Open carrying confused....

[griffin]

Because 8 years hasn't gone by yet. And any convictions are still within that time frame. I know that they were still being conducted a short ago as 2007. Maybe even sooner than that.

After I wrote that message that occurred to me, yeah. I should have thought about it first.

 

[Bronson]

If I got a ticket for that, I'd be out with a high powered lazer for retaliation.

And it's your propensity for bad decision making that keeps getting you into trouble.

Bronson

 

[Phil McCracken]

If I got a ticket for that, I'd be out with a high powered lazer for retaliation.

It's hard for the criminal mind to change. Like the leopard changing its spots.

 

[Bubba72]

so last night my wife and i went for our walk and i was oc.....needless to say she was a bit nervous, had a few people outside and some cars driving around, and no one called only cuz no LEO's showed up and also it was around 10:30 last night when we walked. but all was good and after the first mile we walked she was completely comfortable with me walking and oc, now her, my sister in law, and niece want to take a cpl class and get their permits.

 

[Bikenut]

so last night my wife and i went for our walk and i was oc.....needless to say she was a bit nervous, had a few people outside and some cars driving around, and no one called only cuz no LEO's showed up and also it was around 10:30 last night when we walked. but all was good and after the first mile we walked she was completely comfortable with me walking and oc, now her, my sister in law, and niece want to take a cpl class and get their permits.

Excellent! Good for you! And good for them too!

 

[Xanaseyr]

Does it really matter? It wasn't true and isn't what he was taught. His mind filled in the blanks with what he thought was the law. The point is that even in a class based on the most stringent facts the students aren't going to catch or remember it all and they will fill in the gaps with all kinds of strange stuff....and then blame the instructor because they were "taught wrong."

Bronson

It doesn't make much difference, I'm just trying to imagine what could lead to the idea that applying lethal force against a person committing any felony is justifiable or acceptable.

so last night my wife and i went for our walk and i was oc.....needless to say she was a bit nervous, had a few people outside and some cars driving around, and no one called only cuz no LEO's showed up and also it was around 10:30 last night when we walked. but all was good and after the first mile we walked she was completely comfortable with me walking and oc, now her, my sister in law, and niece want to take a cpl class and get their permits.

This is great to hear. The more people who are not made uncomfortable by the presence of firearms, the better off we all are.

 

[Bronson]

I'm just trying to imagine what could lead to the idea that applying lethal force against a person committing any felony is justifiable or acceptable.

Who knows? Ever play the "telephone game" when you were a kid? Your senses miss key bits of information and your brain fills in the blanks with random bits of data that are floating around in your noodle.

Bronson

 

[Maine Expat]

If they don't you can sue them.

And stretch the CPL application out over several months to a year or more. But hey, you're right and they're wrong so go flex those muscles. :banghead:

Or just take the course and get your permit this year if you can't get "them" to accept the old one.

In Maine the Certs have a 5 year shelf life IIRC.

 

[Maine Expat]

It doesn't make much difference, I'm just trying to imagine what could lead to the idea that applying lethal force against a person committing any felony is justifiable or acceptable.

How about when said felon is pointing a gun at me or someone in my vicinity? If I get the chance, he's going down. See the FLORIDA INTERNET CAFE SHOOTING for a shining example.


This is great to hear. The more people who are not made uncomfortable by the presence of firearms, the better off we all are.

Agreed! I love that my OCing seems to be well received and accepted as normal almost everywhere I go in town. Not to mention the great conversations that break out as a direct result of my OCing.

 

[WilDChilD]

Who knows? Ever play the "telephone game" when you were a kid? Your senses miss key bits of information and your brain fills in the blanks with random bits of data that are floating around in your noodle.

Bronson

I am sure as poop that it was posted on mcrgo. Dont just disspell it look into it. I cant seem to find it but I am sure as I am sitting here that I read " you could use deadly force against any person that you witnessed comimtting any felony" if you couldnt catch them or something to that nature.

 

[smellslikemichigan]

I am sure as poop that it was posted on mcrgo. Dont just disspell it look into it. I cant seem to find it but I am sure as I am sitting here that I read " you could use deadly force against any person that you witnessed comimtting any felony" if you couldnt catch them or something to that nature.

um, surely you jest. ANY felony? so, if you see someone felony speeding, feel free to start a shootout?

 

[NHCGRPR45]

Also I believe that you had to have actually seen the felony commited?

 

[Bronson]

I am sure as poop that it was posted on mcrgo. Dont just disspell it look into it. I cant seem to find it but I am sure as I am sitting here that I read " you could use deadly force against any person that you witnessed comimtting any felony" if you couldnt catch them or something to that nature.

Writing bad checks is a felony. Adultery is a felony. Carrying an unlicensed concealed weapon is a felony.

So we should be able to fire on anybody we see engaging in any of the above? That's lunacy.

Bronson

 

[griffin]

Adultery is a felony.

...we should be able to fire on anybody we see engaging in any of the above

Why didn't somebody tell me this fifteen years ago? I could have saved myself a costly divorce and just buried my starter wife. :banghead:

 

[WilDChilD]

Writing bad checks is a felony. Adultery is a felony. Carrying an unlicensed concealed weapon is a felony.

