Can you carry a long gun in your yard in the city?

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Yeager: It sure is a pathetic day and age we live in when one cannot even arm themselves to confront an intruder on their own property.

Hmmm....

You are apparently unaware that that "pathetic day and age" began many centuries ago. On this side of the Atlantic, an English born surveyor with a good-sized estate in Virginia lived under the same law when he was a British colonist and later when he was the first President of the thirteen United States of America, and until he died. So did Abe Lincoln of Illinois.

As I said in Post #10, this may be counter to what many people have led themselves to believe over the years.

Those of us who grew up watching television in the 1950s had a lot of unlearning to do. I knew at a young age that Roy Rogers' Colt did not hold nineteen rounds, and I knew somewhat later that Indians attacking wagon trains with arrows were not repelled by fire from Model 1892 Winchesters. However, I did not know until much, much later that, if a farmer near Williamsburg tried to "take in" a trespasser at gun point, the trespasser could legally shoot him.

Again, there are two things here: (1) remedies for trespass are necessarily and properly limited and have been for many centuries; and (2) "on your own property" is not an operative phrase in discussing most use of force laws. When it comes to the use of force, if it is not lawful on the town square it is probably not lawful in your yard, and if it is lawful in your yard, it is probably lawful on the town square.

 

[Good&Fruity]

That is NOT what you said in your OP. THIS is what you said in your OP:

lol, whatever, it's the same thing I said, except I was paraphrasing rather than quoting directly. It's still the same thing I said. Here is what I said:

Open carry is legal in WA, for rifles and handguns, though the law is written such that if it 'causes alarm for the safety of others' then it becomes illegal.

Here is what the law states:

in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons.

See? And here is you telling me the law doesn't say, what I had said it does.

You need to read Washington state law carefully. What you posted is NOT what Washington state law (RCW 9.41.270) says at all.

It is you, who needs to read the law carefully apparently lol. Your assertion was that my original post about that being the case was not what the law stated, but as it turns out, it is. It doesn't say that you can't carry X, Y, OR Z, just that you can't do it in a way that intimidates people (causes alarm for their safety). It IS what I said, and I was correct all along.

Furthermore, I've confirmed this statute with the state legislature before, but don't feel bad, many people make the same mistake you did in interpreting it. I've had guys at gun shops give the same erroneous information because they didn't take into account all ELEMENTS needed for those behaviors to be a crime. Carrying those items is not a crime. Doing it in a way that causes alarm for peoples safety is. Both are elements needed for it to be a crime, not just one or the other.

 

[Good&Fruity]

Sam1911, I get what you are saying. I am correct in that it's not technically illegal, but it could become a he said she said thing, and that's ultimately where the risk lies. Though that risk could be mitigated through cameras around my property, which I have been meaning to put up. Gotta get on that.

Now let's add a new variable to the scenario. Let's say I see the trespasser, and he is carrying a weapon, let's say a baseball bat. I would call 911 of course, but hypothetically speaking, would that be more reasonable to take a shotgun outside to? Note: I do not own a baseball bat, and this happens at 1 AM, so he's not playing ball, and he isn't stealling my bat, as I don't own one. That bat was brought with him, likely as a weapon.

 

[Good&Fruity]

It sure is a pathetic day and age we live in when one cannot even arm themselves to confront an intruder on their own property.

I have to agree. It's become very pathetic. Aren't there some states that require you to flee your own home? Forget that noise. I get to pay property taxes for it, yet I'm not allowed to defend it? Pretty soon we won't even be allowed to own pencils.

 

[Good&Fruity]

Your intent is often the last thing looked at in brandishing cases.

You may have no intent to threaten the trespasser, but that is completely irrelevent if the trespasser feels threatened.
Now in a perfect world, any cop or porsecutor would slap the trespasser with a fine, and tell you to have a nice day.
Sadly, we have too many prosecutors who want to be governor someday, and will gladly trample your rights to get another tally mark in the win column. Your life means nothing to them, as long as it improves their resume.

