General questions about American gun law and self-defence.

[Volkolak]

Hi all, just found this forum and decided to sign up to expand my knowledge of firearms.

I live in the UK, where the criminal has more rights than the victim, and I'm curious as to what kind of laws you Americans have regarding guns and self-defence. I'll just list my questions:

- I understand that each state has different laws in place regarding firearms, but which state(s) is the most pro-gun, and conversely, which state is the most anti-gun?

- Following on from that, in a pro-gun state, how does acquire a firearm, are any special permits required, and what type of firerarms is one able to purchase?

- In a pro-gun state, can a handgun be carried in public without a permit, and can it be carried concealed without a permit?

- Regarding self-defence, can a handgun be used in self-defence, and under what conditions can one legally use a handgun in self-defence? Also, is this limited by location factors? That is, if you defend yourself on your property or on the street.

Thanks!

 

[Firehand]

A general overview from OK,

Friendly to gun owners.

This state does not require any license/permit to buy firearms, just have to go through the NICS check at the store; to carry concealed you do have to get a carry permit. That's fairly straightforward; classes on safety, the law on self-defense, range checkout to make sure you know what you're doing with a handgun.

I'm not sure about open carry here, never have checked into it; guess I'll need to.

The basic rule is you can only use lethal force in self-defense if you are in fear for your life, or the life of someone with you, family or friend. OK just recently passed a 'Stand Your Ground' law, basically says that even in public if your life is threatened you have no duty to retreat before using force, including lethal force, in self-defense. Again, you can only use lethal force if your life or the life of someone you're with is in danger; you can't shoot someone just for taking a swing at you or threatening you.

 

[Third_Rail]

First of all, welcome to THR!

I understand that each state has different laws in place regarding firearms, but which state(s) is the most pro-gun, and conversely, which state is the most anti-gun?

Well, you'll get a few different answers here. Most pro-gun are Alaska and Vermont, where open and concealed carry are both legal without license. Most anti-gun are Maryland, California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York.

Following on from that, in a pro-gun state, how does acquire a firearm, are any special permits required, and what type of firerarms is one able to purchase?

Pro-gun state - you go to the gunstore, get a Federal background check done, and buy what you'd like. Anything other than a machine gun, destructive device, suppressor (silencer), short barreled shotgun (less than 18" barrel, less than 26" overall), "any-other-weapon" (things like a gun that looks like something else), short barreled rifle (less than 16" barrel, less than 26" overall) can be purchased after the NICS (background check), and in most states, taken home immediately.

In a pro-gun state, can a handgun be carried in public without a permit, and can it be carried concealed without a permit?

Currently only in Alaska and Vermont can one carry concealed without a license. There are other states in which you can carry open without a license.

Regarding self-defence, can a handgun be used in self-defence, and under what conditions can one legally use a handgun in self-defence? Also, is this limited by location factors? That is, if you defend yourself on your property or on the street.

I am not a lawyer, but generally, if you are in fear of your life or grave bodily harm. Location factors - yes, some cities will prosecute you even if you are attacked in your home.


I hope this helps.

 

[Euclidean]

Hi all, just found this forum and decided to sign up to expand my knowledge of firearms.

Excellent!

I live in the UK, where the criminal has more rights than the victim, and I'm curious as to what kind of laws you Americans have regarding guns and self-defence. I'll just list my questions:

Thank you for asking actual Americans what it's like over here. The internet is a neat tool in that it enables us to talk with people from across the world every day. That's really something if you think about it. However, I get a lot of English speaking Europeans telling me things that are just flat out wrong. Not that I know everything about someone else's country myself, but the fact you're willing to ask and listen speaks well of you.

- I understand that each state has different laws in place regarding firearms, but which state(s) is the most pro-gun, and conversely, which state is the most anti-gun?

That's hard to say but in a general sense California, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Maryland, and Illinois all come to mind as anti gun states.

Arizona, Alaska, Vermont, and Florida tend to stick out to me as particularly pro gun.

Other states are somewhere in the middle, with varying requirements. For example Texas is fairly pro gun except parts of the Penal code are nonsensical and we have more restrictions than the four states I mentioned. Missouri doesn't have any special laws regarding what you can and can't have besides the federal guidelines in place, but their carry laws are strange and they require registration in some places.

Often, many states won't even be consistent within themselves. Where I live, no one thinks much of concealed handguns, but in Harris County to the southeast of me, they do everything they legally can to hassle anyone with a permit to do so.

- Following on from that, in a pro-gun state, how does acquire a firearm, are any special permits required, and what type of firerarms is one able to purchase?

Using Texas as a fairly lax state, it works like this:

- You find the firearm you wish to purchase.

Generally, the worst restrictions are federal restrictions in most states. The federal government makes it a pain to own automatic weapons, silencers, shotguns and rifles under a certain size, and a general catchall category called Any Other Weapon, which is ultimately arbitrary.

You can get those firearms, but it's cost prohibitive for most Americans and the legal hassles are epic.

The pro gun states usually don't impose any further restrictions than that. So with those guidelines in place, you go shopping.

