The "Stand your Ground" doctrine....

[cjolley]

Autos are a big hole in these laws.
You do not need a consealed carry permit to pack in your car.
And therefore, no training.

[MultimediaMan]

Autos are a big hole in these laws.
You do not need a consealed carry permit to pack in your car.
And therefore, no training.

Wrong.

Bite your tongue: in most states you cannot transport a loaded weapon, or a weapon with ammunition "readily" accessible (i.e. gun in the cabin, ammo in the cabin) Unless you have a Concealed Carry Weapon permit. Firing a weapon from an automobile is a Big no-no in most states.

The Castle Doctrine is intended to reduce the legal risks for people defending themselves, their family and their property on their property.

Some states have very broadly-worded definitions; Texas is probably the most liberally worded. Screw-up there and you can legally get shot quite easily. Colorado's Castle doctrine IIRC has the most narrowly defined version of the law - I believe it is also one of the earliest.

Check out http://www.packing.org/ for more details on these laws. Your state's laws are as follows:

Except as otherwise provided by the provisions of the Oklahoma Self- Defense Act or another provision of law, it shall be unlawful to transport a loaded pistol, rifle or shotgun in a landborne motor vehicle over a public highway or roadway. However, a rifle or shotgun may be transported clip or magazine loaded and not chamber loaded when transported in an exterior locked compartment of the vehicle or trunk of the vehicle or in the interior compartment of the vehicle notwithstanding the provisions of Section 1289.7 of this title when the person is in possession of a valid handgun license pursuant to the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act.

Any person convicted of a violation of this section shall be punished as provided in Section 1289.15 of this title.

Any person who is the operator of a vehicle or is a passenger in any vehicle wherein another person who is licensed pursuant to the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act to carry a concealed handgun and is carrying a concealed handgun or has concealed a handgun or rifle or shotgun in such vehicle shall not be deemed in violation of the provisions of this section provided the licensee is in or near the vehicle.

[Dr Mordrid]

Well, a petite woman would often be easy to disarm if she were alone in a dangerous area. Still better to be with a Father/Brother/Boyfriend/Friend in those situations.

Depends. There has been a huge increase in firearms training, esp. combat training, and most are women of all ages. There are even female only groups and groups run by police departments. The NRA program has gone from < 20 schools to over 200 in just a few years, and thry're a small percentage of the whole.

[cjolley]

Wrong.
...

Well learn something new every day.
They need to advertise that more.

What the heck is this part all about though?

Any person who is the operator of a vehicle or is a passenger in any vehicle wherein another person who is licensed pursuant to the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act to carry a concealed handgun and is carrying a concealed handgun or has concealed a handgun or rifle or shotgun in such vehicle shall not be deemed in violation of the provisions of this section provided the licensee is in or near the vehicle.

[Jessterw]

Basically that means that if your buddy puts his gun in your vehicle (or if you're riding with him), you're safe as long as the licensed individual is in or near the vehicle. In other words, make sure your buddy takes his gun with him when he gets out or don't borrow his car unless you're sure his gun isn't in it.

Or something like that...

[Dr Mordrid]

Pretty close. Then there are those states where you can carry in the front seat. ex: the gun rack in the rear window of a pickup or behind the seats;





Instant access

Q: Who has the right of way when four cars approach a four-way stop at the
same time?

A: The pickup truck with the gun rack and the bumper sticker saying, "Guns
don't kill people. I do."

Dr. Mordrid

[cjolley]

Heh.

A question though.
Why would anyone live someplace they thought was so dangerous that they needed to pack a pistol?
Especially if they have a family.

[MultimediaMan]

Um, that's not how I look at it: It's more like an insurance policy you never want to put a claim in for.

I live in one of the safest areas of the US, but that is absolutely no guarantee for the safety of my family or myself; it's just that the odds are better that I won't have to use the pistol.

