testtest

The Ultimate Nightstand Gun?

papa said:
You are correct . However there is a clause that allows anyone who has a carry license from their home state to carry a fully loaded firearm on or about their body while in their vehicle. You don't have to inform unless an officer asks if there are any firearms in the vehicle .

If it were me , I would disarm even to change a flat tire even though district 13 said you could stay armed.

The reason I made the statement about disarming when getting out of the vehicle is because of this , before we got concealed carry in 2014 , we were able to transport our firearms unloaded and in a closed case w/ loaded magazines in the same case as long as they were not in the firearm. Also the gun case could be anywhere in the vehicle , even laying right beside you.

It was amazing how many LEOs did not know about that law. I personally asked at different times one state trooper from dist. 13 and a Jefferson CO. Deputy about transporting like that. The state trooper said it had to be unloaded , in a case with no ammo near it. The Deputy stated that it had to be unloaded , in a case , with no ammo near it AND it had to be out of your reach.

Now for the kicker ..... the information about transporting a firearm in a case with loaded magazines in the same case and being located anywhere in the vehicle was on the ISP ( Illinois state police ) web site at the time. When I told the Jefferson Co. Deputy he was wrong and should go to the ISP web site , he got very mad .
Click to expand...
He got mad because you hurt his
Mr. know it all ego.
 
papa said:
You are correct . However there is a clause that allows anyone who has a carry license from their home state to carry a fully loaded firearm on or about their body while in their vehicle. You don't have to inform unless an officer asks if there are any firearms in the vehicle .

If it were me , I would disarm even to change a flat tire even though district 13 said you could stay armed.

The reason I made the statement about disarming when getting out of the vehicle is because of this , before we got concealed carry in 2014 , we were able to transport our firearms unloaded and in a closed case w/ loaded magazines in the same case as long as they were not in the firearm. Also the gun case could be anywhere in the vehicle , even laying right beside you.

It was amazing how many LEOs did not know about that law. I personally asked at different times one state trooper from dist. 13 and a Jefferson CO. Deputy about transporting like that. The state trooper said it had to be unloaded , in a case with no ammo near it. The Deputy stated that it had to be unloaded , in a case , with no ammo near it AND it had to be out of your reach.

Now for the kicker ..... the information about transporting a firearm in a case with loaded magazines in the same case and being located anywhere in the vehicle was on the ISP ( Illinois state police ) web site at the time. When I told the Jefferson Co. Deputy he was wrong and should go to the ISP web site , he got very mad .
Click to expand...
In Illinois,It depends on the cop that stops you.As to how he interprets the state laws. My advice is that if you don't have to drive through Illinois "Don't" I came back(only one time) with Arizona plates & was stopped &checked out.So what do you do ? make a big deal out of it ? I had no firearm so I was good to go.If you have firearms you might get lucky & maybe not.Crap shoot.
 
HayesGreener said:
Most of you here are well versed in the laws governing self-defense, but you may have the opportunity to inform others who are less knowledgeable. As an instructor for many years, I have encountered many misconceptions about the legal justifications for the use of force. A number of my students would have wound up in jail had they followed the word of mouth and urban legend they had heard. My God, if you are going to carry a gun, or you are going to use one for home defense, know the law. I mean print out your state statutes on the subject and study the language, and even better attend a class from a knowledgeable instructor. I say knowledgeable because there are a lot of well-meaning folks with instructor certificates who know not of what they speak.

Laws vary widely from state to state. In general, the fear of imminent death or great bodily harm to yourself or others is legal justification for the use of deadly force, wherever you are standing and regardless of weapons involved. Every situation is different, but justification in almost all use of force cases comes down to the reasonable man standard. That is, within the bounds of the law, what would a reasonable man believe is reasonable and necessary under the circumstances. Different states have different wording in the statutes, but this is pretty much a universal concept in the U.S. If you use deadly force, you may need to show evidence that you were in such fear.

Another justification for deadly force can be to stop the imminent commission of a forcible felony, but there is a wide disparity among states on this issue, you must know the law where you live.

Stand Your Ground is another concept, which simply says you do not have a duty to retreat from a place where you legally are, before using deadly force. The media has overused and misused the term so much that there is confusion about what it means. Not all states have a "stand your ground" provision in their statutes, and you need to be aware of what the statute clearly states.

The Castle Doctrine concept is often misunderstood to mean something that it does not. It does NOT mean that you have carte blanche to shoot someone who breaks into your dwelling or occupied vehicle. In some states deadly force is justified if someone is committing a felony against you in your home but there is a lot of room for interpretation. A more meaningful justification is that you are PRESUMED to be in fear of death or great bodily harm if someone forcibly enters your home or occupied vehicle, where you may not have that presumption if you are not at home or in your occupied vehicle. The difference seems subtle but here are two statements that are illustrative.
1. "The SOB made me mad when he broke into my house"
2. "The SOB put me in fear of death or great bodily harm when he broke into my door".
Depending upon which state you are in, statement #1 could cause you problems. Again, you must know the law where you live.

This post is written in general terms and is not necessarily definitive to your state. I am not an attorney. I can get really definitive about the law in Florida but that is my area of expertise. Did I mention read the statutes where you live?
Click to expand...
In Missouri the onus is on the prosecution/state to prove you were not in fear of imminent death or bodily injury. And that's just in general, not in your home. And I would like to know in what states that have castle, the act of someone breaking into your home is not automatically perceived as them attempting to do you harm. It is here.
 