- So now you've found your gun, you go find someone with the proper license, referred to as a Federal Firearms License, to sell it to you. They may order it from a distributor or have it in their shop inventory. Either way, you pay them, fill out a form, they call in a background check, and you pay for it and that's it. In many states if not most you just take it home after a short transaction.

More restrictive states may do anything from having a specific list of guns you're allowed to buy, having more restrictive criteria in place for what you can buy, adding more steps to the process, etc.

- In a pro-gun state, can a handgun be carried in public without a permit, and can it be carried concealed without a permit?

Generally no. Only Alaska and Vermont allow for carry this way without a permit.

Texas is a good example of what's somewhat typical: it is illegal to carry a handgun on one's person here without a permit, and even with the permit it must be concealed.

- Regarding self-defence, can a handgun be used in self-defence, and under what conditions can one legally use a handgun in self-defence? Also, is this limited by location factors? That is, if you defend yourself on your property or on the street.

Every locality will be a little different, but the common thread seems to be: are you in fear for your life?

Some states may have a duty to retreat clause, which says you must flee, essentially, but others have a stand your ground law, which means if you're threatened you're right to act.

It's hard to give you a simple answer here. What's legal or illegal in my state probably isn't what's legal or illegal anywhere else.

Thanks!

Not a problem, and feel free to tell your friends I could go buy a gun tomorrow if I wanted to, and that violence in the streets is very much a rarity the USA. I, like most Americans, have never experienced such a thing personally.

 

[k_semler]

WA State is pretty decent, the only complaints I have is NFA law, (virtually prohibited). The only NFA items in WA that are legal are silencers an AOW's. To buy a weapon, all you have to do is go to the dealer that has the weapon you want, fill out the 4473, wait for the NICS check, (usually less then 10 miniutes), and give them the money. No permit required, you just walk out the door with the weapon as long as you get a "Proceed" from NICS system. This is only applicable for purchases from an FFL, you can still purchase from a private party with no paperwork whatsoever. Pistols have a 5 day waiting period if you do not have a Concealed Pistol Lisence. With private party sales, the laws are no different then if you would be buying, (or selling), a lawn mower or computer, (except they have to be 18 to engage in the transaction). Concealed Pistol Permits are shall issue here, which you must have if you want to conceal your pistol from plain view.

You can carry openly if you are engaged in a lawful outdoor activity such as hunting, fishing, camping, horseback riding, hiking or target shooting. Lethal force is authorized to protect the life of another person, or prevent severe bodily harm from taking place. Lethal force is also authorised to prevent a felony from taking place upon personal propery. (if you try to car-jack me, I can legally kill you. Same if you try and steal my car or burlarize my home). You also cannot file civil suit against me if I apply force in a legal manner. Also, all cases dismissed as self-defense, all costs are paid for by the court.

[B]RCW 9.41.050[/B]
Carrying firearms.


(1)(a) Except in the person's place of abode or fixed place of business, a person shall not carry a pistol concealed on his or her person without a license to carry a concealed pistol.

(b) Every licensee shall have his or her concealed pistol license in his or her immediate possession at all times that he or she is required by this section to have a concealed pistol license and shall display the same upon demand to any police officer or to any other person when and if required by law to do so. Any violation of this subsection (1)(b) shall be a class 1 civil infraction under chapter 7.80 RCW and shall be punished accordingly pursuant to chapter 7.80 RCW and the infraction rules for courts of limited jurisdiction.

(2)(a) A person shall not carry or place a loaded pistol in any vehicle unless the person has a license to carry a concealed pistol and: (i) The pistol is on the licensee's person, (ii) the licensee is within the vehicle at all times that the pistol is there, or (iii) the licensee is away from the vehicle and the pistol is locked within the vehicle and concealed from view from outside the vehicle.

(b) A violation of this subsection is a misdemeanor.

(3)(a) A person at least eighteen years of age who is in possession of an unloaded pistol shall not leave the unloaded pistol in a vehicle unless the unloaded pistol is locked within the vehicle and concealed from view from outside the vehicle.

(b) A violation of this subsection is a misdemeanor.

(4) Nothing in this section permits the possession of firearms illegal to possess under state or federal law.

RCW 9.41.070
Concealed pistol license — Application — Fee — Renewal.


(1) The chief of police of a municipality or the sheriff of a county shall within thirty days after the filing of an application of any person, issue a license to such person to carry a pistol concealed on his or her person within this state for five years from date of issue, for the purposes of protection or while engaged in business, sport, or while traveling. However, if the applicant does not have a valid permanent Washington driver's license or Washington state identification card or has not been a resident of the state for the previous consecutive ninety days, the issuing authority shall have up to sixty days after the filing of the application to issue a license. The issuing authority shall not refuse to accept completed applications for concealed pistol licenses during regular business hours.