So we should be able to fire on anybody we see engaging in any of the above? That's lunacy.

Bronson

I know, sounds crazy. Only reason I remember it so much is because it was one of the first things about gun laws I had read. Searched everyway I know how on mcrgo but can't find it but it was almost verbatim as to what Bronson said the person told him.

 

[stainless1911]

It doesn't make much difference, I'm just trying to imagine what could lead to the idea that applying lethal force against a person committing any felony is justifiable or acceptable.


.

Laws in other states perhaps? I dunno.

 

[Bubba72]

there are PLENTY different felonies out there, so i wouldn't use "deadly force" on someone doing felony speeding or shop lifiting cuz isn't grand larceny a felony? the way it was taught to us in my cpl class 6yrs ago the example was this.....IF your at a gas station and there's another vehicle there and someone pulls a gun or knife or anything with the intent to bodily harm on the driver or anyone in the other vehicle then you have every right to interveen and if necessary...use deadly force!! my mind set is former military and if i had no choice but to use deadly force and that was my ONLY option then (call me heartless) i would feel absolutely ZERO remorse....but it's something you have to mentaly prepare yourself for, cuz once your left with ABSOLUTELY NO CHOICE to use deadly force then be prepared in your mind that you have nothing to be sorry for since you were defending yourself, loved one, family member etc....

 

[Venator]

Okay I can't stand anymore. There is a common law principal of a fleeing felon. This included using deadly force to stop them. There is case law to support this principal, but in todays world it will be harder to justify the use of deadly force with every felony, because todays world makes almost any crime a felony, but that's a different discussion.

From wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleeing_felon_rule
At Common law, the Fleeing Felon Rule permits the use of force, including deadly force, against an individual who is suspected of a felony and is in clear flight.[SUP][citation needed][/SUP] Force may be used by the victim, bystanders, or police officers.[SUP][citation needed][/SUP] In some jurisprudence failure to use such force was a misdemeanor which could result in a fine or imprisonment.[SUP][citation needed][/SUP] According to David Caplan "Immediate stopping of the fleeing felon, whether actually or presumably dangerous, was deemed absolutely necessary for the security of the people in a free state, and for maintaining the "public security." ... "[SUP][citation needed][/SUP] Indeed, it has been said that the social policy of the common law in this matter was not only to threaten dangerous felons and hence deter them, but was also to induce them to "surrender peaceably" if they dared commit inherently dangerous felonies, rather than allow them to "escape trial for their crimes." [SUP][1]

Case Law

• Samuel Alito's memo written while working in the Solicitor General's office regarding Memphis Police v. Garner which was the Sixth Circuit appellate case leading to Tennessee v. Garner. [SUP][4][/SUP] (May 18, 1984) (PDF)
• People v. Crouch[SUP][5][/SUP] (1990) in the Michigan Supreme Court held that Tennessee v. Garner was

1. civil rather than criminal action;
2. did not affect Michigan's Fleeing Felon Rule; and
3. that a citizen may use deadly force when restraining a fleeing felon in a criminal matter.

• State v. Weddell[SUP][6][/SUP], The Nevada Supreme Court ruled that a private citizen may not use deadly force under the common law fleeing felon rule.

[/SUP]

 

[WilDChilD]

Okay I can't stand anymore. There is a common law principal of a fleeing felon. This included using deadly force to stop them. There is case law to support this principal, but in todays world it will be harder to justify the use of deadly force with every felony, because todays world makes almost any crime a felony, but that's a different discussion.

From wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleeing_felon_rule
At Common law, the Fleeing Felon Rule permits the use of force, including deadly force, against an individual who is suspected of a felony and is in clear flight.[SUP][citation needed][/SUP] Force may be used by the victim, bystanders, or police officers.[SUP][citation needed][/SUP] In some jurisprudence failure to use such force was a misdemeanor which could result in a fine or imprisonment.[SUP][citation needed][/SUP] According to David Caplan "Immediate stopping of the fleeing felon, whether actually or presumably dangerous, was deemed absolutely necessary for the security of the people in a free state, and for maintaining the "public security." ... "[SUP][citation needed][/SUP] Indeed, it has been said that the social policy of the common law in this matter was not only to threaten dangerous felons and hence deter them, but was also to induce them to "surrender peaceably" if they dared commit inherently dangerous felonies, rather than allow them to "escape trial for their crimes." [SUP][1]

Case Law

• Samuel Alito's memo written while working in the Solicitor General's office regarding Memphis Police v. Garner which was the Sixth Circuit appellate case leading to Tennessee v. Garner. [SUP][4][/SUP] (May 18, 1984) (PDF)
• People v. Crouch[SUP][5][/SUP] (1990) in the Michigan Supreme Court held that Tennessee v. Garner was

1. civil rather than criminal action;
2. did not affect Michigan's Fleeing Felon Rule; and
3. that a citizen may use deadly force when restraining a fleeing felon in a criminal matter.

• State v. Weddell[SUP][6][/SUP], The Nevada Supreme Court ruled that a private citizen may not use deadly force under the common law fleeing felon rule.

[/SUP]

THANK YOU. (wish there was a kissing smiley) I knew I wasnt crazy!

 

[backenj]

Why don't you just get it expunged?