Cops on the other hand, take any call where a weapon is involved VERY seriously. They are not going to know your intentions based on the dispatchers information. So, as is SOP for most cops, they are going to treat EVERYONE and EVERYTHING as a hostile threat until they have control of the situation. Then, some questions will be asked and things will get figured out.

Good points.

 

[Good&Fruity]

Interestingly, in a Virginia Supreme Court ruling that one may not brandish a forearm at a trespasser (thereby committing assault), the court cited more than one precedent ruling in which it had been held that trespassers could successfully claim self defense after having killed landowners who has unlawfully put them in fear for their lives.

Do you have any rulings specific to the state of Washington? I don't see how Virginia Supreme Court decisions affect Washington state. Really, I'm curious to see if any rulings have been made on this here. Surely there has to be.

 

[Good&Fruity]

Interesting document I just found while looking for legal info on this myself. I remember reading about this guy in the paper a while back. He was a felon, carrying rifles down the street, and had drugs on him too. Someone called 911 on him. Police stopped and searched him, leading to his arrest (felon in posession, etc.). Case was ultimately dismissed because they had no right to stop him for merely carrying rifles down the street. Not the EXACT same as someones backyard, but still relevant to the discussion to an extent.

http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/gunstuff/legal/State_v_Casad_(unpublished).pdf

 

[Zoogster]

The answer to carrying on your property varies from state to state.

Others appear to have addressed Washington.

In California it is legal if it is not open to the public, but the courts have determined that unenclosed private property (like most driveways) is "public". If enclosed then it is entirely legal, even in the middle of the city. If it is an unfenced front yard or driveway then it is illegal.

Fortunately in one of the cases dealing with this did not rule against firearm owners. It was a case of a thug at a friends house with a gun in his waistband in a fenced yard in a bad part of LA (Watts I believe.) A passing cop saw the gun in his waistband, chased him from the yard into the house, and retrieved the gun and found cocaine on him.
The court ruled that since the person was in the enclosed area, (even though the fence was not closed I believe) it was not open nor intended to be open to the public, and possession of a loaded gun there was entirely legal, and so the officer had no probable cause leading to the search and arrest and all charges were thrown out.
Had the high court found an excuse to allow the charges to stick on the thug, all firearm owners in California very likely would have lost the ability to have loaded firearms on their property.
That is why it is important to base decisions on the law not the person being prosecuted. Putting one thug likely dealing cocaine and armed with a handgun sitting in an enclosed front yard behind bars would have cost all Californians their rights.
Courts cost citizens their rights all the time by finding an interpretation that allows for such charges to stand and create case law working against everyone, simple because the individual in the specific case was obviously a bad guy and deserved to be prosecuted.

What about confront a trespasser in your yard with a long gun?

While it may be technically legal to have the gun, technically legal does not equate to determined to have been legal when charged in a court of law.
You may say you had the gun for one reason, the prosecutor may say you took the gun to intimidate.
Plus trespassing is not even a serious crime, and is not a felony.

Even worse is if you are subsequently forced to shoot.
What may have been valid self defense becomes what a prosecutor says was you reacting to a crime by grabbing your gun and running out to punish the criminal with lethal force.
I have used the example many times, but you can find cases all around the country of people attempting to stop car thefts prosecuted for just that.
In such cases it is often even legal to perform a citizen's arrest of a car thief committing a felony, it is often legal to take a gun (but not use it either by firing or assaulting) and yet nobody can read your mind and know your intent was lawful.
The court alleges a different intent, the evidence is the same irregardless of the intent, and they don't take your word that your intent was legal and lawful.
The result is conviction and prison time for running out to stop criminals with your gun if you have to shoot, even if the criminal forces your hand by trying to attack you.
The media hears the case as one where someone angry about a property crime ran out and committed murder, and it won't be one highlighted on gun boards of someone defending themselves, because nobody knows that is what it was.
While in situations where the person does not have to shoot the outcome varies a lot more, in some places and situations the home owner is charged and in some they are not. So you may or may not be prosecuted if everything works out, and the person was committing a crime (but it better not be just trespassing.) You could get a pat on the back from the cops, or go to court for felony assault, all based on how your local police and your local DA choose to proceed.