The applicant's constitutional right to bear arms shall not be denied, unless:

(a) He or she is ineligible to possess a firearm under the provisions of RCW 9.41.040 or 9.41.045;

(b) The applicant's concealed pistol license is in a revoked status;

(c) He or she is under twenty-one years of age;

(d) He or she is subject to a court order or injunction regarding firearms pursuant to RCW 9A.46.080, 10.14.080, 10.99.040, 10.99.045, 26.09.050, 26.09.060, 26.10.040, 26.10.115, 26.26.130, 26.50.060, 26.50.070, or 26.26.590;

(e) He or she is free on bond or personal recognizance pending trial, appeal, or sentencing for a felony offense;

(f) He or she has an outstanding warrant for his or her arrest from any court of competent jurisdiction for a felony or misdemeanor; or

(g) He or she has been ordered to forfeit a firearm under RCW 9.41.098(1)(e) within one year before filing an application to carry a pistol concealed on his or her person.

No person convicted of a felony may have his or her right to possess firearms restored or his or her privilege to carry a concealed pistol restored, unless the person has been granted relief from disabilities by the secretary of the treasury under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 925(c), or RCW 9.41.040 (3) or (4) applies.

(2) The issuing authority shall check with the national crime information center, the Washington state patrol electronic data base, the department of social and health services electronic data base, and with other agencies or resources as appropriate, to determine whether the applicant is ineligible under RCW 9.41.040 or 9.41.045 to possess a firearm and therefore ineligible for a concealed pistol license. This subsection applies whether the applicant is applying for a new concealed pistol license or to renew a concealed pistol license.

(3) Any person whose firearms rights have been restricted and who has been granted relief from disabilities by the secretary of the treasury under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 925(c) or who is exempt under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 921(a)(20)(A) shall have his or her right to acquire, receive, transfer, ship, transport, carry, and possess firearms in accordance with Washington state law restored except as otherwise prohibited by this chapter.

(4) The license application shall bear the full name, residential address, telephone number at the option of the applicant, date and place of birth, race, gender, description, not more than two complete sets of fingerprints, and signature of the licensee, and the licensee's driver's license number or state identification card number if used for identification in applying for the license. A signed application for a concealed pistol license shall constitute a waiver of confidentiality and written request that the department of social and health services, mental health institutions, and other health care facilities release information relevant to the applicant's eligibility for a concealed pistol license to an inquiring court or law enforcement agency.

The application for an original license shall include two complete sets of fingerprints to be forwarded to the Washington state patrol.

The license and application shall contain a warning substantially as follows:


CAUTION: Although state and local laws do not differ, federal law and state law on the possession of firearms differ. If you are prohibited by federal law from possessing a firearm, you may be prosecuted in federal court. A state license is not a defense to a federal prosecution.




The license shall contain a description of the major differences between state and federal law and an explanation of the fact that local laws and ordinances on firearms are preempted by state law and must be consistent with state law. The application shall contain questions about the applicant's eligibility under RCW 9.41.040 to possess a pistol, the applicant's place of birth, and whether the applicant is a United States citizen. The applicant shall not be required to produce a birth certificate or other evidence of citizenship. A person who is not a citizen of the United States shall meet the additional requirements of RCW 9.41.170 and produce proof of compliance with RCW 9.41.170 upon application. The license shall be in triplicate and in a form to be prescribed by the department of licensing.

The original thereof shall be delivered to the licensee, the duplicate shall within seven days be sent to the director of licensing and the triplicate shall be preserved for six years, by the authority issuing the license.

The department of licensing shall make available to law enforcement and corrections agencies, in an on-line format, all information received under this subsection.

(5) The nonrefundable fee, paid upon application, for the original five-year license shall be thirty-six dollars plus additional charges imposed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation that are passed on to the applicant. No other state or local branch or unit of government may impose any additional charges on the applicant for the issuance of the license.

The fee shall be distributed as follows:

(a) Fifteen dollars shall be paid to the state general fund;

(b) Four dollars shall be paid to the agency taking the fingerprints of the person licensed;

(c) Fourteen dollars shall be paid to the issuing authority for the purpose of enforcing this chapter; and

(d) Three dollars to the firearms range account in the general fund.

(6) The nonrefundable fee for the renewal of such license shall be thirty-two dollars. No other branch or unit of government may impose any additional charges on the applicant for the renewal of the license.

The renewal fee shall be distributed as follows:

(a) Fifteen dollars shall be paid to the state general fund;

(b) Fourteen dollars shall be paid to the issuing authority for the purpose of enforcing this chapter; and

(c) Three dollars to the firearms range account in the general fund.

(7) The nonrefundable fee for replacement of lost or damaged licenses is ten dollars to be paid to the issuing authority.

(8) Payment shall be by cash, check, or money order at the option of the applicant. Additional methods of payment may be allowed at the option of the issuing authority.

