# Crime In Your Locale? Got Carry Permit?



## CLEARVIEW TREE

Guys, how is the economy affecting crime in your area? Over here near Knoxville, Tennesse i'd say it's up about 20-30% over last year! In the last 2 weeks we've had a mall shooting(disgruntled customer), 2 mexican brothers robbed 2 men at knife point at a lil ole country market stabbing and killing one but not before he could call police and identified them and collapsed and died, and a 21 yr old female from alabama was helpin open a restraunt and was abducted from her motel room by 2 mexican men that worked at the hotel, they raped her, strangled her, and dumped her body in melton hill lake 4 miles away. The main one was turned in by his gf after she saw him in the morning with bloody womans clothes on. That's strange, real strange. 
Home invasions and bank robberies are now taking main stage media attention. They both are part of everyday news here and around, often times ending in murder. I've always kept a decent amount of firearms in the house, being an avid shooter, hunter and outdoorsman. I now have my handgun carry permit and am a member of a local indoor range where i shoot no less than once a month. Shooting is like martial arts,tree work etc. it's a perishable skill. If you're not practicing then you're not gonna be able to stand up to the daily offerings whatever they may be! I hope i never have to use a weapon on a human being, but if that time arrives and i'm called on to protect my family i will not think twice!!! I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6 ya know. Folks if you're not a member of the NRA please join. They're our strongest ally in the fight against gun control and protecting our amended rights. If you have been thinkin about gettin your carry permit, stop thinkin about it and go do it. You'll thank yourself for it. That card will keep you outta hot water if you ever have to defend yourself. Also, join a shootin club at a local range. It's some of the most fun you'll ever have and helps your skills considerably. Just think about it for a minute: Wonder what would've happened if most crime victims would've had a lic. weapon with them and the training to use it when they were murdered? It's a sad thought but i can guarantee you that some nasty criminals would be the ones that got a dose of their own medicine!:censored:


----------



## yooper

Great post 
Also bring a kid to the range. That way they learn about gun safty at a young age. It will better our future as gun owners.


----------



## iCreek

Good story, reminding all that there are some dangerous people running around everywhere, urban and rural america. I grew up with firearms, member of the NRA, and also have my permit to carry, Missouri passed it a few years ago. I don't carry everyday, but always have it in my vehicle within reach, and slide it into my pants when I feel like I need to.


----------



## cjk

The fine governor of my state doesnt feel the people of Wisconsin are responsible enough to protect themselves by CCW.  

I personally dont think I would but I would like to be able to if I lived in another area with more crime.


----------



## CLEARVIEW TREE

cjk said:


> The fine governor of my state doesnt feel the people of Wisconsin are responsible enough to protect themselves by CCW.
> 
> I personally dont think I would but I would like to be able to if I lived in another area with more crime.



Hmm, that's unfortunate man. Surely you can have em at home huh?:monkey:


----------



## SAW

Good post. I just got my concealed carry permit the other day. I still need to join the NRA, especially with the way congress is today.


----------



## Madsaw

cjk said:


> The fine governor of my state doesnt feel the people of Wisconsin are responsible enough to protect themselves by CCW.
> 
> I personally dont think I would but I would like to be able to if I lived in another area with more crime.





CLEARVIEW TREE said:


> Hmm, that's unfortunate man. Surely you can have em at home huh?:monkey:



CJK,
I know what you mean. The crime here in my corner of the state is going up all the time. I have found times when going to town at nights I wish we could carry
Yeah Clear we can have them at home. If not I would not be living in WI. A 12 ga and buckshot makes a nice welcome sound at 2 am
Bob


----------



## Kansas

I have mine and wife has hers too, we both are life members of the NRA also. 

Our democrat governor vetoed our carry bill twice and the third time around we had a veto proof majority yahoo common sense prevailed. 

I would also along with Clearviewtree's suggestion sure urge people that have (or are considering) CCW permits to get involved with your local gun club and either attend IDPA matchs or get one started at your range. jmo

 Sorry to jack this great thread and make a plug for something else but-BTW folks PLEASE PLEASE join the NRA we need you now more than ever!

Kansas


----------



## CLEARVIEW TREE

good replys guys. yep crime is increasing everywhere, and i'd say this Christmas is going to be the roughest for the thugs so far, so they'll be out in full force to do whatever they can to rob, rape and pillage your Christmas to provide for theirs. So be ready if need be.

Just imagine crime right now if law abiding citizens had no guns to defend themselves. It'd be out the roof man. If guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns. Recently my fiance's pharmacy was robbed for the third time. When she sounded the alarm to the sevierville police it took them 7.5 minutes to drive a 1/4 mile to check on them. Thank goodness nobody was getting ars raped in the pharmacy by the thugs. She is now getting her permit as well. Just goes to show another good reason to have a means to quickly defend ones self. The police are seldom there when you need them, but when you go 5 mph over the speed limit they'll pounce on ya every time in seconds!!!!!


----------



## Kansas

Yes sir the police are only minutes away when seconds count!

Kansas


----------



## rebel3.0

I would be great to have one up here. Not that we have very much crime in our parts, but it would just be peice of mind. hand guns are very controled in canada. Its allmost not possible to get a concealed carry permit. :censored:


----------



## woodchuck361

Don't worry Clearview there are lots of us that carry everyday to make up where the leo's leave off. Heck lumpy is a one man police force. Have you seen how many times he has used his side arm to prevent or stop a crime. The Leo's do the best they can but they can't be everywhere and frankly I don't want them everywhere. That is why I think it is the civilians responsibility to go armed and defend himself and loved ones. Never give an inch or they will take a mile.


----------



## jjett84724

The smartest thing you can do is get a CCW. Why? 

Because its hard to hide a cop under your coat!!!  :greenchainsaw:


----------



## glenn31792

_Because its hard to hide a cop under your coat!!!_


Even if you did they aren’t worth a s**t.


Police Have No Duty To Protect Individuals
by Peter Kasler
Self-Reliance For Self-Defense -- Police Protection Isn't Enough!
All our lives, especially during our younger years, we hear that the police are there to protect us. From the very first kindergarten- class visit of "Officer Friendly" to the very last time we saw a police car - most of which have "To Protect and Serve" emblazoned on their doors - we're encouraged to give ourselves over to police protection. But it hasn't always been that way. 
Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers." 
The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." [4] There are many similar cases with results to the same effect.


----------



## jjett84724

Even if you did they aren’t worth a s**t.


Police Have No Duty To Protect Individuals
by Peter Kasler
Self-Reliance For Self-Defense -- Police Protection Isn't Enough!
All our lives, especially during our younger years, we hear that the police are there to protect us. From the very first kindergarten- class visit of "Officer Friendly" to the very last time we saw a police car - most of which have "To Protect and Serve" emblazoned on their doors - we're encouraged to give ourselves over to police protection. But it hasn't always been that way. 
Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers." 
The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." [4] There are many similar cases with results to the same effect.[/QUOTE]


The court got this one right. The police are not responsible for these women getting raped. Should the police have responded? ABSOLUTELY!! Unfortunately they didn't. We don't know the fact's of the case. There is a ton of case law on this very thing. 

