<Sigh> Well again when the cities started bending over backward for scum I kept saying this was how it was going to go. People are going to start to take the law into their own hands. Sadly of course this is NOT how to handle this and the shooter is going to be in trouble but, again the voters do this to themselves. It's too bad we can't get the RV's to go dump their tanks in front of the homes of City Counsel, and Mayor's homes.
Let's follow this thru. I wouldn't point a gun at someone for simple trespassing (being somewhere on my land and not snooping around my house/shop or vehicles), unless they threatened me in some way. I would either ask them what they were doing, and depending on their response I would maybe inform them they are trespassing and ask them to leave. If they don't leave as requested, I would call the sheriff and request assistance (a deputy lives about 2 miles away). I still would not point a gun at them unless threatened.now I agree. Because the evidence at hand reasonably indicates something bigger than a misdemeanor. I would still let the cops do the investigating though...
IMO most new gun owners don't know when they can use a gun (or threaten to use) and when they can't. They also don't know/don't respect the four basic rules of gun safety. That means there will be a lot more incidents like this and also accidents. So we can't stop people doing stupid things, but the more new gun owners that are educated on the above, the less often it will happen overall IMO.This is the type of thing that will ultimately win the majority of the population over to banning guns. This is what the non gun owning person sees more often than not ... its no wonder why they vote the way they do.
Most CA gun laws are just plain stupid, but I have really mixed feelings about the safe handling demonstration that's required before taking possession. The demo was a slight PITA and pretty contrived, but after watching numerous Los Angelinos fail miserably multiple times, I can't say it's completely a waste of effort.So we can't stop people doing stupid things, but the more new gun owners that are educated on the above, the less often it will happen overall IMO.
If the entire gun control movement wasnt based on a prohibition model Id be more open to the "common sense" laws like mandatory training to carry....Most CA gun laws are just plain stupid, but I have really mixed feelings about the safe handling demonstration that's required before taking possession. The demo was a slight PITA and pretty contrived, but after watching numerous Los Angelinos fail miserably multiple times, I can't say it's completely a waste of effort.
Almost though. I'm sure they retained very little.
Same with the requirement to have a firearms safety card. It's tough to know when to draw the line when the other side isn't interested in any form of reasonable discourse.
Not only the legal misunderstanding -- if they had been actual bad guys, chasing them down, preventing them from leaving, and presenting yourself as target right in front of them is an extra dose of stupid....
This particular guy thought he was in the right to defend his property from tresspassing, with lethal force. What an idiot.
A) the media + lockdown has everyone extremily on edgeThis is the type of thing that will ultimately win the majority of the population over to banning guns. This is what the non gun owning person sees more often than not ... its no wonder why they vote the way they do.
I agree -- I would think that among gun owners, those who own a single firearm are a minority. That would be like having one kitchen knife or one screwdriver.the numbers do not support the assertion that gun owners are in the majority either. Just because we have X number of guns, doesn't mean we have that same number of gun owners. As mentioned in the article I posted, a number of gun owners own much more than a single gun.
They don't explain how they get their data -- maybe from states with true registries or backdoor registries, but I at least hope that the reported 2m (NRA) to 2.5m (NSSF) new gun ownders as of June 4, 2020 is correct:Also, the assertion that just because there are a lot of guns being bought recently means that most of those people are new gun owners is not necessarily true either. Surely some percentage are, but how many are new and how many are already owners? That there are "many" new gun owners is an assumption that we don't have evidence for.
It's just the beginning. Joe Biden's website on gun control has this gem right after the assertion he'll ban black rifles:...
Our ruling: True
The claim on the pro-gun Facebook page that an assault weapons ban bill was introduced in the House is TRUE. If passed, H.R. 5717 would ban semiautomatic assault weapons.
Regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act. Currently, the National Firearms Act requires individuals possessing machine-guns, silencers, and short-barreled rifles to undergo a background check and register those weapons with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Due to these requirements, such weapons are rarely used in crimes. As president, Biden will pursue legislation to regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act.
Quit the TV first, then the paper. The TV talking heads aren't just taking heads any more. They are fully animated, with exaggerated facial expressions, breathless speaking and pushing a lean. Propaganda at is finest. At least the paper doesn't use the expression and body language. I don't do either medium anymore. I listen to radio news, just because it's there in the middle of what I do listen too. I wont even listen to Fox any more, just too depressing, them doing nothing more than countering what the crazy far left media pukes out.Once again the Media seizes on any word that "excites" or shows the potential for sensationalism. What does "Hispanic" have to do with that idiot's actions? The Media loves any words that are considered sensitive, such as AK, AR, gun-violence, Black, etc. The Media needs to be part of the solution, not the problem. I quit my local newspaper because of their use of such words. I wish I could do that with the TV news which has become a platform for bias.
Agreed - trespassing is not the major crime people tend to think it is. It's annoying to be sure, but it is not a gun issue unless the trespasser is visibly armed and acting like a major crime is about to go down. In fact, just walking on someone's property or driving up a driveway isn't even legally considered trespassing in many states. For example if this had happened in WA, the people in the car did not trespass:In this exact situation we are discussing the driver would have full legal defense to have shot the man menacing them with a firearm when there was no clear threat or intent to cause harm. Technically they were trespassing unknowingly by getting lost, the man pulls and points his pistol. If he was shot in return with that information, those people would never be convicted by a jury.
(1) A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the second degree if he or she knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in or upon premises of another under circumstances not constituting criminal trespass in the first degree.
(2) Criminal trespass in the second degree is a misdemeanor.
Not even then -- get a surveillance camera and get the plate that way. Also gives you proof over and above your word and doesn't risk an unnecessary encounter if the person turns out to be a very bad person.....b ut chasing down a trespasser after the fact? Probably not - except maybe to get their license plate if they were up to no good. For making a u-turn on my property? ...
See my post above -- Joe Biden wants to NFA semiautos meaning you'd have to buy a tax stamp for each one or sell it "back" to the government. So a sort of non-ban that locks people out from ownership. I suppose we'd get a ruling from SCOTUS on whether the NFA is constitutional, but without another Trump appointee, I'd expect that to go badly.... A retroactive ban on legal ownership of previously-purchased weapons, unless they are something really weird, won't be part of the pie. ...
We pretty much have precedent on the NFA. If there was a way to get them to rule the NFA unconstitutional we would have had it by now. Unfortunately, the SCOTUS rarely goes against precedent - it would be too inconvenient for the legal system.See my post above -- Joe Biden wants to NFA semiautos meaning you'd have to buy a tax stamp for each one or sell it "back" to the government. So a sort of non-ban that locks people out from ownership. I suppose we'd get a ruling from SCOTUS on whether the NFA is constitutional, but without another Trump appointee, I'd expect that to go badly.