(9) A licensee may renew a license if the licensee applies for renewal within ninety days before or after the expiration date of the license. A license so renewed shall take effect on the expiration date of the prior license. A licensee renewing after the expiration date of the license must pay a late renewal penalty of ten dollars in addition to the renewal fee specified in subsection (6) of this section. The fee shall be distributed as follows:

(a) Three dollars shall be deposited in the *state wildlife fund and used exclusively first for the printing and distribution of a pamphlet on the legal limits of the use of firearms, firearms safety, and the preemptive nature of state law, and subsequently the support of volunteer instructors in the basic firearms safety training program conducted by the department of fish and wildlife. The pamphlet shall be given to each applicant for a license; and

(b) Seven dollars shall be paid to the issuing authority for the purpose of enforcing this chapter.

(10) Notwithstanding the requirements of subsections (1) through (9) of this section, the chief of police of the municipality or the sheriff of the county of the applicant's residence may issue a temporary emergency license for good cause pending review under subsection (1) of this section. However, a temporary emergency license issued under this subsection shall not exempt the holder of the license from any records check requirement. Temporary emergency licenses shall be easily distinguishable from regular licenses.

(11) A political subdivision of the state shall not modify the requirements of this section or chapter, nor may a political subdivision ask the applicant to voluntarily submit any information not required by this section.

(12) A person who knowingly makes a false statement regarding citizenship or identity on an application for a concealed pistol license is guilty of false swearing under RCW 9A.72.040. In addition to any other penalty provided for by law, the concealed pistol license of a person who knowingly makes a false statement shall be revoked, and the person shall be permanently ineligible for a concealed pistol license.

(13) A person may apply for a concealed pistol license:

(a) To the municipality or to the county in which the applicant resides if the applicant resides in a municipality;

(b) To the county in which the applicant resides if the applicant resides in an unincorporated area; or

(c) Anywhere in the state if the applicant is a nonresident.

RCW 9A.16.020
Use of force — When lawful.


The use, attempt, or offer to use force upon or toward the person of another is not unlawful in the following cases:

(1) Whenever necessarily used by a public officer in the performance of a legal duty, or a person assisting the officer and acting under the officer's direction;

(2) Whenever necessarily used by a person arresting one who has committed a felony and delivering him or her to a public officer competent to receive him or her into custody;

(3) Whenever used by a party about to be injured, or by another lawfully aiding him or her, in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense against his or her person, or a malicious trespass, or other malicious interference with real or personal property lawfully in his or her possession, in case the force is not more than is necessary;

(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;

(5) Whenever used by a carrier of passengers or the carrier's authorized agent or servant, or other person assisting them at their request in expelling from a carriage, railway car, vessel, or other vehicle, a passenger who refuses to obey a lawful and reasonable regulation prescribed for the conduct of passengers, if such vehicle has first been stopped and the force used is not more than is necessary to expel the offender with reasonable regard to the offender's personal safety;

(6) Whenever used by any person to prevent a mentally ill, mentally incompetent, or mentally disabled person from committing an act dangerous to any person, or in enforcing necessary restraint for the protection or restoration to health of the person, during such period only as is necessary to obtain legal authority for the restraint or custody of the person.

RCW 9A.16.050
Homicide — By other person — When justifiable.


Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:

(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or

(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he is.

RCW 9A.16.110
Defending against violent crime — Reimbursement.


(1) No person in the state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting by any reasonable means necessary, himself or herself, his or her family, or his or her real or personal property, or for coming to the aid of another who is in imminent danger of or the victim of assault, robbery, kidnapping, arson, burglary, rape, murder, or any other violent crime as defined in RCW 9.94A.030.

(2) When a person charged with a crime listed in subsection (1) of this section is found not guilty by reason of self-defense, the state of Washington shall reimburse the defendant for all reasonable costs, including loss of time, legal fees incurred, and other expenses involved in his or her defense. This reimbursement is not an independent cause of action. To award these reasonable costs the trier of fact must find that the defendant's claim of self-defense was sustained by a preponderance of the evidence. If the trier of fact makes a determination of self-defense, the judge shall determine the amount of the award.

(3) Notwithstanding a finding that a defendant's actions were justified by self-defense, if the trier of fact also determines that the defendant was engaged in criminal conduct substantially related to the events giving rise to the charges filed against the defendant the judge may deny or reduce the amount of the award. In determining the amount of the award, the judge shall also consider the seriousness of the initial criminal conduct.

Nothing in this section precludes the legislature from using the sundry claims process to grant an award where none was granted under this section or to grant a higher award than one granted under this section.

(4) Whenever the issue of self-defense under this section is decided by a judge, the judge shall consider the same questions as must be answered in the special verdict under subsection (4) [(5)] of this section.

(5) Whenever the issue of self-defense under this section has been submitted to a jury, and the jury has found the defendant not guilty, the court shall instruct the jury to return a special verdict in substantially the following form:


answer yes or no
1. Was the finding of not guilty based upon self-defense? . . . . .
2. If your answer to question 1 is no, do not answer the remaining question.
3. If your answer to question 1 is yes, was the defendant:
a. Protecting himself or herself? . . . . .
b. Protecting his or her family? . . . . .
c. Protecting his or her property? . . . . .
d. Coming to the aid of another who was in imminent danger of a heinous crime? . . . . .
e. Coming to the aid of another who was the victim of a heinous crime? . . . . .
f. Engaged in criminal conduct substantially related to the events giving rise to the crime with which the defendant is charged? . . . . .