A citizen injured because the police failed to protect her can only sue the State or local government in federal court if one of their officials violated a federal statutory or Constitutional right, and can only win such a suit if a "special relationship" can be shown to have existed...(Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department)


----------



## scattergun13

jjett84724 said:


> Even if you did they aren’t worth a s**t.
> 
> 
> Police Have No Duty To Protect Individuals
> by Peter Kasler
> Self-Reliance For Self-Defense -- Police Protection Isn't Enough!
> All our lives, especially during our younger years, we hear that the police are there to protect us. From the very first kindergarten- class visit of "Officer Friendly" to the very last time we saw a police car - most of which have "To Protect and Serve" emblazoned on their doors - we're encouraged to give ourselves over to police protection. But it hasn't always been that way.
> Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers."
> The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." [4] There are many similar cases with results to the same effect.




The court got this one right. The police are not responsible for these women getting raped. Should the police have responded? ABSOLUTELY!! Unfortunately they didn't. We don't know the fact's of the case. There is a ton of case law on this very thing. 

A citizen injured because the police failed to protect her can only sue the State or local government in federal court if one of their officials violated a federal statutory or Constitutional right, and can only win such a suit if a "special relationship" can be shown to have existed...(Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department)[/QUOTE]:agree2:


----------



## BuddhaKat

Another great organization to join is the US Concealed Carry Assoc. http://www.usconcealedcarry.com/.

I've carried for about 8 years now and have been fortunate enough to never have had the need to use my gun, but it does make me feel a bit more secure when I'm out and about. Unfortunately, I have had to draw it on a person here at my home a few years back. I'll spare you the long details, but the most notable part of the encounter was when I pointed my 9MM at his head from 15' the guy just looked at it and said "So what, you think you're the only one with a gun?" I just looked back and said "Yes, as a matter of fact I do." I should have shot him just for being that stupid. You know, improving the gene pool and all.  The cops couldn't believe I didn't shoot him. They said it looked perfectly justifiable to them. (He was a really bad and violent guy. Liked to beat up women.)

We don't have any indoor ranges left here in the Reno area. Too many EPA reg's for the last one to survive. Plus, I'm about 25 miles out of town. I can go into the national forest if I want to shoot, but it's even pretty far away. Personally, I'm a lousy shot. However, to make up for my deficiencies I put a laser on my gun. It makes it very simple. Put the red dot where you want the hole to go, install the hole.  I'm terrified that while protecting myself I might miss and hit some innocent kid a block away. I'd rather it were me than any innocent. The laser takes that concern away.

There is a company called Crimson that makes a laser that's built into the grip. Very cool. When I get some money I'm going to get one for my pistol. A lot less bulky than the one I have clamped on the trigger guard right now.


----------



## Metals406

The Attorney General's Office has determined that concealed weapons permits from the following states are recognized under Montana law:

Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Nebraska
Nevada
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wyoming


----------



## A. Stanton

Clear, before anyone uses a handgun outside of their home for self defense, they should remember Bernie Getz--NY viligante. One of the sacks of crap he shot got a $6 million judgement against him. Now Bernie can't own anything. You dust some maggot and all the liars for hire will come out to get you and you will lose everything you own defending yourself in court--criminal, civil or both.


----------



## woodchuck361

A. Stanton said:


> Clear, before anyone uses a handgun outside of their home for self defense, they should remember Bernie Getz--NY viligante. One of the sacks of crap he shot got a $6 million judgement against him. Now Bernie can't own anything. You dust some maggot and all the liars for hire will come out to get you and you will lose everything you own defending yourself in court--criminal, civil or both.



Sad but very true. :agree2:


----------



## BuddhaKat

A. Stanton said:


> Clear, before anyone uses a handgun outside of their home for self defense, they should remember Bernie Getz--NY viligante. One of the sacks of crap he shot got a $6 million judgement against him. Now Bernie can't own anything. You dust some maggot and all the liars for hire will come out to get you and you will lose everything you own defending yourself in court--criminal, civil or both.


Oh, if I'd have fired, he would have died. The first round was a Glaser Safety Slug. He might have survived that one, but by the slimmest chance. All 15 after that were explosive tipped +P. They go in at 9MM, they come out the other end at around 3". Perfectly legal round.

The a-hole didn't know it but he had one more step before I would have fired. He would have got 2 in the heart and one in the head, (if he was still standing). He don't know how lucky he was that he backed up.

In Nevada, we can protect our property with deadly force. We're not the wild west, but our laws are setup to protect the law abiding citizen and not the criminal. In my case, we had sent the guy a certified letter from my attorney telling him he wasn't allowed on our property. He's one of those 6'2 gorillas and I'm a handicapped person with a fused vertebrae in my neck. One poke in the nose for me and I'm a quad or dead. Also, we had the cops on the phone begging them to get here so I didn't have to deal with this. The 911 operator's response when I told her my only defense was to sue a gun, "Do what ya gotta do."

When it was over I was really pissed at this guy for nearly making me kill him. I don't feel macho or invincible because I carry a gun, and I really don't want to hurt anyone, but I wouldn't hesitate for a microsecond to fire if it came down to it. I have a 'safe zone'. Enter it and you're gonna die. I thank God that the guy I had to face down backed down. I don't know how well I would deal with having killed someone.


----------



## woodchopper

A. Stanton said:


> Clear, before anyone uses a handgun outside of their home for self defense, they should remember Bernie Getz--NY viligante. One of the sacks of crap he shot got a $6 million judgement against him. Now Bernie can't own anything. You dust some maggot and all the liars for hire will come out to get you and you will lose everything you own defending yourself in court--criminal, civil or both.


Getz didn't have a gun on him legally. He didn't have a permit which was why the maggot was able to sue him. If you're legal and someone is threatening your life you can shoot to defend your life in most states.


----------



## Ghillie

BuddhaKat said:


> Oh, if I'd have fired, he would have died. The first round was a Glaser Safety Slug. He might have survived that one, but by the slimmest chance. All 15 after that were explosive tipped +P. They go in at 9MM, they come out the other end at around 3". Perfectly legal round.
> 
> The a-hole didn't know it but he had one more step before I would have fired. He would have got 2 in the heart and one in the head, (if he was still standing). He don't know how lucky he was that he backed up.
> 
> In Nevada, we can protect our property with deadly force. We're not the wild west, but our laws are setup to protect the law abiding citizen and not the criminal. In my case, we had sent the guy a certified letter from my attorney telling him he wasn't allowed on our property. He's one of those 6'2 gorillas and I'm a handicapped person with a fused vertebrae in my neck. One poke in the nose for me and I'm a quad or dead. Also, we had the cops on the phone begging them to get here so I didn't have to deal with this. The 911 operator's response when I told her my only defense was to sue a gun, "Do what ya gotta do."
> 
> When it was over I was really pissed at this guy for nearly making me kill him. I don't feel macho or invincible because I carry a gun, and I really don't want to hurt anyone, but I wouldn't hesitate for a microsecond to fire if it came down to it. I have a 'safe zone'. Enter it and you're gonna die. I thank God that the guy I had to face down backed down. I don't know how well I would deal with having killed someone.