The law is more complicated than "is it legal". What is technically legal may be alleged and successfully prosecuted as something illegal, and is all the time when they look like the same thing to a jury hearing different versions of what happened.


While actually taking your gun out specifically to scare off trespassers because it is intimidating, as some of your later posts show you would like yo be able to, is certainly felony assault. That is not even a gray area that could be interpreted as illegal, that is illegal.

 

[Sam1911]

The result is conviction and prison time for running out to stop criminals with your gun if you have to shoot, even if the criminal forces your hand by trying to attack you.

This is a good point, and can be directly relevant.

Tom Givens' "Lessons From the Street" DVD had a very instructive, if a bit chilling, story of one of his former students who shot two men in self-defense. He was alone in a convenience store parking lot, felt that a group of men present were possibly getting ready to do him harm. He spoke to them, telling them basically to go away. That ticked them off and they then did approach him. He fled and they took chase. He ran some distance away, being actively pursued by six or more men. He turned and fired, hitting two of them.

He was arrested and charged, and ended up sweating out a long court process which ended in, IIRC, probation, and he was quite lucky to get that.

What is pertinent about this to your question? The "victim" spoke to these men, giving them an instruction or command, which he had a legal right to do (though no authority to enforce), but that was seen as instigation of the events which followed. He had no legal right to fire on those men when he first made contact, yet his actions lead to him shooting two of them. He therefore shared culpability for their deaths.

If you confront someone who is trespassing, armed or not, and that interaction leads to you firing a weapon at them, injuring them, or killing them, the fact that you aggressively instigated the encounter may lead to a conviction for manslaughter, regardless of what threat you saw presented during the encounter. You would have had no legal grounds to use that gun when you first confronted them, so if your actions lead to an escalation of violence, you may be found to be at fault.

Which leads back to one of our old maxims here, "If you draw your weapon (or brandish ... or in this case, conspicuously carry a long arm) you'd better know exactly what you're about to do with it."

In this case, NONE of the answers to that question lead to good places.
1) IF the person leaves, you may be charged with illegal assault.
2) IF the person doesn't leave, but becomes belligerent, or even pulls their own weapon, you may have to shoot them. If you shoot them, you may be charged with manslaughter or even murder.
3) IF the person doesn't leave, but feels threatened and draws their own weapon -- and shoots YOU -- they may be found to be justified in that response!

Tread very lightly.

 

[NavyLCDR]

It is you, who needs to read the law carefully apparently lol. Your assertion was that my original post about that being the case was not what the law stated, but as it turns out, it is. It doesn't say that you can't carry X, Y, OR Z, just that you can't do it in a way that intimidates people (causes alarm for their safety). It IS what I said, and I was correct all along.

Furthermore, I've confirmed this statute with the state legislature before, but don't feel bad, many people make the same mistake you did in interpreting it. I've had guys at gun shops give the same erroneous information because they didn't take into account all ELEMENTS needed for those behaviors to be a crime. Carrying those items is not a crime. Doing it in a way that causes alarm for peoples safety is. Both are elements needed for it to be a crime, not just one or the other.

Let me try to break it down for you Barney style using a real world example that happened to me. If you can't understand it, maybe my example will allow others to.

I was eating dinner in a restaurant at 6:00 pm one night, wearing my gun in my holster on my belt. A customer was alarmed by the fact that I was wearing a gun in a holster while eating dinner in a restaurant. They were so alarmed that I was wearing the gun - at a time and place (eating dinner in a restaurant at 6:00pm) - under circumstances (in a public place) - and in a manner (fully exposed for everyone to see) - that they called 911 and expressed their alarm to the police.