 

[Jim March]

On question 1: try this map on for size:

http://www.gun-nuttery.com/rtc.php

It tracks people's ability to carry defensive concealed handguns on the street. Green means no permit needed (Vermont and Alaska as of '06), blue means permit required but if you pass the training and background checks you'll get the permit, yellow means some authority gets to personally decide if you can carry or not (often assigned on racist/corrupt lines or personal political connections) and red means no permit possible.

Now this is tracking just one type of law but it's a very good indicator of most other types of gun laws.

You can also see from the year-by-year maps that the pro-self-defense movement is winning, bigtime. The people in those blue and green states legally packing heat are NOT people anyone need fear and there are millions of them proving it daily.

On question 2:

Generally there's a fairly quick background check and a short wait. California while a yellow state in terms of carry is still a place where you can buy and own most handguns and rifles. In that state it's a 10-day wait and you have to pass a quick safety quiz. In many of the red states and a few others you have to get an "ownership permit" before buying a handgun. But it's generally possible to buy handguns rifles and shotguns in all states. The cities of Chicago and Washington DC ban handguns and are otherwise restrictive, with New York City almost as bad. But those are exceptions and we'll overturn those eventually .

Like I said, we're winning.

On number 3, the map will give you some clue as the green states represent no-permit-required concealed carry. A fair number of states (mostly but not always rural) allow legal open (unconcealed) carry of handguns with no oermit...Arizona, Virginia, Wyoming, Montana, Nevada, Washingon (on the west coast, although the legal status is unclear!) and some others. http://www.packing.org will list this state by state if you really want to dig. Open carry doesn't tend to be very popular where legal but you do see people strapped and generally nobody cares.

On number 4:

The rules on deadly force vary slightly. The system in place in California, Texas and elsewhere is very common and I'll start with that.

California law recognizes two kinds of fights: non-lethal and lethal ("deadly force"). If you are attacked with deadly force, or are reasonably in fear of losing your life or suffering great bodily injury, you can use deadly force in response.

Deadly force includes basically all bludgeoning/stabbing/cutting weapons, something around your neck strangling you, guns of course, and even stomping/kicking feet if you're already down.

If you legitimately fear that your life is in danger, you can shoot 'em. There is no situation where you can legally use a lesser deadly weapon (cricket bat or whatever) and not a gun. It's either a deadly force encounter or it isn't and if it is, basically the only limit is that you still have to be careful not to hurt innocent bystanders...you're legally responsible for every shot you fire.

There is also a fairly well known principle called the "Tueller Drill" or "21 foot rule". If a lunatic is waving a knife around screaming bloody murder directly at you but he's half a football field away, he's not (yet) a threat and you can't shoot him. If however he's very close and does so, you can.

(If however he sees your gun and immediately drops his knife, screams like a little girl and runs away, you've just lost your shot at him! And this happens fairly often .)

OK, back to distances. The average shooter can pull a gun and shoot in 1.5 seconds. An average adult can cross 21 feet and stab somebody in 1.5 seconds. Hence the "21 foot rule" as a GENERAL rule of thumb as to when you can shoot a knife/bat/etc. equipped assailant.

(It's only a general rule though - if the barsterd has a running start you may need a bit more!)

There have also been notable instances where the shooting of one or more unarmed assailants has been supported by the courts.

Two examples:

In Oregon some years back, a guy was mugged by two assailants who knocked him over and started kicking him. He got to a gun while on the ground and fired upwards, killing one and wounding the other. No foul on his part, as stomping a guy on the ground was judged deadly force.

A more controversial case was the Hale shooting in Texas, 1996 - the first shooting by one of the newly-armed permitholders (check the maps and years Texas converted - it's that great big state dead center southmost).

Hale was an older gent driving along in his small truck. A younger guy in a bigger truck mildly knocked the older guy's truck, minor traffic accident. Hale follows for a bit, bigger truck stops, younger larger guy gets out and walks back to Hale.

Expecting no particular trouble other than an exchange of insurance info, Hale rolls down his window. The younger guy grabs Hale and starts beating the hell out of him. Hale suffers a broken cheekbone and detached retina. The younger lunatic then tries dragging Hale right out through his window. Hale gets fed up, struggles to stay in, gets to a gun and shoots the assailant once in the chest, killing him.

The media made much of this "road rage incident" neglecting to mention that the "rage" was on the part of the deceased. An inquiry cleared Hale of any wrongdoing as the existing injuries gave him all the "reasonable expectation of (additional in this case!) great bodily harm" necessary.

This is a pretty common general standard.

There are a few states with "duty to retreat where possible" laws but these are starting to be overturned. The California standard is the more common sort of thing.

NOTE: Texas has a unique thing where AT NIGHT you have the right to shoot to defend your property...car thieves and the like. The Hale shooting happened by day under the same rules as California and many other states.