Are you trying to give them more reasons for gun-control?

Education is the best weapon we have to keep our right to defend ourselves.

"Explosive" tipped rounds are illegal! +P refers to chamber pressure when fired in a gun.

If you are referring to hollow point ammunition, 3 inch expansion of the projectile is impossible! At best, you may get 50% expansion, but at that , you lose bullet weight and therefore lose kinetic energy and penetration.

And, if it leaves an exit wound, then the projectile left the target, meaning the innocents are still in danger.

The person feeding you this information is at best, WRONG!

The decision to pull the trigger is a responsibility to ensure you hit the intended target and only the intended target. You cannot undo the act once the trigger is pulled.


----------



## A. Stanton

woodchopper said:


> Getz didn't have a gun on him legally. He didn't have a permit which was why the maggot was able to sue him. If you're legal and someone is threatening your life you can shoot to defend your life in most states.



Wood, you are entitled to your opinion and I'm no lawyer. The courts today are governed more my public opinion than law. Ask the cops who arrested Rodney King: they ended up doing time. When the verdict--innocent--coming from the state court didn't sit right with em, they went to a federal court. You want to talk about law: that's double jeopardy in most courts! Didn't matter, those poor sob's ended up losing their jobs and going to jail. And they had permits to carry those PR 24's. (Funny, as I type this, I'm watching Charlie Bronson in the Vigilante.)


----------



## BuddhaKat

Ghillie said:


> Are you trying to give them more reasons for gun-control?
> 
> Education is the best weapon we have to keep our right to defend ourselves.
> 
> "Explosive" tipped rounds are illegal! +P refers to chamber pressure when fired in a gun.
> 
> If you are referring to hollow point ammunition, 3 inch expansion of the projectile is impossible! At best, you may get 50% expansion, but at that , you lose bullet weight and therefore lose kinetic energy and penetration.
> 
> And, if it leaves an exit wound, then the projectile left the target, meaning the innocents are still in danger.
> 
> The person feeding you this information is at best, WRONG!
> 
> The decision to pull the trigger is a responsibility to ensure you hit the intended target and only the intended target. You cannot undo the act once the trigger is pulled.


I couldn't see how explosive tipped rounds could be legal so just to be sure I gave one of them to a San Jose, CA cop and asked him to check it out for me. I did this because, unlike criminals, *I* desire to be legal. He sent the round to the ATF and they sent it back as a perfectly legal round. Apparently, they are legal because the primer does not protrude beyond the tip of the bullet. Only the US military is allowed to use a round with the primer extending beyond the tip. The ATF did say that it was illegal to ship these rounds by any common carrier, such as mail or UPS. I can drive them around anywhere in the nation, I just can't mail them.

I can't say for sure there would have been a 3" hole out the back, but I have seen a video of this bullet in shooters gel. The damage was unsurvivable.

Because of safety concerns, all rounds in my first clip are now Extreme Shock rounds. They are plastic tipped and all energy is expended in a short distance after impact. Still an effective round, but much safer. If 2 of these don't take the gorilla down, 15 rounds of the explosive tipped ammo is in the 2nd clip. No human would survive an abdomen shot with one of those. The explosive tipped rounds were made by a company called Annihilator or something like that. I don't remember for sure. I do know that's what they called the bullet itself. I bought them at a gun show in Portland 15+ years ago. I don't think they're in business anymore.

Your last comment is absolutely awesome. If a person is going to be walking around the streets with a loaded gun, their responsibility for knowing how to use it is absolute. In my situation time slowed down, (adrenaline). While I was preparing to fire I went through a mental and physical checklist.

• Point the gun at his head so the barrel looks 1" wide. Keep your finger off the trigger!
• Yell command phrases as loud as I can.
• Check what's behind him in case I fire and miss.
• If I have to fire, lower the gun to his chest first.
• Be absolutely sure the target is lined up in the sights properly.
• Keep your thumb out of the way so you don't break it (again).
• DO NOT RAPID FIRE NO MATTER WHAT!!!!! AIM BEFORE EACH SHOT!!!!!
• 2 in the heart, one in the head.
• Render first aid until the EMT's can get there and pronounce him dead.

After this was over I installed a laser on the gun. I'm not a good shot so the red dot is a safety factor for me. I would imagine it would also be useful in a self defense situation. All I would have to do is put the red dot on his nutz and ask him if he's feeling lucky today, punk? If it were me, I'd start being cooperative as hell.

To me, the laser is one of the most important factors in carrying the gun. The psychological factor is undeniable, and I have verified that it insures a 'reasonable' accuracy, even when firing fast. The hole is usually within 1" of where the red dot is @ 20'. I check it all the time to make sure it's accurate.

I suppose the anti-gun nuts should know that I would rather die than take a shot when an innocent person is standing behind the target. Here in Nevada it's pretty easy for anyone to get a carry permit. Honestly that scares me. Some of these honyocks think it's a good idea to run into a 7-11 with their guns blazing if they see a holdup in progress. Bad idea! Call the cops and let them deal with it.


----------



## Ghillie

I would be very interested in seeing video of this ammunition.

A picture of the packaging, loaded round or headstamp of a round at least.


----------



## BuddhaKat

Ghillie said:


> I would be very interested in seeing video of this ammunition.
> 
> A picture of the packaging, loaded round or headstamp of a round at least.


When I get my computer back working I'll post a picture of one of the bullets. Not much to it tho. They reamed out a jacketed hollow point, poured in a little powder, then pressed in a primer flush with the top. I did a Google search and couldn't find any info on the company. I guess they're gone.


----------



## cord arrow

> I would rather die than take a shot when an innocent person is standing behind the target.



As would I....


----------



## clearance

A. Stanton said:


> Wood, you are entitled to your opinion and I'm no lawyer. The courts today are governed more my public opinion than law. Ask the cops who arrested Rodney King: they ended up doing time. When the verdict--innocent--coming from the state court didn't sit right with em, they went to a federal court. You want to talk about law: that's double jeopardy in most courts! Didn't matter, those poor sob's ended up losing their jobs and going to jail. And they had permits to carry those PR 24's. (Funny, as I type this, I'm watching Charlie Bronson in the Vigilante.)



Didn't they beat him like a rented mule with nightsticks, like a whole bunch of them and he was alone? It was b.s., they were out of control. Thats how I remember it. But yes, the federal charges were a backdoor deal, unfair. 

As I get older I am not as understanding in some ways. As much as I have a problem with it, some people deserve to be shot.


