Posted by Lee Lapin: There is NO SUBSTITUTE for developing an operating knowledge of the laws applicable to self defense and defense of others in your own jurisdiction or in any jurisdiction in which you legally carry a firearm.
That is very true indeed.
That means ALL the law, both statute book law and case law (precedent, appellate, etc).
And so is that.
To illustrate that point by way of example for those who may not fully understand it, there is nothing in the statute where I live that specifies a duty to retreat if you are not in your domicile or automobile. That duty does exist, however. The requirement traces back to the common law, as embodied in legal precedent ("case law"). It is taught in the state CCW class, but you won't find it in the criminal code.
The place to get your legal information is at the hands of someone who practices that law every day- NOT on the Internet.
No one can argue with that.
However, it may not be practical for everyone to consult with someone who practices "that" law every day. I've been interviewing criminal lawyers in a large metro area, and those with any real familiarity with self defense law practice are proving hard to find.
Some people do have that option. There are some stop-gap resources, not as good but better than nothing; books and authoritative papers on the internet are available, but they are usually not jurisdiction specific, and jurisdictional difference may prove to mean everything. Florida and Arizona have some excellent 'papers' on the web.
In the Arizona paper, the author, attorney Michael Anthony, makes the same point that Lee has been repeating here--
do not rely on a lay interpretation of a statute.
I will offer one lay observation, based on experience working in another field of legal compliance: if a statute says that something is unlawful, it most probably is, though that
might change much later if someone really wants to test it (happened today in SCOTUS, as a matter of fact); the converse is not necessarily true, however--one cannot safely assume that something is lawful because the specific prohibition does not pop up where you look for it.
One other observation, also based on experience: people who have tried to rationalize that doing something would be OK by carefully analyzing the black law in excruciating detail using dictionary definitions have often been tripped up by things they did not understand and or things about which they had been unaware. Legal precedent, common law, other relevant laws....
So, what to do? (1) get the best legal advice you can, as Lee has said; and (2) (this is my personal opinion) don't get to close to the yellow line if you can help it--play it safe and you are less likely to get hit by oncoming traffic.
Translating the latter to utmost simplicity--if you
have to shoot to save yourself and family, do so, but if you can possibly avoid it, avoid it.