A few states have specific anti-carjacking laws where if somebody is trying to hijack your car it's assumed to be a very serious matter and you can shoot 'em. This isn't that common but it's slowly spreading, in part because such carjackers are often a high-speed threat to lots of OTHER people and ventilating them quickly is seen as a good thing. Dunno how far that'll spread though and it's still fairly rare.

 

[oneshooter]

Welcome to THR!! If you really want to know about the current CCW laws then try this site. http://www.packing.org/

If you decide to come to the states for vacation and/or move here then let us know and i'm sure that some arrangments can be made for a "shooting demonstration/ lesson".

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

 

[geekWithA.45]

Regarding the employment of firearms in self defense...no jurisdiction that I know of specifically speaks about the use of a "firearm" in self defense.

At issue is the use of "deadly force", force which is generally recognized as being capable of delivering a potentially fatal blow.

Sticks, bats, shovels and knives generally qualify as such.

If you find yourself faced by deadly force, any and all means are acceptable to defend yourself, be it stick, shovel, or lightning strike, if you have that capability.


Although it varies a bit by jurisdiction, several nearly universal criteria apply to determining self defense: Means, proximity, jeapardy, and innocence.


(BTW, the law also allows the use of nondeadly force for some non life threatening situations. For example, one can use nondeadly force to pass through an unlawful blockade, to retrieve stolen posession in hot pursuit, etc.

The law also allows the use of deadly force in some situations where threat to life or limb is statuatorilly _presumed_, such as to prevent arson, unlawful disposession of one's dwelling, to prevent the taking by force of supplies upon which your life is dependent (ie water, food, medicines), and so on. Those aspects vary highly from one jurisdiction to the next.)


Means: The assailant must have the means of visiting death or serious bodily injury upon the defender. This concept includes disparate force (strapping young man vs little old lady) training (the assaillant is known to be a karate master), and numbers (mobs are deemed to be lethal weapons in and of themselves)

Proximity: The assaillant must be in proximity such that his or her means can actually be employed. 21 feet is accepted for melee weapons, any range is accepted for projectile weapons.

Jeapardy: The assaillant must be acting in such a way that the defender is placed, or reasonably believes he is about to be placed into imminent jeapardy of recieving a potentially fatal blow. In the past, this factor was described as "intent", but that is innacurate. The law does not require us to read minds, or as one justice put it, "dispassionate reflection is not expected in the presence of an upraised knife".


Innocence: In order for a claim of self defense to succeed, the defendant must have had NO PART in the conflict. One cannot start an argument with someone that escalates to blows and expect to prevail in the case, even if the other party pulls a gun.

NOTE that DISENGAGING ends one encounter. If you should argue with someone, note that the argument is escalating, and walk away, that encounter is over. If the other guy follows you and tries to bash you over the head with a bat, that opens a whole new encounter for legal purposes.

 

[Volkolak]

Thanks a lot for the info guys! Seems most states in America have the right idea when it comes to personal protection and firearm ownership.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Every locality will be a little different, but the common thread seems to be: are you in fear for your life?

That's almost correct, however it is never sufficient that a person be in fear for his/her life. Firstly, the fear must be of immanent death or serious bodily injury. Secondly, the fear must be deemed reasonable under the circumstances.

As for the first point, if someone says to you that he is going to go home, get his gun, come back and murder your whole family, you are not justified in shooting him, even if your fear would seem reasonable. That's because the fear is not, in that case, of an immanent threat to your, or someone else's (See PS below), life, or of serious bodily injury. It must be an actual threat (not just in words, but in actions, and the means to carry out the threat must be reasonably believed to be in the possession of the attacker right now) in the here and now, not later this afternoon.

As to the second point, the fear must be deemed reasonable, i.e., an ordinary prudent person in your condition and situation would also have felt the same fear. So, if an elderly woman is approached by a five foot tall homeless man appearing to wind up to punch her in the face, she'd be within her rights to shoot. If an Olympic track star is approached by the same man, he would not be. Same if a grand master of Jiu-jitsu were approached by that homeless man, neither would he be justified in drawing a gun and firing. Same with an NFL lineman or the heavy weight champ of the world. Reasonableness takes into account the situation and the person who used deadly force to defend him/herself. A jury usually decides if your actions were reasonable, but in some cases charges will not even be brought against you. That depends a lot on the State.

PS Whether or not you are justified in defending the life of another is based on whether or not the other person would have had the right to defend themselves in those circumstances. Mistakes in that determination are handled differently by different States, so in some States, you are required to have been correct in your determination, while in others, so long as it was reasonable to believe that the person you were defending had a right to defend him/herself, you are acting withn the law in doing so.

 

[geekWithA.45]

"Duty To Retreat"

The "duty to retreat" is another factor that varies wildly from one state to the next.

Generally, this comes in 3 flavors, with many variations in exceptions and caveats:

"No duty to retreat". Some states do not place a duty to retreat upon its citizens. This means that if you are somewhere you have a lawful right to be, no one has the power to legally chase you out simply by threatening you with lethal force.