----------



## cord arrow

> To me, the laser is one of the most important factors in carrying the gun. The psychological factor is undeniable, and I have verified that it insures a 'reasonable' accuracy, even when firing fast. The hole is usually within 1" of where the red dot is @ 20'. I check it all the time to make sure it's accurate.



The laser is an aid...nothing more. Responsible gun handling entails being able to to hit that same 1" at 20 feet...with or without laser assist.

Using laser aids as a crutch only to find the battery's dead, or your optics have been compromised in some way...at the time you need it most...will verify this quickly.

If, in fact, you're physically unable to obtain a reasonable measure of manual accuracy...you need to acquire a different means of personal protection.


----------



## cord arrow

> All I would have to do is put the red dot on his nutz and ask him if he's feeling lucky today, punk?



Yeah...that's all you would have to do...

That, and perhaps spend less time in front of the tube...

This is exactly the language that is detrimental to responsible citizens owning firearms...


----------



## BuddhaKat

cord arrow said:


> The laser is an aid...nothing more. Responsible gun handling entails being able to to hit that same 1" at 20 feet...with or without laser assist.
> 
> Using laser aids as a crutch only to find the battery's dead, or your optics have been compromised in some way...at the time you need it most...will verify this quickly.
> 
> If, in fact, you're physically unable to obtain a reasonable measure of manual accuracy...you need to acquire a different means of personal protection.


Oh I can hit the target at 20' without any problem, but I'm doing a 5" group. With the laser I'm less than 2" and much faster. When split seconds count I'll take every advantage I can get.



cord arrow said:


> Yeah...that's all you would have to do...
> 
> That, and perhaps spend less time in front of the tube...
> 
> This is exactly the language that is detrimental to responsible citizens owning firearms...


Relax, I am a highly, highly responsible gun owner. Even more so because I walk around in public with a loaded weapon. Read my earlier post. The stupid cowboys scare the crap outta me. I was just making a joke, nothing more.


----------



## Kansas

A. Stanton said:


> Clear, before anyone uses a handgun outside of their home for self defense, they should remember Bernie Getz--NY viligante. One of the sacks of crap he shot got a $6 million judgement against him. Now Bernie can't own anything. You dust some maggot and all the liars for hire will come out to get you and you will lose everything you own defending yourself in court--criminal, civil or both.



Some states mine included give a court justified homicide civil immunity to anyone who kills in self defense even a non-cch. Its a good law and should be country wide imo.

There is a lot more to it than that but as a rule that is the basic state law in some areas you have to find out what your state does.

And to the OP with the "exploding tip" bullets you might want to actually research that statement and be carefull stating such things as being owned by you on a public forum you never know who is reading this stuff... 

Kansas


----------



## BuddhaKat

Kansas said:


> And to the OP with the "exploding tip" bullets you might want to actually research that statement and be carefull stating such things as being owned by you on a public forum you never know who is reading this stuff...
> 
> Kansas


Thank you for your concern, but as I said, I sent one of those bullets to the ATF and it came back perfectly legal. Can't get any better researched than that. (I hope).


----------



## Ghillie

BuddhaKat said:


> Thank you for your concern, but as I said, I sent one of those bullets to the ATF and it came back perfectly legal. Can't get any better researched than that. (I hope).




Is this the same ATF that baited Randy Weaver. The same ATF that SLAMMED the wife of a Bucyrus, Ohio gun collector into a wall on a raid, causing a miscarriage. By the way, the collector was found innocent of what they thought he was doing wrong. At least he got a "oops, I am sorry."

As I said before, education is our best defense to keeping our right to defend ourselves with firearms.

Nothing you have said describing the bullets make sense to me. That is why I asked for pictures. Someone is feeding you wrong information and perpetuating it here in open forum is just detrimental to the right you cherish so much.

Be safe,

Fred


----------



## BuddhaKat

Ghillie said:


> Is this the same ATF that baited Randy Weaver. The same ATF that SLAMMED the wife of a Bucyrus, Ohio gun collector into a wall on a raid, causing a miscarriage. By the way, the collector was found innocent of what they thought he was doing wrong. At least he got a "oops, I am sorry."
> 
> As I said before, education is our best defense to keeping our right to defend ourselves with firearms.
> 
> Nothing you have said describing the bullets make sense to me. That is why I asked for pictures. Someone is feeding you wrong information and perpetuating it here in open forum is just detrimental to the right you cherish so much.
> 
> Be safe,
> 
> Fred


Well it wasn't me that sent it to them, it was the San Jose PD. If there was any way the bullet wasn't legal I can't think of any reason the ATF would withhold that info from them. That said, it was 15+ years ago and I suppose the laws could have changed, maybe on the state level.

Like I also said, they're no longer my first choice. The gun is loaded with Extreme Shock safety rounds in the first clip. www.ExtremeShockUSA.com. If 16 rounds of these won't stop the bad guy, worrying about the legality of the explosive rounds will be the last thing on my mind.

I believe these rounds are legal because I had them checked by the ATF. Thus, I don't believe I'm being irresponsible in any way by talking about them here. As I have said many times now, I am a responsible gun owner. Part of that responsibility involves being compliant with all laws, not just gun related ones. I am comfortable that I'm not breaking any laws, but if I thought for a second I was, I would destroy them in a flat heartbeat. But they're not illegal. I appreciate your concern, but they're not illegal. I checked with the cops, they checked with the ATF. Nobody had a problem with them. I'm sorry you can't accept that, but I don't know what more I can do. I'm just conversating here so I don't want you to think I'm getting all righteously indignant or anything like that, but I really feel I've gone above and beyond the call of duty to insure I'm not breaking the law.


----------



## Kansas

BuddhaKat said:


> Thank you for your concern, but as I said, I sent one of those bullets to the ATF and it came back perfectly legal. Can't get any better researched than that. (I hope).



No problem however I still doubt the legality of a true exploding bullet as you described what you have even though you say the ATF has looked at them?

I have delt with ATF they dont like anyone that has a gun let alone one that has ammo will make your head explode or some nonsence as that. 

Reagan and Brady were both shot with a supposed exploding .22cal bullets thats what caused most of the problems we are facing now and will again soon you dont want to be part of all that. 

My advice (and this could go on for hours) is use the current rounds available for LE like Ranger T's or HST's they are at the top of current bullet technology you cant buy them from a dealer but you can on the net search for them and they are impressive expanded! 

And yes they are legal to own and use even though the manufacturers have voluntarily taken them off the open market and sell them only to LE to avoid the legal hassles.