The police show up and I foolishly agreed to talk to them and show ID. They checked me out and told me to cover up my gun because I was "scaring people". I told them, no I will not cover up my gun because I am doing nothing illegal. They again said I was scaring people. I said I'm not doing anything but eating dinner in a restaurant at dinner time, that's people do in restaurants at dinner time. The cop threatened to have my CPL revoked - which (1) he didn't have the authority to do, and (2) I was breaking no laws.

After about 10 minutes total of this harassment, I told the officer that he had two choices, he could write me a ticket for a law that he thought I was breaking, or I was going to go back in the restaurant and finish my dinner. He told me to go back inside (with my gun in the same condition it was before, openly carried in a holster).

Now, GOOD&FRUITY, according to what you post the law says, I would have been guilty of violating RCW 9.41.270, IF it said this as you claim that it does:

(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, exhibit, display, or draw any firearm, dagger, sword, knife or other cutting or stabbing instrument, club, or any other weapon apparently capable of producing bodily harm, in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that CAUSES alarm for the safety of other persons.

However, lucky for us in Washington, you are absolutely 100% incorrect and in error when you say this:

So if someone calls in and say's they're a scared little girl, then it's illegal.

Because that is NOT what the law says at all. It is completely erroneous in your thinking to say that CAUSING alarm by wearing a firearm is illegal. My gun CAUSED someone to feel so alarmed that they called 911 crying for the police to come and save them from the madman surely about to kill everyone in the restaurant because he was wearing a holstered gun at dinnertime. So the police, ACCORDING TO YOU, should have, at a minimum, wrote me a ticket when I told them to. But that's NOT what the law says, my friend.

The law says WARRANTS alarm, NOT causes alarm. Eating dinner in a restaurant at dinner time while lawfully carrying a firearm does not WARRANT alarm, thus...no law is broken regardless of if it happens to CAUSE someone to be alarmed. And that is why you are completely incorrect in your interpretation, as also evidenced by the fact that even our friend Casad was found not guilty even though he was a felon carrying two rifles in his arms while walking downtown and CAUSED someone to be alarmed enough to call the police!

Capish? The difference between what you falsely claim the law says, and what the law really says, and what the WA Supreme Court says the law says is the difference between guilt and innocence. But, hey, you believe whatever you want to.

 

[Gord]

Query:

Is there some reason you can't just - disregarding the rest of your hypothetical comedy of errors - go outside with a concealed handgun? That is, is there a reason you're so fixated on toting a shotgun around, beyond some "my rights, goldurnit" exercise?

 

[MarkDozier]

RCW 9A.16.020 Use of force
The use, attempt, or offer to use force upon or toward the person of another is not unlawful in the following cases:

(4) Whenever reasonably used by a person to detain someone who enters or remains unlawfully in a building or on real property lawfully in the possession of such person, so long as such detention is reasonable in duration and manner to investigate the reason for the detained person's presence on the premises, and so long as the premises in question did not reasonably appear to be intended to be open to members of the public;

Long gun or pistol is of no matter.

 

[Good&Fruity]

Query:

Is there some reason you can't just - disregarding the rest of your hypothetical comedy of errors - go outside with a concealed handgun? That is, is there a reason you're so fixated on toting a shotgun around, beyond some "my rights, goldurnit" exercise?

Yes, if you read my posts, I've stated it several times. Go and read them again. I'm not going to write it for you because you have poor reading comprehension.

 

[Zoogster]

MarkDozier said:

RCW 9A.16.020 Use of force
The use, attempt, or offer to use force upon or toward the person of another is not unlawful in the following cases:

(4) Whenever reasonably used by a person to detain someone who enters or remains unlawfully in a building or on real property lawfully in the possession of such person, so long as such detention is reasonable in duration and manner to investigate the reason for the detained person's presence on the premises, and so long as the premises in question did not reasonably appear to be intended to be open to members of the public;

Long gun or pistol is of no matter.

