D

Joking aside, serous questiuon. LEOs, when responding to a call at another LEOs home (presuming you know the caller is a LEO), do/would you disarm the caller/LEO? If not, why not?

[The Real Hawkeye]

If you dont want to allow the cop to do the job that you call him to do because he is trained to do it , don't call and ask for his service.If it was I who called him, then I would extend every courtesy, as he'd be doing me a service. If, however, it was my neighbor who called him because I was seen carrying on my own property, I would find the suggestion that I disarm myself greatly offensive. A policeman doesn't necessarily know anything about anybody they happen to see at any given time. Should they insist that everyone they see on the street disarm themselves until the officer can do a check on who they are? You cannot see the indignity of the situation because you were raised in a time and area where that was considered acceptable. It is not acceptable to a free man, however.

[madcowburger]

I find it harder and garder to imagine any circumstances under which I would call police to my home.

I find it harder and harder to imagine them as less of a threat to than protectors of my liberty, dignity, and safety.

I wish there weren't any police at all, and that all Americans still enjoyed the full, free exercise of all their rights, all the time. Crime would soon disappear, since not many things would be illegal anymore (certainly exercising one's rights would no longer be illegal), and most real criminals would soon be wiped out in the absence of the police state tyranny that protects them.

I wish this was the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave again, instead of this police state we're in now.

MCB

[Sam]

They wouldn't be buying any more guns for a long long time

Sam

[joab]

You cannot see the indignity of the situation because you were raised in a time and area where that was considered acceptable. It is not acceptable to a free man, however. You assume way to much about me. You have no idea of where, when,or by whom I was raised
Even a cursory read of the thread and my posts would show that my responses were to the example given.
For example...say I wake up at night and I think that someone is in my house. SOP for me is to gather my family from their respective bedrooms and exit the house into the garage adjoining the bedrooms. Now we call the cops; when they arrive, I open the garage door to let them in.
I would be still armed at this time. I can see the possibility that they would ask for my weapon (maybe they think for their own safety; putting myself in their place, I can grudgingly understand the request). Do I have to surrender my gun?
Should a cop disarm me just because he saw me in my yard with a sidearm? Of course not.
Would I comply? Probably not, sometimes lawsuits and complaints usually go further when there are no legitimate charges against you

But then again maybe I would. But that would only be because contrary to your assumption I was raised and live in an area where the most any LEO has ever done is run my gun to see if it was stolen. And that was when I was committing a minor misdemeaner at the time.

[Art Eatman]

madcowburger, you're dreaming of a time that never was and never will be. And you've been living around the wrong kind of people, near as I can tell. Me, I've found a pretty fair number of good guys in my community, whether non-LEO or LEO.

:), Art

[tcsd1236]

I wish there weren't any police at all, and that all Americans still enjoyed the full, free exercise of all their rights, all the time. Crime would soon disappear, since not many things would be illegal anymore (certainly exercising one's rights would no longer be illegal), and most real criminals would soon be wiped out in the absence of the police state tyranny that protects them.
THAT is a pipe dream. There WAS a time when there was no official police force in this country. In spite of beinga rural backward country, crime was still occuring, which led to the formation of the police force. Your little nirvana where the honest people would police themselves is nothing but a pipe dream. Your scenario would result in a situation where might would make right, not the honest guy winning over the bad guy like some Jimmy Stewart movie. You really want to live in that kind of a country? I sure don't.

We protect criminals? Give us a break and come down off your cloud and back to reality.

[Coronach]

The problem with saying "the cops won't disarm me" is that often the homeowner has no idea why the cops are there. Sometimes its to look for a man with a gun who ran through your yard, and happens to fit your rough physical description. Hey look...you're a man with a gun, in that yard, and roughly that height-weight, and wearing similar clothes. Gee, lets all do the math here. Before we scoff and say "oh, pshaw, that never happens!" Yes, in fact, it does. In my experience it ended well because the person involved immediately dropped the gun, was detained briefly, and then was immediately cut loose with a reminder that coming out to investigate all of the cops running around while armed with a shotgun might not be the best course of action. It could have gotten very ugly indeed, though, with lots of needless drama and yelling (and possibly shooting).

If you're the caller, remember that the cops don't know that. And, actually, depending on the run and the situation, it is not at all uncommon for the bad guy to be the one who called the police (very common on domestics, for instance). Just because you called doesn't mean the cops know you did. And even if they do, they're still going to be wary of you until they get a better feel for whats going on. Openly toting a gun in this scenario is not a good idea. Yes, its your property. Yes, its your right. This would be one of those instances where exercising it might not be wise, however, as the police have the power to detain and disarm people in a volatile situation.