(btw I have seen several types of so called exploding bullets in action and they dont work like they are pumped up to do for many many reasons)

be carefull

Kansas


----------



## Ghillie

BuddhaKat said:


> Well it wasn't me that sent it to them, it was the San Jose PD. If there was any way the bullet wasn't legal I can't think of any reason the ATF would withhold that info from them. That said, it was 15+ years ago and I suppose the laws could have changed, maybe on the state level.
> 
> Like I also said, they're no longer my first choice. The gun is loaded with Extreme Shock safety rounds in the first clip. www.ExtremeShockUSA.com. If 16 rounds of these won't stop the bad guy, worrying about the legality of the explosive rounds will be the last thing on my mind.
> 
> I believe these rounds are legal because I had them checked by the ATF. Thus, I don't believe I'm being irresponsible in any way by talking about them here. As I have said many times now, I am a responsible gun owner. Part of that responsibility involves being compliant with all laws, not just gun related ones. I am comfortable that I'm not breaking any laws, but if I thought for a second I was, I would destroy them in a flat heartbeat. But they're not illegal. I appreciate your concern, but they're not illegal. I checked with the cops, they checked with the ATF. Nobody had a problem with them. I'm sorry you can't accept that, but I don't know what more I can do. I'm just conversating here so I don't want you to think I'm getting all righteously indignant or anything like that, but I really feel I've gone above and beyond the call of duty to insure I'm not breaking the law.



I am just conversing also. I am not trying to give you more information so that in future reference, you will know.

You may remember the "rhino" bullet scare ten years or so ago. The manufacturer made claims of explosive bullets and penetrating bullet resistant vests. There was a lot of unwanted media as a result of their claims. Doctors where crying that they were going to get cut while irrigating wounds from these bullets. They thought that they were going to get cut from the "explosive" shrapnel left in the wound.

The "Rhino" bullets were nothing more than a "frangible" round like your Extreme shock ammunition. It is an excellent concept for home defense. They are designed to break up on impact with the first target the get to. Imparting all of their energy into said target. They don't (in theory) penetrate beyond that target and injure any bystanders. But the media grabbed hold of the claims of "explosive" expansion and ran with it.

There is a move across the nation with SWAT and Tactical units to move away from rifles chambered in pistol calibers (ie..9mm, .40S&W) and go to 5.56mm NATO rounds with TAP rounds to solve overpenetration issues. The TAP rounds are similar in terminal ballistics to the frangible rounds you are using.

As far as checking with any law enforcement agency, unless you have it in writing, it never happened. I have asked officers in casual conversation what model their service weapon was and they had no idea. I am not bashing law enforcement in general. Trust.....but verify!

It isn't that I do not belive you. I am not saying that you are lying. I think it is a case of claims from the manufacturer are distorted. Just like with the Rhino bullets.

If you would like, I would be glad to do more research on the rounds you were talking about. If nothing else than for my own education.

PM me if you are interested. If not, no big deal.

Be safe,

Fred


----------



## BuddhaKat

Ghillie said:


> If you would like, I would be glad to do more research on the rounds you were talking about. If nothing else than for my own education.
> 
> PM me if you are interested. If not, no big deal.
> 
> Be safe,
> 
> Fred


I'd be very interested in any info you can dig up on these. Go ahead and post it here or send it to my email.

I'm Mike Keeney and this is my real email address (in my sig). :hmm3grin2orange:


----------



## dingeryote

Budhakat,

Not to interject, but quite possibly the ammunition in question is known by the brand "Devastator". It made a stir with Ronnie Reagan getting shot with it, and Bernie Goetz using it in his subway incident.

http://www.hi-vel.com/Catalog__2/Devastator_Ammunition/devastator_ammunition.html

It's still available, and aside from a few municipalities, is still legal to own and posess. It has been specificly named in several legislative attempts to ban ammunition, but so far has remained on the market somehow.

The Devastator ammo is not as advertised however.
Firstly,the impact ignition train is not sensitive enough to be reliable on impact with soft tissues in deferrence to the potential for detonation on impact during the feeding cycle.

Next up, is the "detonation" is really a low grade pressure event that does NOT enhance projecile deformation in soft tissues much if any more than the terminal hydraulic pressure on the cavity sans compound.

Lastly, when tested in ordnance gel, the devastator ammunition produced inconsistent and unreliable penetration, velocitys were inconsistent with a std. of deviation in excess of any and all known L.E. agency standards.

In short, the ammo is 100% Meadow muffins, with hysteria and ignorance giving it a "Mystique",and Goetz and Hinkley giving it press.

Your "Extreme shock" is better terminally, and marginally better in consistency. It tests out similar terminally to Glaser safety ammo, but not as consistent in pressures and velocitys.

I have been present when both were run into 10% Vyse ordnance gel in testing. Of the two the Glaser would be more reliable in operating a recoil operated sidearm, but in the testing no problems were encountered.

Just a friendly suggestion if you are serious about the matter.
Seek out advanced level training from one of the better instructors out there.
Ayoob, Taylor, Givens, Clint Smith, Gunsite, tactical response, John Farnum, Gabe Suarez, etc.

The mindset and legal aspects are worth many times the cost of the course.

Hang onto that ammo, and if ya could, post a pic of the headstamp, projectile, and any packaging.
It might be worth a trade for some good ammo at a gunshow.

Stay safe
Dingeryote


----------



## Ghillie

Excellent post 'yote.

Winchester headstamp, bulk packaging similar to zip-loc is what I have so far.

He does not have means of transferring pictures to the computer he is currently using, so waiting on his to be fixed.


----------



## Kansas

Sortof off topic here but with the talk of bullet dynamics and snake oil there are powdered bullets available to the public now called DRT's. I guess the story is they were tested over in the sand box with surprising results. 

I am not verifying any of it I am just passing this on as something I read one time.

The supposed purpose is they will not exit a soft target but will pass thru a hard target cool huh?! This obviously isnt a SD round its more special weapons and tactics but still interesting I think and worth a read to gun nuts like us. 

Kansas


----------



## The Lorax

You guys have to hang on to your guns.
Over here in Ireland, handguns have only recently been allowed back into shooters hands, after 30+years of a de-facto ban.
Cue to this year and after a few high profile gangland killings and an innocent man being shot in a drive-by the Minister for Justice has decided that Handguns are to be banned, this time for good.
But the point that he conveniently forgot is that the people that have pistols legally are already vetted by the Police to a high standard.
You cannot have any criminal convictions, Telephone alarm connected to the house, secure gun storage and lastly, the license is only for target shooting.
There is no concealed carry or self defense with a handgun allowed here.
BUT the minister has decided that the law abiding shooter has to give up his handgun just in case it could be stolen and fall into the wrong hands.
It really annoys me when politicians play the media card and start talking about legally held and criminal use of handguns as one and the same.


----------



## dingeryote

OOOPS!!

Thread driftage.. sorry.

Yep. I carry. Everywhere except the shower, and at least two. Two makes sense once you get used to it, and get comfy with your rig. 

Have for many years.

Stay safe!
Dingeryote


----------



## dingeryote

Kansas said:


> Sortof off topic here but with the talk of bullet dynamics and snake oil there are powdered bullets available to the public now called DRT's. I guess the story is they were tested over in the sand box with surprising results.
> 
> I am not verifying any of it I am just passing this on as something I read one time.
> 
> The supposed purpose is they will not exit a soft target but will pass thru a hard target cool huh?! This obviously isnt a SD round its more special weapons and tactics but still interesting I think and worth a read to gun nuts like us.
> 
> Kansas



Kansas,

The DRT ammo is available to civvies. It's a twist on Stan Bulmers RBCD "Blended metal technology" though they are not connected.