Bassbob said:
In Missouri the onus is on the prosecution/state to prove you were not in fear of imminent death or bodily injury. And that's just in general, not in your home. And I would like to know in what states that have castle, the act of someone breaking into your home is not automatically perceived as them attempting to do you harm. It is here.
Click to expand...
Florida likewise
 
Keystone19250 said:
Yup, and he was doing home invasions and robbing people at gun point to pay for his first college semester.
Click to expand...
That was a sandwich in his hand not a gun.

For those that don’t get the reference, a couple weeks after the Mike Brown thing here, a STL police officer shot and killed an armed teenager who was shooting at him. In a bid to get as famous as Mike Brown’s parents this kid’s mom went on TV and told everyone he didn’t have a gun, it was a sandwich. She figured if she could start some riots it wouldn’t matter later when the facts came out. After all, that’s exactly what happened with Michael Brown.
 
Bassbob said:
That was a sandwich in his hand not a gun.

For those that don’t get the reference, a couple weeks after the Mike Brown thing here, a STL police officer shot and killed an armed teenager who was shooting at him. In a bid to get as famous as Mike Brown’s parents this kid’s mom went on TV and told everyone he didn’t have a gun, it was a sandwich. She figured if she could start some riots it wouldn’t matter later when the facts came out. After all, that’s exactly what happened with Michael Brown.
Click to expand...
A sandwich? Really? I probably would have believed her if she said it was a 9mm meat burrito. NOT!!!
When parents say things like that it demonstrates that they raised their children to not accept consequences for their actions. Sadly In that case the consequence was him loosing his life.
 
Bassbob said:
That was a sandwich in his hand not a gun.

For those that don’t get the reference, a couple weeks after the Mike Brown thing here, a STL police officer shot and killed an armed teenager who was shooting at him. In a bid to get as famous as Mike Brown’s parents this kid’s mom went on TV and told everyone he didn’t have a gun, it was a sandwich. She figured if she could start some riots it wouldn’t matter later when the facts came out. After all, that’s exactly what happened with Michael Brown.
Click to expand...
You had a State Attorney with the courage to stand up to BLM thugs in the Brown shooting. Brown was a brutal thug who threatened and attacked an officer, there is no denying it, no matter how hard they tried to change the facts. He went up against an officer who would not back down and got his criminal career shortened. The whole media circus surrounding the Brown case was sickening.
 
Bassbob said:
That was a sandwich in his hand not a gun.

For those that don’t get the reference, a couple weeks after the Mike Brown thing here, a STL police officer shot and killed an armed teenager who was shooting at him. In a bid to get as famous as Mike Brown’s parents this kid’s mom went on TV and told everyone he didn’t have a gun, it was a sandwich. She figured if she could start some riots it wouldn’t matter later when the facts came out. After all, that’s exactly what happened with Michael Brown.
Click to expand...
1661977895437.png
 
HayesGreener said:
You had a State Attorney with the courage to stand up to BLM thugs in the Brown shooting. Brown was a brutal thug who threatened and attacked an officer, there is no denying it, no matter how hard they tried to change the facts. He went up against an officer who would not back down and got his criminal career shortened. The whole media circus surrounding the Brown case was sickening.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. And in the wake we had riots over a drug dealer that tried to run over some cops, who then chased him down and when he pulled a gun, shot him to death. The media and city leaders were harping on how the video was inconclusive and the cop "Could" have planted the gun. They actually prosecuted the co and when he was acquitted the natives rioted. Since then it's just gotten worse. Kimberly Gardner was officially reprimanded by the Missouri Supreme Court yesterday or the day before for prosecutorial misconduct and withholding evidence in the Greitens case. Instead of taking her law license they fined her $750. And I guarantee she will keep on getting elected and her list of "Warrants pending application" will continue to grow, as will the number of STL cops who she will not prosecute any of their cases. The mayor, Tishaura Jones ( Yes, Virvus Jones' daughter. Google him) literally defunded the STL police to the tune of 4 million dollars and is today on the news whining about the county poaching officers from the city. She wants the county to lower the pay and benefits package to the same level as the city. This is why these A holes are so ardently trying to
" Re-unify" the city and the county. They call it "Better together" and it's clearly designed to funnel money from the county into the city and lower the city's crime rate by mixing it in with the county. The animals are running the zoo. STL city is a joke. Crime ridden :poop:hole that people can't get out of fast enough.
 
Bassbob said:
Absolutely. And in the wake we had riots over a drug dealer that tried to run over some cops, who then chased him down and when he pulled a gun, shot him to death. The media and city leaders were harping on how the video was inconclusive and the cop "Could" have planted the gun. They actually prosecuted the co and when he was acquitted the natives rioted. Since then it's just gotten worse. Kimberly Gardner was officially reprimanded by the Missouri Supreme Court yesterday or the day before for prosecutorial misconduct and withholding evidence in the Greitens case. Instead of taking her law license they fined her $750. And I guarantee she will keep on getting elected and her list of "Warrants pending application" will continue to grow, as will the number of STL cops who she will not prosecute any of their cases. The mayor, Tishaura Jones ( Yes, Virvus Jones' daughter. Google him) literally defunded the STL police to the tune of 4 million dollars and is today on the news whining about the county poaching officers from the city. She wants the county to lower the pay and benefits package to the same level as the city. This is why these A holes are so ardently trying to
" Re-unify" the city and the county. They call it "Better together" and it's clearly designed to funnel money from the county into the city and lower the city's crime rate by mixing it in with the county. The animals are running the zoo. STL city is a joke. Crime ridden :poop:hole that people can't get out of fast enough.
Click to expand...
Sounds like Illinois . I wonder if there could be a connection? :unsure:
:rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top