Closer to the abyss

[sobo]

I had posted earlier that we are still in business gunowner.TheLGuy.com

Right. And I had asked if the insurance was valid in WA, since the business is based in OR, and did not see a reply until this one. So, I inquire again... Is Ron Schmidt's carry insurance valid in WA?

Also, from reading the GOSWA coverage PDF, it would seem that if one adds on the Preferred Member Discount service, then the additional hours above and beyond the 20 hours pre-trial time/40 hours trial time hours are the member's financial responsibility at 75% of the normal attorney costs/fess. Is that accurate?

Or should one select the Trial Defense Supplement? I am somewhat confused as to what supplements/add-ons one should select to raise a reasonable defense against an anti-2A criminal plaintiff that would attempt to deprive me of my life and liberty.

 

[HaveGun]

Do you have a link, or know where we can find this? Sounds like a one of those "friend of a friend told me" things - could it happen? sure, but 10mm isn't the megadeath the memes say, I just don't see 10mm getting someone sent to prison when .357 Magnum or .45 Colt has more energy.

The OP tells people to carry what the LEOs carry, then says not to carry a round that was developed by the FBI for LEO use.

There's some sandwiches missing from that picnic...

 

[mkwerx]

The OP tells people to carry what the LEOs carry, then says not to carry a round that was developed by the FBI for LEO use.

There's some sandwiches missing from that picnic...

Close - the 10mm was adopted by the Feebs, but it was developed before. I think you're thinking about the .40S&W which was developed from the 10mm for the Feds and other LEO, because they wanted 10mm like performance in a gun with a grip the size of a 9mm - since 10MM is too long to feed in a gun with a 9mm sized gripframe. But yeah - most 10mm sold on the shelves today is just .40SW in a longer case unless you purposefully buy the hotter stuff. Even then, its still not .357Mag territory.

 

[Certaindeaf]

The abyss? More like yawn.

Please bear with me as I think outloud the big question.
As Left Coast subversion and riots escalate, viscious attacks on anyone unsympathetic to the cause or the color of their hat, surrounding and pummeling cars lost down alleys like a bad Bronson movie, the Blue Flu..... it seems more likely than EVER that CHL owners may have to use their weapons in SD. Like soon.

Awaiting BGC approval for a luscious .410 handgun, naturally I researched assorted lethal shotgun ammo and how it may be employed from a car, close quarter skateboard attacks and imagine the damage that would be inflicted from an explosion of Winchester flying disks and BB cocktails tearing into a human torso at close range.

Yes to save my or my children's lives this would be necessary, I get it. but now that the real prospect that this day draws near, frankly it shakes me a bit. ER surgeons decry frangible GSWs like war crimes and simply inflicting this sort of wound is beginning to torment my Christian and moral sensibilties.

I am trained, have instructed, carry and hold a CHL, have guns in 9 calibers and more holsters than Big 5.. so I have been preparing for the mindset and physical aspects of this event. I have been shopping for USCCA type products and watching vids describing a nightmare called an SD shoot in today's political justice system. Heavy shiite.

How many of you have recently stopped to really digest the gravity of possibly shooting someone in what could be anyday now? I mean this year!!! Aside from bravado and generaly disgust of masked snowflakes are we as the local gun culture seriously ready for that?

The abyss? More like yawn.

 

[Mark Torrence]

For your info:
I just spoke to the USCCA directly. I have been a member since The beginning of 2014. It is true that this service in no longer available in Washington state. They are working with officials in the state to get things straightened out but do not know when that will happen. They said that they have provided all the documentation to the state for approval and are currently waiting on state officials.

 

[Crazyeye24]

They'll be waiting on state officials for a loooooooong time....unless you can somehow get antifa to say how awesome it'd be to have insurance for gunowners. Then Poof, it'll be approved.

 

[RedCardinalSeven]

An oft used axiom I've heard from old-timers is that the dead can't testify, AKA "Dead men tell no tales". However, this thinking "shoot em' dead'" is a foolish mindset and an even more foolish mindset to declare so publicly.

Legal self-defense involving lethal force means stopping the threat. If putting a few well placed shots center-mass is the best way to do this, and the results of doing so also causes the attacker to expire, than that is the circumstances. It, however, ought naught be the primary intention, as that is murder. For those that may not only grasp the need to justify it to society, but to their maker as well, one needs to seriously take these distinctions into consideration. Self-defense is justified. Murder is not.