At least DRT runs thier stuff through a standard test medium, and make no snake oil claims.

Have yet to see any independent reports or run it through Gel, but watching the vids, the DRT "Bubba Bullet" behaves much like the "green" frangible ammo used for Kill house training. Nasty shallow wounds, with penetration limited to 8" or less. I guess if secondary targets were your primary concern, it would work well enough. A good friend swears by 5.56 40gr Varmint loads for Dope raids in housing units, and never had a problem neutralizing any threats.Same concept brought forward.

Some interesting stuff going on in terminals these days.
Thanks!!

Stay safe!
Dingeryote


----------



## Kansas

Interesting info Digeryote thanks!  

If I find DRT's .45 I would probably try some. I have a non-scientific SD bullet test on going. CTD has DRT in 9 and .40about a dollar a piece. I am testing 9mm and .380 and .45. 

Right now the champ in my informal testing is the gen3 LE Ranger T with the LE HST neck and neck. fwtw

Kansas


----------



## pickwood

Budda- why does the laser site have psych effect? And to my knowledge- there are no legal explosive ammo- only military uses and the only experience I had was with 20mm and 30mm and larger that had HE capability.


----------



## Banshee

I'm a life time Indiana gun permit owner. 

Remember if you don't like the NRA, yes there are gun owners who don't like the NRA, then join the GOA. 

And vote!!! not all politicians hate guns. Find out which ones don't and make your vote count! I know it's a little late for the vote speach. 

Write your politicians on important gun control issues. 

Gun control issues are not going to be won over night, nor by one person. 
We all have to stick together and make our voices hear!


----------



## dingeryote

Kansas said:


> Interesting info Digeryote thanks!
> 
> If I find DRT's .45 I would probably try some. I have a non-scientific SD bullet test on going. CTD has DRT in 9 and .40about a dollar a piece. I am testing 9mm and .380 and .45.
> 
> Right now the champ in my informal testing is the gen3 LE Ranger T with the LE HST neck and neck. fwtw
> 
> Kansas



Kansas,

G3 Ranger is good stuff! Things have come a long way for sure.
Have you tried the new Gen Hornady TAP stuff yet?

Some buds and I used to get together and get all kinds of silly running ammo into Gel. It's good clean fun.

Stay safe!
Dingeryote


----------



## woodchopper

pickwood said:


> Budda- why does the laser site have psych effect? .


Doesn't look like he's going to answer you so I will. Many LEO's who use them comment that once someone sees the laser dot on their chest they are less likely to offer further resistance. The laser sites are another form of intimidation that do a good job of making the bad guy think twice about doing you harm. They are also unbeatable when it comes to lowlight situations.


----------



## jjett84724

woodchopper said:


> Doesn't look like he's going to answer you so I will. Many LEO's who use them comment that once someone sees the laser dot on their chest they are less likely to offer further resistance. The laser sites are another form of intimidation that do a good job of making the bad guy think twice about doing you harm. They are also unbeatable when it comes to lowlight situations.



The problem with laser lights is they help the bad guy know where you are shooting from. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see a red dot on your chest and figure the approx. direction of the origin of the dot. 

We did some informal testing and I can bring my firearm out of the holster, and get two shots off in less time then it takes to pull the trigger of a gun pointed in my direction. The mind is a funny thing. It takes time to process the information that is gathered by the eye. When your eye sees something, your mind processes it and decides what to do about it. It takes approx. 1-1.5 seconds for your mind to wrap around the threat and then act. Someone who knows what they are going to do in a situation, i.e. training, react without thinking and save that time. I know that 1-1.5 seconds doesn't sound like much, but you can do a lot in that time. 

Just be proficient with your firearm and put night sights on it. Be comfortable shooting from many different positions and stances. Be prepared to act. Action is always faster then reaction. 

I wouldn't pull my firearm unless I was prepared to shoot someone. The only thing stopping me from shooting them is if they obey my voice commands. If they don't, one wrong move that I interpret as a threat, then they will be shot. It's settled in my mind. Make sure it's settled in yours.


----------



## blsnelling

I have my CCW permit and was a member of the NRA. But they spam you as bad as any organization going with endless emails and phone calls. I finally said enough with it and told them to get lost. I'd like to support the organization, but not if they're going to bug the living daylights out of me. It's just one of my soapboxes.


----------



## Kansas

dingeryote said:


> Kansas,
> 
> G3 Ranger is good stuff! Things have come a long way for sure.
> Have you tried the new Gen Hornady TAP stuff yet?
> 
> Some buds and I used to get together and get all kinds of silly running ammo into Gel. It's good clean fun.
> 
> Stay safe!
> Dingeryote



Hey Dingeryote I have not tried the new TAP yet but will keep it in mind though thanks! 

I have a 30 gal barrel I fill up to the second line with water and I use a 5 gal plastic bucket with holes all in it so it will sink and we shoot into the water and retrieve the bullets in the bucket. Its a hoot shooting +p 45's at 2 feet from the water the shooter gets a bath its hilarious to watch!

I am including a couple pics of SXT variations for your viewing, all are 230 gr .45 shot out of a 3.78" barrel Glock 30.

Kansas


----------



## Kansas

blsnelling said:


> But they spam you as bad as any organization going with endless emails and phone calls. It's just one of my soapboxes.



Brad, you are not alone there lots of us wish the NRA would spend the money somewhere else than sending mail
all over the place but apparently it works on some. 

My wife and I are some variation of life members we have upgraded a few times over the years. I send money to the ILA and always ask them to please dont send me any mail.

I will help when I can without all that save the money and use it for lawyers etc. 

Kansas


----------



## woodchopper

jjett84724 said:


> The problem with laser lights is they help the bad guy know where you are shooting from. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see a red dot on your chest and figure the approx. direction of the origin of the dot.
> 
> We did some informal testing and I can bring my firearm out of the holster, and get two shots off in less time then it takes to pull the trigger of a gun pointed in my direction. The mind is a funny thing. It takes time to process the information that is gathered by the eye. When your eye sees something, your mind processes it and decides what to do about it. It takes approx. 1-1.5 seconds for your mind to wrap around the threat and then act. Someone who knows what they are going to do in a situation, i.e. training, react without thinking and save that time. I know that 1-1.5 seconds doesn't sound like much, but you can do a lot in that time.
> 
> Just be proficient with your firearm and put night sights on it. Be comfortable shooting from many different positions and stances. Be prepared to act. Action is always faster then reaction.
> 
> I wouldn't pull my firearm unless I was prepared to shoot someone. The only thing stopping me from shooting them is if they obey my voice commands. If they don't, one wrong move that I interpret as a threat, then they will be shot. It's settled in my mind. Make sure it's settled in yours.