That is the heart of the current wave of "stand your ground" laws going around, the idea being that it is not in the public interest to give criminals the advantage of de-facto owning the streets or dwellings they've invaded

"Duty to retreat in public". Some states place a duty to retreat on citizens in public. The apparent belief is that this will somehow reduce conflicts.


"Duty to retreat in the home" Some states place a further duty to retreat on people in their own home. This means that unless the encounter was sudden and unavoidable, you must retreat to the farthest point before deploying defensive force.

The logic of that escapes me entirely.

 

[Werewolf]

Here in Oklahoma we're pretty firearms friendly. On a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being Alaska/Vermont and 1 being MD, NY, NJ, MA I'd rate OK as a 7 or maybe even an 8.

The only restrictions as to what kind of firearms you can own here are federal. In fact the state law says that explicitly.

Buying a firearm. Walk into gun store. Pick what you want. Fill out 4473. Wait a few minutes for the check to go thru. Pay money. Walk out with firearm. The NICS check has never taken more than 5 minutes for me. The hard part is deciding what to buy - there are just sooooooo many options.

Self Defense: If you are in fear for your life you can shoot 'em. Oklahoma recognizes the doctrine of stepping into another's shoes. If another person can be deemed reasonably in fear of their life you can shoot the assailant and the same legal protections accrue to you as would to the person you defended. There is no requirement that the person you are defending be a family member or close friend (caveat: you better be darn sure of the situation before you shoot if you're defense is gonna be the step into an other's shoe doctrine).

If someone illegaly enters your home the law explicitly assumes that they are there to harm you. You can kill 'em - simple as that. The law shields one from lawsuits that might result from the shooting. The law has been in effect for well over 10 years and has been tested numerous times. Common sense must play a part in the exercise of said right though. In practice I wouldn't want to test the law in a case for example where a 12 year old kid broke down your door, was unarmed and you blew his head off.

Carry: Open carry is illegal in OK except while hunting or on your own property. If you own acreage then no problem, carry all you want on it - try carrying openly though while in your front yard in the burbs and I imagine you'd get a visit from the police if a sheep lives close by (and we do have our share of sheople in OK).

Concealed carry permits are easy to come by if you are a certified good guy. That means that a background check is done at the city, county, state and federal levels. To be a good guy you can't be a felon. Certain misdemeanors will disqualify one (time limit on some) and you can't be a nut (some time limits, adjudicated by court, under care of a psychiatrist - lots'a rules). Take an 8 hour course, get your fingerprints taken and submit paperwork. If you are a certified good guy and passed the course the state MUST issue you your permit within 90 days (the state has no discretion on this - if one meets the requirements the state must issue the permit). Most folks I know here with a permit got theirs within 60 (yes I have one).

Concealed carry restrictions: can't carry in places where alcohol is served and it is more than 50% of the business' income (stupid rule). Can't carry in stadiums during athetic events (stupid rule), in government buildings open for business to the public (stupid rule), courtrooms, post offices, schools and a few other places I can't remember (all stupid rules). What it boils down to is you can pretty much carry anywhere you want as long as it doesn't happen to be a place where our masters work, play or children happen to be.

OK recently passed a stand your ground law. Redundant in my opinion. I'm not sure whether it shields one from torts that might result from the shooting. If it doesn't it is just more political blather as there previously was no duty to retreat in OK and killing in self defense is explicitly defined as justifiable homicide in other statutes.

 

[Kentak]

Welcome to THR

Here's a quick summary of the situation in Ohio.

Has been generally friendly to gun ownership. Buying a gun is, and has been, relatively easy in most jurisdictions, subject, of course, to terms of the federal "Brady" background checks. This is usually done "while you wait." As long as you pass the check, you can buy any handgun, shotgun, or rifle you want. See my picture below.

However, in Ohio, local towns and cities can have more restrictive laws than the state in general. Columbus has an "assault rifle" ban which prevents one from buying, owning, or having such a weapon within city limits.

Until a couple of years ago, it was not legal to carry a concealed weapon. That has changed. A permit can be obtained after taking training and passing a background check.

Generally, one is permitted to use deadly force in defense of your or other's life and limb. If you are a CCW permit holder, you better be damn sure you did not initiate the confrontation, escalate it, or have any other recourse.

 

[Kentak]

Here's a question for you

From your perspective, do you perceive that the bulk of the UK people believe that the strong gun laws DO make for a safer society? In other words, do they willingly give up this right believing that they will be safer because of the gun laws?

K

 

[Stickjockey]

Here's Oregon for you:

...which state(s) is the most pro-gun, and conversely, which state is the most anti-gun?

Already been covered, nothing to add.

- Following on from that, in a pro-gun state, how does acquire a firearm, are any special permits required, and what type of firerarms is one able to purchase?

We here in Oregon are pretty good as far as gun laws go. Purchase is a simple matter of going in, choosing what you want, filling out the background check paperwork, and handing the counter guy/gal your form of payment. We can get anything you want, really, although anything covered under the 1934 National Firearms Act (machineguns, Short-barrelled rifles/shotguns, destructive devices, and such) have to go through the much more exhaustive NFA process and require a BATF/E tax stamp, usually costing $200.