RedRover is correct. Anyone who cold-bloodedly states that, in a self-defense situation, they intend to shoot to kill is ethically and criminally depraved. If they are merely a tough-talking fool then they are setting themselves up for a criminal prosecution and a civil lawsuit (if they have any valuable assets) if they ever do end up in a self-defense situation.

If you are not engaging in criminal behavior then you generally have the right to use lethal force to protect yourself or others from what you reasonably believe is an imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death but you must use the minimum force needed to stop the threat. As one Washington attorney puts it: "A person may not use more force than is necessary given the situation."

That doesn't mean you have to stop and check after every round you fire but there are real limits and if the prosecution or plaintiff's attorney found out you were a keyboard warrior with a record of shooting your mouth off about killing people rather than merely defending yourself then it would almost certainly be used against you. Prosecutors and civil attorneys definitely do seek such material during discovery and, in a high-profile shooting, would have their own investigators looking for it as would the media.

 

[RedCardinalSeven]

There is at least one example of a large city (Camden, NJ I believe) doing this year's ago with some moderate positive results in lower crime and other metrics.

Don't believe the hype. What happened in Camden is that basically the politicians dumped the police union and then doubled the size of the force and put way more cops on the street. And yet despite these changes Camden is still less safe/more dangerous than 94% of American cities.

 

[revjen45]

Reply to Post #110:
No you're not wasting your time carrying. It just gives you one more option in a situation of existential peril.
The fact that you have a piece doesn't mean that's your only option, but it may be the only feasible choice
after all other avenues for resolution are not practical.

 

[CrackPipe]

Close - the 10mm was adopted by the Feebs, but it was developed before. I think you're thinking about the .40S&W which was developed from the 10mm for the Feds and other LEO, because they wanted 10mm like performance in a gun with a grip the size of a 9mm - since 10MM is too long to feed in a gun with a 9mm sized gripframe. But yeah - most 10mm sold on the shelves today is just .40SW in a longer case unless you purposefully buy the hotter stuff. Even then, its still not .357Mag territory.

Perhaps I'm just ignorant but everything I have read on it says otherwise. Like this:

357 Magnum vs 10mm - What's Best for Your Needs?

What separates these popular calibers? Let's compare the 357 magnum vs 10mm with a look at ballistics, capacity and other factors you'll want to consider.

www.ammunitiontogo.com

I read that they underpowered 10mm for a period of time but that's not the case with modern ammunition.

 

[CrackPipe]

Don't believe the hype. What happened in Camden is that basically the politicians dumped the police union and then doubled the size of the force and put way more cops on the street. And yet despite these changes Camden is still less safe/more dangerous than 94% of American cities.

You are largely correct from what I read too. I was just trying to point out that the term does not mean "no police department". It's restructuring. HOW it is restructured is a very involved subject.

 

[WheelchrWraith]

Screwy, you are facing a dilemma every soldier does post-mortem. Let me pull my old rip-stops out, try them on, and share with you what I shared with hundreds of new warfighters:
1) No one abhors war more than a soldier. We are the ones who stand the greatest risk for death/injury because of politicians, like the mayors of PDX and SEA, who prefer politics over public policy and a sense of service.
2) Avoid a fight if tactical advantage can convince the enemy to withdraw. You both win, but YOU will take the field of battle in victory that day.
3) If the enemy is determined to fight, kill without mercy, leave no enemy combatants breathing on the battlefield. If the enemy withdraws upon taking casualties DO NOT PURSUE them. Remain vigilant against a second wave attack. Make sure at the end of the day you and the brother or sister to your left AND right go home safely.
4) You may, like me, have visitation from time to time of the faces of those you helped shuffle off this mortal coil, console yourself and send them on their "ethereal farewell" with the statement, "YOU could have not threatened me and mine. You made your joice, you received your just rewards."

Wheelchair Wraith

 

[RedCardinalSeven]

If the enemy is determined to fight, kill without mercy, leave no enemy combatants breathing on the battlefield.

What happens in battle and what the rules say should/should not happen in battle are seldom, if ever, the same thing. However, according to longstanding doctrine, American troops are bound by the Law of Armed Conflict, which prohibits the killing of enemy combatants who are out of the fight because they have surrendered or are wounded or otherwise incapacitated. That's basically the same standard as in US civilian law of self-defense.

According to the US Army Law of Armed Conflict Deskbook (5th ed.) on page 9:

The Malmedy massacre was an event during the Battle of the Bulge in December 1944 where a German SS Commando unit under Jochaim Peiper, executed roughly 80 American POWS by firing squad, since they did not want to be slowed down by caring for prisoners while advancing to the Meuse river, their objective.