The situations I was referring to the origin of the LEO was already known by all of those involved. Concealment was never part of the equation. I'm sure most if not all LEO's who use lasers already have night sites. I know I'd never be dumb enough to carry a CCW without them. If their department can afford $200-$300 for lasers $80-$120 for night sites is nothing. From what I've read most gun manufactures are now including night sites standard on all of their LEO only models and many models available to the general public.
In most cases a low light shot fired from a gun with laser sights will find it's intended target even if the trigger was pulled under less than ideal conditions. That can't be said for a low light shot taken without the use of a laser. This has been proven enough times that many police departments are now investing in lasers.


----------



## deeker

I am able to aim my laser and weapon, without standing directly behind the weapon. And I am very, very, very accurate while shooting it. My arm and hand are exposed, yes but he would have a harder time finding my head or body while looking for the source of the laser. Too late for him.

Also the light attachment forward of the trigger guard, when used blinds the dirtbag.

The strobe light is a PIA for me to use, gives me a headache. But I can shoot with it and the laser. Accurately.


----------



## rb_in_va

A. Stanton said:


> Wood, you are entitled to your opinion and I'm no lawyer. The courts today are governed more my public opinion than law. Ask the cops who arrested Rodney King: they ended up doing time. *When the verdict--innocent--coming from the state court didn't sit right with em, they went to a federal court. You want to talk about law: that's double jeopardy in most courts! * Didn't matter, those poor sob's ended up losing their jobs and going to jail. And they had permits to carry those PR 24's. (Funny, as I type this, I'm watching Charlie Bronson in the Vigilante.)



Double jeopardy only means you cannot be found guilty of the same crime twice.


----------



## Kansas

Lasers more fun! I have laser grips on a .380 Guardian I carry in a pocket when I wear a tee shirt and shorts. 

I always kid about it being two weapons in one- a laser to shine in the bad guys eyes and bullets to follow if necessary hahaha! (but I am serious I will be shining it in his eyes at some point I guarantee it.) 

It sure is fun to hop a can around without actually aiming! 

I think nite sights are more an advantage to self defense than a laser but they both have their place I wont knock either a person needs full knowledge of the plus and negative to employ either effectively. 

A laser could give your intentions away in a situation where you dont want anyone knowing you have grabbed your piece etc like walking around in the dark checking a noise or it can be a deterrent just as easily for the same reason.  jmo

Kansas


----------



## 046

sighting devices can be a crutch or boon. 

my fav is a Holosight by Bushnell... it's got a 1 moa dot and greatly increases my 10 meter pistol's accuracy. 

but would not want to be dependent upon an electronic device for accuracy. now you've got to arm sight and firearm.


----------



## A. Stanton

rb_in_va said:


> Double jeopardy only means you cannot be found guilty of the same crime twice.



RB, not trying to debate ya, but go to wikipedia and look it up: It's being tried twice for the same crime with the same set of facts!


----------



## rb_in_va

A. Stanton said:


> RB, not trying to debate ya, but go to wikipedia and look it up: It's being tried twice for the same crime with the same set of facts!



I stand corrected! I thought it was that you could not be convicted of the same thing twice. But I found an interesting thing about the Rodney King case while looking this up.

From wiki:

"The federal trial focused more on the evidence as to the training of officers instead of just relying on the videotape of the incident."


----------



## buzz sawyer

Kansas said:


> Some states mine included give a court justified homicide civil immunity to anyone who kills in self defense even a non-cch. Its a good law and should be country wide imo.
> 
> There is a lot more to it than that but as a rule that is the basic state law in some areas you have to find out what your state does.
> 
> And to the OP with the "exploding tip" bullets you might want to actually research that statement and be carefull stating such things as being owned by you on a public forum you never know who is reading this stuff...
> 
> Kansas



Great post. The thing they stressed in the CC class I took is the chance for a civil suit whether you're cleared by criminal court or not.


----------



## Kansas

buzz sawyer said:


> Great post. The thing they stressed in the CC class I took is the chance for a civil suit whether you're cleared by criminal court or not.



Thanks, yes that is definitely a big issue to consider when getting a cch permit. Some states like mine give civil immunity in self defense situations thats the idea anyway. 

You can still be sued theoretically but the liabillity is even less than law enforcement and the chances are slim they will get to court with it is what I understand. There havent been any test cases I am aware of yet.

As a cch you only have 2 choices- do nothing or shoot, whereas LE has several other methods of control that are less than lethal that is how our liability differs from LE.hth

Kansas


----------



## Metals406

Krusty said:


> Idaho is still an open carry state. Long as it's in plain site you're legal.
> 
> I do have a carry permit in Idaho and an out of state one for Washington. With reciprocity I can carry in just about any state west of the Mississippi and east of California that I'd care to visit.
> 
> My usual carry is a 1911 style .45acp. Yeah it's heavy. No it's not sexy. But I like it.
> 
> Not too worried about crime, I just like to exercise my constitutional rights now and again.
> 
> People around here are pretty laid back. Bought a gun in downtown Moscow on a busy Saturday. Walked 6 blocks back to my truck carrying it in my hand and nobody batted an eye. Some places you'd get shot by the cops for that.



I know... Isn't that a bunch of bullchips!!


----------



## rb_in_va

Krusty said:


> Idaho is still an open carry state. Long as it's in plain site you're legal.
> 
> I do have a carry permit in Idaho and an out of state one for Washington. With reciprocity I can carry in just about any state west of the Mississippi and east of California that I'd care to visit.
> 
> My usual carry is a 1911 style .45acp. Yeah it's heavy. No it's not sexy. But I like it.
> 
> Not too worried about crime, I just like to exercise my constitutional rights now and again.
> 
> People around here are pretty laid back. Bought a gun in downtown Moscow on a busy Saturday. Walked 6 blocks back to my truck carrying it in my hand and nobody batted an eye. Some places you'd get shot by the cops for that.



It's funny that open carry is legal in states where the crime is such that it's not really necessary for protection against it.


Hey wait a minute! You think that's a coinicidence?


----------



## B-Edwards

I will have mine by the end of the month, info sent to Raliegh and should be back to me in a week or so. I was speaking to a very liberal friend who hates guns, I ask them "what if someone came into the school or super-market or where-ever you were and started shooting people and just as they were about to shoot your child I stepped up and shot the guy - or I didnt because the goverment had taken my gun away? They answered " I am such a hypocrite" I tried to explain that most people who like guns , like them for different reasons than they think. I dont hunt but love guns. I dont dream of shooting anyone , but love guns. I like historical guns above all but I love guns in general. They are realy a neat tool. We all need to be armed so when some fool starts shooting inocent people they can be taken out by by-standers other than the by-standers being shot.


----------



## buzz sawyer

WV also has legal open carry but there's a chance you can be charged with inciting a riot or public nuisance or something - some people tend to get all worked up when they see open carry - not worth the hassle IMO.