I am more likely to carry with my family than not...Why? There's more to protect than just me - which actually puts me in a more precarious legal position. We'll get to that later...

Here in Arkansas, we don't have the Castle Doctrine in place yet- there are some weird State Constitutional issues which need to be worked out before it will go to a vote - and pass. So, in this state you have to be in a 100% "legally defensive" position (i.e. deadly force is your ONLY option rather than the best option.) in order to be able to use deadly force without fear of criminal liabilty. The trouble is, that definition is subject to a lot of crazy interpretations due to case law. One of the stickiest situations is using deadly force to protect someone other than yourself from imminent harm - oddly enough, this includes your immediate family.

For example, as things are now in Arkansas: If I saw any person(s) with a firearm, knife, a baseball bat or a closed fist threatening my child, I assume all criminal and civil risk if I shoot the assailant. Sure, the police and the prosecutor will, in all probability, see things my way, and I would more than likely not be charged. However, if the assailant survived, I could be sued using the argument that he/she was threatening but "didn't mean any harm"... even if the person suing me was convicted of Felony Terroristic Threating with Intent to Commit Harm, I could lose in civil court.

The problem is, that most of the laws which apply to personal defense were written to define crimes, without defining legal behavior. When these laws are applied to actions which are absent malice or criminal intent, they are often very vague: The Castle Doctrine spells out the do's and the don't's without to resorting to case law and the personal biases and prejudices of the investigating officer and the prosecutor. It also gives guidance on how to deal with laws which could be in conflict: like carrying a loaded firearm within a vehicle, for instance.

This is by no means a license to kill: It defines legal behavior and provides criminal and civil protections for people who exercise that right within the law.

[cjolley]

Um, that's not how I look at it: It's more like an insurance policy you never want to put a claim in for.

It seems to me this still only makes sense in a high crime area.
After all there is an increased risk of accident if you carry, slight if you are carefull, but not zero.
Balanced against a near zero risk of victimization that could be prevented if you carried.

I can't for the life of me think of a situation, or place in my daily life where I would feel safer carrying a gun.
Or where I don't feel safe in the first place.

Where does one take their family that a gun could conceivably protect them?

[Elie]

Sheesh, I can't believe it!!
I'm pretty sure there are a few incapable of making sound judgment of what is considered a threat or not?
If I come knocking on someone’s door my mistake, some people may interpret that as a threat and kill me, hmmm. I would say no thanks.

[Dr Mordrid]

It seems to me this still only makes sense in a high crime area.

In a highly mobile society there is no safe haven, so take off your blinders. You can be mugged & killed in a big city or small town; on the coasts or in rural Nebraska, and your attacker could be a neighborhood kid, an illegal migrant (half the violent criminals in some prisons) or joe blow.

Sorry, but I don't leave the safety of my family to others or the dumb luck of a cop happening by. Margie and I both pack, are good/excellent shots and are combat trained. So are our adult kids and in his turn so will be Erik.

Sheesh, I can't believe it!!

I'm pretty sure there are a few incapable of making sound judgment of what is considered a threat or not?

If I come knocking on someone’s door my mistake, some people may interpret that as a threat and kill me, hmmm. I would say no thanks.

There is a background investigation done before you can get a permit and certain groups are excluded; those with a record, the mentally ill, those with protection ordres pending/placed on them, those with a history of domestic violence etc. Training courses are also a requirement.

Your knocking on the door example would not qualify. Knock the door down or otherwise illegally enter and act agressively & you're likely toast.

ex: I once heard a commotion at the neighbors house. I knew the parents were at work and their 19 y/o daughter was sleeping (she worked nights).

When I investigated there were 3 rough looking punks trying to enter through a kitchen window. NOT good. By the time the cops got there (15 min +/-) Lord knows what her fate would be.

I got the drop on them, "encouraged" them to assume the position on the ground then called the cops on the cordless.

When they got there the Commander on the scene & I had some fun with 'em;

"Sir?"