In most states there is a clear difference between "force" and "deadly force".
Very few states allow the threat of deadly force, or more specifically to threaten with a gun in situations that only allow non-deadly force.


In the specific type of scenario mentioned the force to detain someone would be physical non-deadly force.
Using deadly force, and likewise in most places the threat of deadly force would be excessive force and outside the scope of the 'reasonable' force allowed outside on private property, especially unfenced property.
It is like you can stop a misdemeanor shoplifter with 'force', but you can't pull a gun on someone for shoplifting as that exceeds the reasonable force allowed as it does not justify 'deadly force'.

It can be a difficult situation the law puts you in, where it can allow physical altercation, wrestling and grappling to detain if necessary, but does not allow even the threat from a weapon. While you can lose control of a weapon in a grappling situation.
Police deal with the limitations all the time and still lose sometimes, and they even carry more alternative methods of force.
It can be legal to arrest or detain someone and illegal to threaten or use a gun.

I bet you would be fine within a building, likely under a different section of law in addition, but outside on private property that is not a very strong defense for pulling a gun if charged with felony assault.

The terms 'reasonable' are also always scary because that is what a jury says it is. What one juror thinks is reasonable another does not.

 

[Good&Fruity]

The law says WARRANTS alarm, NOT causes alarm

lol, whatever, you said I didn't say it, I did, and paraphrased it. Now you are all hung up on semantics. You got the point did you not? Do I need to absolutely quote the letter of the law verbatim for you to get the point? Apparently...

 

[NavyLCDR]

I'm not going to write it for you because you have poor reading comprehension.

Now you are all hung up on semantics.

You are showing your obvious lack of understanding of how the law works. Hopefully if you are ever arrested for "causing" alarm, your lawyer is hung up on semantics. Otherwise, just take the plea bargain.

 

[armoredman]

Do you believe you could convince a jury that the subtle thread of force was not present in you carrying that rifle out to confront a trespasser?

Absolutely, especially if you are a crusty Korean war vet carrying an M1 Garanad telling a bunch of hoodlums to "get off my lawn!"
Fortunately, in my home state we can carry openly or concealed any lawful weapon, so I I wished to carry a long gun on my own property, owned or rented, I can do so, openly on concealed, (LONG coat), with no issues. However, it would be a PITA to do that all the time. Confronting a tresapsser OUTSIDE my home with any firearm might fall under our Defensive Display law, and be legal, but I am not a lawyer...

LT, someone else asked a question about that interesting photo, is there anything you can tell us about that one, without getting anyone in trouble?

 

[Good&Fruity]

Thank you Ben Matlock. Could warrant and cause perhaps be synonyms? The law used one word, I used the other. Next time I'll be sure to paste the EXACT wording so that I don't have to go through this again.

What exactly is your point with that statute in regards to my thread?

In the examples that have been provided, some have said that it's the trespassers perception (so to speak) of the circumstances, that the mere presence of a mere shotgun slung is grounds for alarm and thus makes it illegal, even by WA statutes. The law says when it's warranted/there is CAUSE for it (what warrant means essentially), then it's illegal. Fact of the matter is, most people in this thread have been telling me it's going to result in jail for me because the trespasser might piss his pants in fear, whether that fear is justified or not.

At leasts that's what people have been hinting at since we got past the part about me never saying anything about shooting the trespasser, or pointing a gun at him. So is that fear warranted, just by having a shotgun present, let's say slung across my back?

 

[NavyLCDR]

LT, someone else asked a question about that interesting photo, is there anything you can tell us about that one, without getting anyone in trouble?

http://forums.opencarry.org/forums/...the-2A-rally-on-4.30.11-(Warning-lotsa-pics!)

What's really sad.... take time to read the comments regarding that photo. Notice who was "caused alarm"... it wasn't the anti's.