- In a pro-gun state, can a handgun be carried in public without a permit, and can it be carried concealed without a permit?

As has already been noted, Alaska and Vermont are the only states in which one can carry concealed without a permit. Several satates allow open carry without a permit; I'm not sure whether Oregon is one, but I do know that you can carry openly with a permit here. The exceptions are Portland and Eugene, although there is some dispute on this account due to our State Preemption law. The only places we're prohibited from carrying are federal buildings and posted courthouses.

- Regarding self-defence, can a handgun be used in self-defence, and under what conditions can one legally use a handgun in self-defence? Also, is this limited by location factors? That is, if you defend yourself on your property or on the street.

They can, as long as you are in reasonable fear of death or grave bodily harm. There is no difference whether it is done in your house or on the street. We can also use deadly force to protect premises from arson or "a felony by force and violence by the trespasser. (ORS 161.225, section 2(b)

 

[rms/pa]

Pennsylvania here,

permit is called a Licence to carry firearms (LTCF)
fairly pro gun.
no waiting periods for purchase
open carry legal(must have LTCF in Philadelphia)
sherrif must issue LTCF or provide a denial letter with reasons.
federal restrictions apply for ownership and carry, no extra state laws.
no LTCF needed to own or posess firearms in the home or anywhere else.
loaded in a car and concealed must have the LTCF.
no "safe storage" laws. ... yet

lethal force is roughly the same as described above. no duty to retreat in law.

hope that helps.

rms/pa

 

[Cromlech]

Kentak wrote: From your perspective, do you perceive that the bulk of the UK people believe that the strong gun laws DO make for a safer society? In other words, do they willingly give up this right believing that they will be safer because of the gun laws?

K

Most people in the U.K do not believe that having personal firearms, and being able to use them for self-defense makes for safer society. My country is slowly turning into a wannabe-Socialist nightmare, with people reliant upon the government for protection.

:banghead:

 

[Volkolak]

Yep, I was going to say the same thing. It's more than damn shame, really.

Again, thanks for the information guys.

 

[Zundfolge]

Volkolak, Welcome to The High Road!.

Here's your "one stop shopping" source for gun laws in the US (especially as it pertains to handgun carrying)

www.handgunlaw.us
(an older site what many also refer to is www.packing.org )

 

[Cosmoline]

I understand that each state has different laws in place regarding firearms, but which state(s) is the most pro-gun, and conversely, which state is the most anti-gun?

Alaska is the best, IMHO Vermont has some good laws, but Alaska has a deeper pro-firearm culture. I rode over 30 miles through Anchorage on my bike round trip to the rifle range yesterday with a Winchester in a backpack scabbard, loosely cased in a sheath and very easy to recognize as a rifle. Nobody pulled me over, though several other bike riders asked me what kind of rifle it was.

At any rate, the best states are AK, Vermont, Wyoming, AZ and some of the southern states are all good.

The worst states are probably Hawaii, NJ and Mass. NY, Cal, Conn., Ill. and Maryland are also pretty bad from what I hear.

However, the bulk of the states in the middle are leaning to the pro-gun side through enacting shall issue CCW laws and liberalizing other firearm and self defense laws.

Following on from that, in a pro-gun state, how does acquire a firearm, are any special permits required, and what type of firerarms is one able to purchase?

No license is required in most US states for either a rifle or a handgun. Certain full automatic firearms require a federal "tax stamp" that acts as a license.

In a pro-gun state, can a handgun be carried in public without a permit, and can it be carried concealed without a permit?

In Ak and Vermont you can carry concealed with no permit on public property. In most other states you must have a CCW license, but these are a lot easier to get now than they were 20 years ago.

Regarding self-defence, can a handgun be used in self-defence, and under what conditions can one legally use a handgun in self-defence

The same conditions as any other form of lethal force. These vary state by state to some extent, but the general rule is you must match force with force, and you may only use lethal force in self defense or defense of another when facing imminent unlawful lethal force.

 

[Manedwolf]

In most cases, the unfortunate outcome that I see is that someone who legally defends themselves with lethal force is not charged with a crime, but they ARE then financially obliterated by the criminal's family in civil court.

 

[Volkolak]

That's worrying...is it a common occurance?

 

[Jim March]

Hmmmmm...not THAT common but it can happen.

 

[gunsmith]

welcome to THR!

Nevada is better then most States
Here you can carry concealed and have a beer and a cig (you guys call cigs fags) in a bar, I do not drink or smoke but I like rock music so I do go to a bar once in awhile and I carry my gun (concealed) without breaking any laws.
One state to the south of me (Arizona) has declared that bars are victim finding zones

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

In most cases, the unfortunate outcome that I see is that someone who legally defends themselves with lethal force is not charged with a crime, but they ARE then financially obliterated by the criminal's family in civil court.

Not in Florida. My State just recently passed a law that prohibits civil action against those who have been deemed to have acted within their rights to shoot in self defense.