Yes?

"Think you wanna give them a limp so they'll remember?"

Hmmmm....dunno. Blood might kill the grass, but it sounds like a plan!

"Your gun or mine?"

By the time we were done they were s***ing bricks

Later we found out all had violent records and were from a city 20 mles away.

[cjolley]

But your example has nothing to do with a concealed carry permit.
You were at home.

I caught a thief trying to use my back yard as a short cut once.
I didn't give him chance to pull anything and held him till the cops came.
So what?

I'm talking about a realistic situation where you have taken your family someplace you think you need a gun to be safe in.
Most people would be better off wearing a tinfoil hat to protect against lightening than to carry a gun around with them.

I just don't see the statistical up side to it most places.

[Dr Mordrid]

In another locale going outside with the gun, esp. if loaded, could be considered illegal. Here it's not with the permit.

I've had to pull it once and that was in Ann Arbor MI, hardly what you would normally consider a "bad area"; rich, liberal, college town etc. My friend & I were returning from a days fun and were about 1 mile from his house.

We stopprd at a light near an apt. complex when out of the blue a gang of ~ 6-7 punks attacked us with bats, pipes, rocks, chains etc. Some blocked our way while the rest did their hoodlum thing.

We managed to get out & "display", mine was a 9mm Beretta & his a Glock, which ended things in ~2 seconds. Cops were called, took 20 min. to get there and took our info, including the doors they fled into.

Turns out they thought we were members of a rival gang because of my cars type/color.

$4k worth of damage.

Would I have shot? Yes, if attacked again. You can be killed just as dead by a pipe, bat or other implement as a gun.

[MultimediaMan]

There's a good reason you don't see any published statistics on people who have had to defend themselves: these tend to be careful people. Why? Because the one thing they hammer into you during a training course is how to avoid situations which could end in a confrontation.

You don't carry a gun and go on behaving like someone who doesn't: if you do you are asking for trouble. Carrying a gun is as much a reminder to be mindful as it is a tool for protection.

There was one situation I can recall back in September of 1994, in OKC ironically, which comes to mind as one time the it would have benefited having a pistol with me, right then, right there.

My father, myself and a friend had gone to OKC for a gunshow off all things. We were staying a lo-tel motel close to I40 because it was only a block or so from the site of the show.

Anyway, we had just finished setting up our friend's display at the show and were swinging by our rooms to change into cleaner clothes before going for a bite to eat. In the parking lot, a guy was walking after his girlfriend, repeatedly striking her over the head with his hand "Brain Busters", yelling expletives and doggedly pursuing her - he looked intoxicated. She was obviously trying to get away from the creep.

She wasn't ten feet from me when he punched her hard enough from behind to hear the air rush out of her lungs. She also fell forward into the asphalt and was scuffed up as a result. It took the three of us putting ourselves physically between him and her for the ****ole to realize we weren't going to let the abuse continue. He wasn't drunk... he was high. He also thought he could take all three of us. About three minutes into that episode, the motel manager saw what was going on and called OKCPD to the scene. We gave our statements, the ****ole was cuffed and stuffed, while the girl got treated on the scene for contusions and abrasions - she didn't take the offer of a trip to the emergency room. The cop DID however take pictures of her, and the guy's bruised hands. He had really been working her over. We never did get subpoenaed to appear.

If I had a pistol right then and there, Mr. ****ole would have been subdued much more quickly than three men wrestling him down until one of us could put a knee down in the middle of his back - and with much greater safety for all involved.

[cjolley]

We managed to get out & "display", mine was a 9mm Beretta & his a Glock, which ended

What if this "gang of ~ 6-7 punks" had been armed too?
And why weren't they?

If I had a pistol right then and there, Mr. ****ole would have been subdued much more quickly than three men wrestling him down until one of could put a knee down in the middle of his back - and with much greater safety for all involved.

Or not, you don't know what would have happend, and you never will.