After the war:

Peiper and 70 members of his Kampfgruppe, plus his army commander, chief of staff and corps commander, were arraigned before a U.S. military court in the former concentration camp at Dachau, charged that they did "willfully, deliberately and wrongfully permit, encourage, aid, abet and participate in the killing, shooting, ill treatment, abuse and torture of members of the armed forces of the United States of America."

Here's what the DoD's Law of War Manual (June 2015) says on the general subject:

5.5.7 Prohibition Against Declaring That No Quarter Be Given. It is forbidden to declare that no quarter will be given. This means that it is prohibited to order that legitimate offers of surrender will be refused or that detainees, such as unprivileged belligerents, will be summarily executed. Moreover, it is also prohibited to conduct hostilities on the basis that there shall be no survivors, or to threaten the adversary with the denial of quarter.

Now, one could say that's all fine and dandy for pogues but unrealistic for grunts. Consider, however, this paragraph from the foreword to the Law of War Manual:

The law of war is a part of our military heritage, and obeying it is the right thing to do. But we also know that the law of war poses no obstacle to fighting well and prevailing. Nations have developed the law of war to be fundamentally consistent with the military doctrines that are the basis for effective combat operations. For example, the self-control needed to refrain from violations of the law of war under the stresses of combat is the same good order and discipline necessary to operate cohesively and victoriously in battle. Similarly, the law of war's prohibitions on torture and unnecessary destruction are consistent with the practical insight that such actions ultimately frustrate rather than accomplish the mission.

 

[WheelchrWraith]

What happens in battle and what the rules say should/should not happen in battle are seldom, if ever, the same thing. However, according to longstanding doctrine, American troops are bound by the Law of Armed Conflict, which prohibits the killing of enemy combatants who are out of the fight because they have surrendered or are wounded or otherwise incapacitated. That's basically the same standard as in US civilian law of self-defense.

According to the US Army Law of Armed Conflict Deskbook (5th ed.) on page 9:After the war:Here's what the DoD's Law of War Manual (June 2015) says on the general subject:Now, one could say that's all fine and dandy for pogues but unrealistic for grunts. Consider, however, this paragraph from the foreword to the Law of War Manual:

 

[WheelchrWraith]

Never had a "Law of Armed Conflict"....sounds like kinder gentler soldier hogwash. We had the Geneva Convention which covered 4 possibilities:
1) NON-COMBATANTS: Civilians and Aid Workers...if they are unarmed - they are off limits; touch a weapon, though, and they instantaneously became targets.
2) COMBATANTS who lay down their arms- they are Prisoners of War.
3) COMBATANTS who are surrendering or incompacitated due to being wounded - they are casualties of war and must be given fair and humane treatment.
4) NONE OF THE ABOVE - they are body bag candidates.

If some dirt bag is shooting at you and you have to RT to get permission to shoot back. Brother, you are your family's qualifying entry into the Gold Star Family Program and need to abandon your post most rikki-tik and find another country to call home. It really is quite simply that night-and-day difference.

Wheelchair Wraith

 

[revjen45]

1) "Do you have a link, or know where we can find this? Sounds like a one of those "friend of a friend told me" things - could it happen?"
Here ya go Sport.

The Terrifying and True Harold Fish Story | Buckeye Firearms Association

by Gerard Valentino The prosecution of Harold Fish reignited the debate over self-defense laws in America. For those not familiar with the story, Mr. Fish was convicted in Coconino County, Arizona of 2nd degree murder despite staying on site and rendering aid after being forced to shoot a...

www.buckeyefirearms.org

2) "I just don't see 10mm getting someone sent to prison when .357 Magnum or .45 Colt has more energy."
That's because you think THE LAW is or should be rational. It's not. Dem DAs and AGs are free to throw their power and malice around with impunity. The Agenda is the most important thing.

3) " Moreover, it is also prohibited to conduct hostilities on the basis that there shall be no survivors, or to threaten the adversary with the denial of quarter."
So does that mean you can't run up the Totenkopf, sound the Deguello, and bayonet the wounded?

 

[ma96782]

I've "red lined" that part of Portland.

Especially since the Mayor, City Council and the Police have sent the message that they have no interest in protecting the rights of the law-abiding.

Aloha, Mark

 

[wjv]

What does a .410 pistol provide?

If you ever have to use it some scummy DA will try and twist the facts and claim that you were using a concealed sawed off shotgun, or some similar argument.