I'm not in any of those photos, I couldn't make the rally, unfortunately. Washington is a great state, because "causing alarm" with a firearm is not illegal here, and the law and WA State Supreme Court precedent is very strong on that point.

 

[NavyLCDR]

So you say warrants alarm, great. Not the same as causes alarm, great. In the examples that have been provided, some have said that it's the trespassers perception (so to speak) of the circumstances. The law says it's wether it is warranted or not. Fact of the matter is, most people in this thread have been telling me it's going to result in jail for me because the trespasser might piss his pants in fear, whether that fear is justified or not.

What the people are trying to tell you is that the action you presented, going out to meet a trespasser with a shotgun in your hands could very easily and possibly accurately be in violation of what RCW 9.41.270 actually makes illegal.

1. You would be displaying a firearm.

2. It would be in a time, place and under circumstances which would manifest an intent to intimidate.

The remaining question is whether or not you would be justified in doing so. A person merely trespassing, absent any other actions is not presenting a danger to your life or grave bodily harm. Therefore, absent other behavior on the part of the trespasser, you are not justified in using deadly force against that person, and, therefore, not justified in threatening to use deadly force.

NOW, if you are simply carrying a handgun in a holster, and especially if you carry that handgun in a holster every day anyway... the whole entire situation changes.

But, telling the truth in court, saying that you grabbed the gun with the specific purpose of meeting the trespasser with it, absent any criminal behavior on the part of the trespasser, comes very very close to violating RCW 9.41.270.

BTW....it's not trespassing unless the subject knows they do not have permission to remain on your land. So, when you first meet said "trespasser" and tell them to get off your land they are not breaking any laws (unless your property has proper signage). They only break the law once they remain on your land after you tell them to leave. So... when you first go out to meet the "trespasser" you are meeting a law abiding citizen - with a gun in your hand.... but you are going to sell to a court that the gun in your hand is for self defense, even though the other person has yet to display any criminal action or intent.

 

[Good&Fruity]

Do you believe you could convince a jury that the subtle thread of force was not present in you carrying that rifle out to confront a trespasser?

Does the mere presence of a gun warrant alarm on the part of the trespasser? What if I left the shotgun inside and open carried a handgun and THAT cause alarm for the trespasser. Is that alarm warranted? It's only illegal if it's warranted. The job would be to convince the jury that the trespassers fear was not warranted. Only one juror need be convinced.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Does the mere presence of a gun warrant alarm on the part of the trespasser? What if I left the shotgun inside and open carried a handgun and THAT cause alarm for the trespasser. Is that alarm warranted? It's only illegal if it's warranted. The job would be to convince the jury that the trespassers fear was not warranted. Only one juror need be convinced.

You are out walking your dog, or maybe hunting, or maybe retrieving a frisbee that flew too far, and a guy comes out of his house carrying a shotgun yelling at you to get off his property. Would it be warranted for you to be alarmed by that? Or, what if you were a meter reader for the electric company? Or a tax assessor?

 

[Good&Fruity]

What the people are trying to tell you is that the action you presented, going out to meet a trespasser with a shotgun in your hands could very easily and possibly accurately be in violation of what RCW 9.41.270 actually makes illegal.

1. You would be displaying a firearm.

2. It would be in a time, place and under circumstances which would manifest an intent to intimidate.

The remaining question is whether or not you would be justified in doing so.

How does it manifest an intent to intimidate? I've repeatedly stated it's for my personal safety. It is the burden of the prosecution to prove that it was designed to intimidate. How does a slung shotgun, in my yard, when confronting a criminal manifest an intent to intimidate? Should I rush out there completely naked instead and lay all of my valuables before him and beg that he goes away while crying instead? Are you saying I have no right to protect myself on my own property?

A person merely trespassing, absent any other actions is not presenting a danger to your life or grave bodily harm. Therefore, absent other behavior on the part of the trespasser, you are not justified in using deadly force against that person, and, therefore, not justified in threatening to use deadly force.