----------



## ross_scott

I can understand where you guys are coming from, I am a farmer over here and prone to thieves I have had two burglaries this year and both were while we were asleep it was a former worker who I had fired fro drug use on my farm after the second time we had an episode of people prowling outside, I rang the cops they asked me why I could not go outside and confront them (even though it was at night) I told em I would but I would be armed with my hunting rifle with a round chambered the cops were here before I got off the phone. In New Zealand we do not have the right to shoot to protect ourselves with the exception of the offender having a firearm and shooting at us.


----------



## Kansas

Krusty said:


> This past January a WW2 re-enactor was walking from his apartment to his car with a rifle. Neighbors called in a man with a gun report. He was shot seven times by Seattles finest and died.
> 
> I was driving north of CDA (Idaho) with a gooseneck. It was about 2000hrs, getting dark and I get lit up and pulled over. Turns out my lights had shorted and blown a fuse. No lights on the trailer. I jump out of the truck with my .45 on my hip. Trooper asks me what kind of gun I had. Told him and he asked if he could see it. I said sure, pulled it out, cleared it and handed it to him. He checks it out, asks me a few questions about it then hands it back. I reload, chamber a round and put it back in it's holster. He then helped me find my short and change the fuse.
> 
> Cops don't have to be ####s. In Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming they generally aren't. I've never been hassled for carrying in any of those states. When I get pulled over in Washington or Oregon on a routine traffic stop I always wind up spread eagled on the hood of my truck while a cop tries to unload my weapon while painting me with the muzzle.




Wow I hate reading about gun people gettin shot by LE thats the first I have heard of that one thanks for the heads up.

Here in Kansas I havent heard of anyone getting shook down over CCH (yet) it may happen tonite never know? I hand out both licenses at the same time no suprises that way. (hopefully)

This is a state where we overturned the govermer after she vetoed the CCH bill twice so we are pretty sure we want to allow the right people carrying. (btw shes is going to be our new health and something secretary in the US house now! America can dislike her as bad as we do thats a topic for another thread sometime)

I am getting on the sherriffs reserve here in my town and the sherriff is the guy who puts on the CCH class. My wife got hers thru him so we have a decent LE presence here at long last like you said not all cops are aholz. 

Kansas


----------



## buzz sawyer

ross_scott said:


> I can understand where you guys are coming from, I am a farmer over here and prone to thieves I have had two burglaries this year and both were while we were asleep it was a former worker who I had fired fro drug use on my farm after the second time we had an episode of people prowling outside, I rang the cops they asked me why I could not go outside and confront them (even though it was at night) I told em I would but I would be armed with my hunting rifle with a round chambered the cops were here before I got off the phone. In New Zealand we do not have the right to shoot to protect ourselves with the exception of the offender having a firearm and shooting at us.



One thing that is stressed in the class is not to use deadly force to protect property - it's only legal if used to prevent severy bodily injury or death to you or others. You have to try to leave the scene first as well unless your in your home or car, but you still can't shoot to stop them from stealing something.


----------



## retired redneck

buzz sawyer said:


> One thing that is stressed in the class is not to use deadly force to protect property - it's only legal if used to prevent severy bodily injury or death to you or others. You have to try to leave the scene first as well unless your in your home or car, but you still can't shoot to stop them from stealing something.



I live in Indiana and have life time cc, carry a 45 acp heavy but dependable.like you said if you shoot someone you better be able to prove it was a life or death matter.....


----------



## Kansas

Here in Kansas its agreed we (cch) have no way of knowing if a person (BG) is capable of doing us grievous injury whether they are armed or not its left up to us to decide what the level of threat is, we have to prove it later so it has to be credible. 

IE 250# man killing a little old lady in SD because she shook her fist and said was going to kick his azz. (wont work)

Lots of people can kill with bare hands fact is most men are capable, so how can we know their background or whats on their mind is the reasoning. We can shoot if we feel our life OR property is in jeopardy and we dont have to back off our property in any way shape or form which is a good law I think.

Kansas


----------



## buzz sawyer

I totally agree Kansas. I think the cautions are there so people don't get the idea CC makes them LEOs. If they try to steal your meat cleaver, let 'em but if they come at you with it, blam!


----------



## ross_scott

It is good to be able to use deadly force to protect yourself and family if life is in jeopardy BUT there is always the risk of being disarmed by the offender as well which would become even more dangerous


----------



## rb_in_va

ross_scott said:


> It is good to be able to use deadly force to protect yourself and family if life is in jeopardy BUT *there is always the risk of being disarmed by the offender as well which would become even more dangerous*



I hear this being brought up from time to time (and only by gun control advocates). I think it would be hard for an intruder to disarm me while dodging 00 buckshot.


----------



## 2000ssm6

rb_in_va said:


> I hear this being brought up from time to time (and only by gun control advocates). I think it would be hard for an intruder to disarm me while dodging 00 buckshot.



+1, I already have a shell in the pipe but the cycle of a 12ga. pump will make most d-bags turn around.

If you have an intruder in your home, place of dwelling, etc, make it known you have a weapon and will use it if they continue to advance. That covers all your bases and hopefully he will be pushing up daisies when your court date comes.


----------



## buzz sawyer

ross_scott said:


> It is good to be able to use deadly force to protect yourself and family if life is in jeopardy BUT there is always the risk of being disarmed by the offender as well which would become even more dangerous



Granted, some people may momentarily freeze and allow the assailant to disarm them. Anyone who chooses to protect themselves with deadly force had better know how and be willing to use it - that's the choice they make.

If the assailant intend to kill you anyway, what's the difference whether they do it with their weapon or your weapon?


----------



## stihl sawing

I'm going in the morning to take the concealed weapon class, Been wanting to do it for a while now. Just have some money to throw away now. Can't wait to go, i hear the license take about three weeks to come back. Gonna be hard to wait that long.


----------



## retired redneck

stihl sawing said:


> I'm going in the morning to take the concealed weapon class, Been wanting to do it for a while now. Just have some money to throw away now. Can't wait to go, i hear the license take about three weeks to come back. Gonna be hard to wait that long.



Don't know about ARKEY but INDIANA takes 60 days....


----------



## stihl sawing

retired redneck said:


> Don't know about ARKEY but INDIANA takes 60 days....


Oh man, i hope not.


----------



## buzz sawyer

retired redneck said:


> Don't know about ARKEY but INDIANA takes 60 days....



Got mine in 4 days. Guess it pays to know the Sheriff and keep out trouble.


----------



## retired redneck

buzz sawyer said:


> Got mine in 4 days. Guess it pays to know the Sheriff and keep out trouble.



Sherif dep only takes about 7-10 days it is the state that takes 60 days...


----------



## Kansas

buzz sawyer said:


> I totally agree Kansas. I think the cautions are there so people don't get the idea CC makes them LEOs. If they try to steal your meat cleaver, let 'em but if they come at you with it, blam!



Lol good analogy right on! 


Kansas


----------