Mike

[The Real Hawkeye]

We protect criminals? Give us a break and come down off your cloud and back to reality.The way you protect criminals is by arresting and prosecuting those who deal with criminals the way free men ordinarily and naturally deal with them. Another way you protect them is by enforcing laws which disarm the honest citizen, so that he cannot deal with criminals the way free men ordinarily and naturally deal with them. You provide a victim-rich environment for criminals by disarming the law abiding and creating an atmosphere in which most law abiding people are afraid to take natural defensive actions in response to criminals.

[tcsd1236]

The way you protect criminals is by arresting and prosecuting those who deal with criminals the way free men ordinarily and naturally deal with them. Another way you protect them is by enforcing laws which disarm the honest citizen, so that he cannot deal with criminals the way free men ordinarily and naturally deal with them. You provide a victim-rich environment for criminals by disarming the law abiding and creating an atmosphere in which most law abiding people are afraid to take natural defensive actions in response to criminals.

The burden then lies on the law abiding citizen to know what the legal requirements for use of force in a given situation are. If they violate the legal restrictions on how and when they may use force or deadly physical force, that is not MY fault, or law enforcements; the burden is on the gun owner/ citizen to educate themselves first so they DON'T get themselves into a jam.

I take your comment

" is by arresting and prosecuting those who deal with criminals the way free men ordinarily and naturally deal with them"

to be a reference in support of vigilante-style justice. I do not support vigilante justice; I believe in the rule of law, not the rule of the mob.

We also do NOT "disarm" the citizens to make a "victim rich environment"; if anything, your argument there is with your respective Legislature. Take your comments to them.

[The Real Hawkeye]

I take your comment

" is by arresting and prosecuting those who deal with criminals the way free men ordinarily and naturally deal with them"

to be a reference in support of vigilante-style justice. I do not support vigilante justice; I believe in the rule of law, not the rule of the mob.Wrong! The way free men ordinarily and naturally deal with criminals is to take reasonable actions to stop them, with whatever degree of force is required. This is perfectly in accord with the rule of law. At one time, the police were not the enemies of this reasonable response. More and more, they are going out of their way to see to it that such individuals are charged with a crime instead of being appreciated for performing a public service, as they should be.We also do NOT "disarm" the citizens to make a "victim rich environment"; if anything, your argument there is with your respective Legislature. Take your comments to them.Really? You don't? I hear of this happening all the time. Regardless of what tyrannical laws are on the books, it is law enforcement that brings that tyranny to the individual. Someone once said that when tyranny actually comes to your door, it is invariably wearing a badge and a policeman's uniform. So don't pass the buck.

[liliysdad]

:rolleyes:

[The Real Hawkeye]

:rolleyes: :p

[tcsd1236]

Wrong! The way free men ordinarily and naturally deal with criminals is to take reasonable actions to stop them, with whatever degree of force is required.

The "level of force that is required" litmus that you mention is too vague
and open to interpretation. There is a level of force that is authorized under the law for a given offense, and it is your resposibility(particularly as a gun owner) to know and abide by that legal limitation. Otherwise you have people who are willing to shoot someone over something that THEY think they should be able to shoot someone for but that in reality in no way calls for the use of deadly physical force.

At one time, the police were not the enemies of this reasonable response. More and more, they are going out of their way to see to it that such individuals are charged with a crime instead of being appreciated for performing a public service, as they should be.

If the persons actions were within the law, we STILL have no problem with a shooters actions. It is when those actions, in spite of the shooters beliefs , are in fact wrong, or the shooter broke some other law in the process that has nothing to do with the justifiability of the shoot itself, that you see charges coming down.

Really? You don't? I hear of this happening all the time

You'll have to be more specific about what your grievance is here. If it to do with things like CCW laws, that argument is with your legislature.

Someone once said that when tyranny actually comes to your door, it is invariably wearing a badge and a policeman's uniform. So don't pass the buck.

People can say anything they want. I am sure they were the ravings of a paranoid tin foil hat wearer.

[gyp_c2]

...well, if you call them, don't be the first one they see with a gun, opening doors and wandering around...

Let them announce themselves to YOU...There's no reason to "meet" them 'til the scene is safe...