Again with the deadly force and threatening deadly force. I've never said I was going to shoot the guy, or go out there and point it at him, as so many have jumped to immediately point out as illegal.

I've said that carrying the shotgun in my yard is legal, do we agree on that? I've asked if it's legal to confront a trespasser with the same shotgun slung on my back. How does the mere presence of a trespasser, who I'm not waving my gun at, not pointing my gun at, or threatening with my gun, suddenly remove my right to carry the shotgun in my yard. Are you saying that if I was in my back yard carrying a shotgun at a BBQ, and suddenly saw a trespasser, that I have to go put the gun inside and THEN go talk to him otherwise I've broken the law? What a pathetic world indeed when I pay my taxes, property taxes included, and criminals have more rights than me.

NOW, if you are simply carrying a handgun in a holster, and especially if you carry that handgun in a holster every day anyway... the whole entire situation changes.

But, telling the truth in court, saying that you grabbed the gun with the specific purpose of meeting the trespasser with it, absent any criminal behavior on the part of the trespasser, comes very very close to violating RCW 9.41.270.

But the law doesn't say that merely grabbing a gun to meet a trespasser for my own safety is illegal. If I was trying to intimidate the trespasser, or it warranted/caused (there's that pesky synonym I keep using that you like so much) alarm for them, sure. But you still haven't explained how it warrants alarm for a trespasser, on my property, for me to be out there with a shotgun asking them to leave. Should I strip naked to show them I am completely defenseless before I go out there, just so they are not intimdated?

BTW....it's not trespassing unless the subject knows they do not have permission to remain on your land. So, when you first meet said "trespasser" and tell them to get off your land they are not breaking any laws (unless your property has proper signage). They only break the law once they remain on your land after you tell them to leave. So... when you first go out to meet the "trespasser" you are meeting a law abiding citizen - with a gun in your hand.... but you are going to sell to a court that the gun in your hand is for self defense, even though the other person has yet to display any criminal action or intent.

No Trespassing signs are clearly visible on my property. And when have I ever said gun in hand? lol Come on now, I've repeatedly said the shotgun is slung, and you keep looking for an excuse to make me going out there with a gun illegal. Let's stick to the facts please.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Maybe we should just end this with, "Ask a lawyer."

 

[Good&Fruity]

You are out walking your dog, or maybe hunting, or maybe retrieving a frisbee that flew too far, and a guy comes out of his house carrying a shotgun yelling at you to get off his property. Would it be warranted for you to be alarmed by that? Or, what if you were a meter reader for the electric company? Or a tax assessor?

I see, you seem to conveniently ignore the scenario's I've layed out, and twist things to 'man walking dog', or 'can't use deadly force' or 'threaten deadly force', when it has nothing to do with that and has never been said to be about that. It has to do with MY personal safety. Citizen or not, someone in my yard causes alarm for my safety especially if you stick to the scenario I layed out several posts ago. My yard is fenced in, and they didn't get in there by accident. Especially in the scenario I layed out much earlier. Here it is again for you.

Let's say I see the trespasser, and he is carrying a weapon, let's say a baseball bat. I would call 911 of course, but hypothetically speaking, would that be more reasonable to take a shotgun outside to? Note: I do not own a baseball bat, and this happens at 1 AM, so he's not playing ball, and he isn't stealling my bat, as I don't own one. That bat was brought with him, likely as a weapon.

So I ask NavyLT, can you stop trying to twist it into your agenda of leaving the shotgun inside at all costs? You seem to consistently throw straw man arguments into the debate to make it seem ridiculous to go out there with a shotgun. I'm NOT talking about confronting my neighbors kid at gun point or shooting him because he slipped over the fence to get his frisbee for the LOVE OF GOD! Stop with the straw man, red herring, and other non-sequator arguments.

So why is it OK for me to take a holstered handgun to protect myself, but I can't take a shotgun? It has nothing to do with intimidating anybody. It has to do with having the advantage in the event the person turns violent, pulls a weapon, etc.