best truck gun for citizens under 21 ?

[shotgunsandkitties]

Hi, this is my first post, and i figured i would put my idea out therr on the best gun for those under 21 to use as their truck gun in case they need to defend themselves.

I'm from Ohio, and one can not carry even if in plain view, a loaded firearm in their vehicle. You also may not have any loaded magazines, stripper clips, or moon clips for revolvers.

However the rules do state ome can have an unloadrd fireafm, and legally store the ammunition in a pocket on their person tgat has a zipper, buttom or velcro flap, loose ammunition only, no loaded magazines or clips.

I checked with several officers in my area who confirmed this was legal. So hypotheticall, ehat is someone under 21 to do when they want to carry a firearm for protection in their vehicle ? I advise either a single shot rifle, shotgun, or pump action shotgun, with ammo stored in a secure pocket on your person (velcro, zipper.)

My particular firearm of choice for budget reasons (being a college age student) a maverick 88 shotgun 18-20 much barrel with a raptor grip for ease of obtainment in a self defense situation, with the action open so you can insert a round quickly

Your being assaulted as you enter your vehicle, now how you get the attacker off you initially is a matter of your preference, taze, pepper spray, stab to the knee joint, or an elbow to the face as you draw the firearm from your vehicle ( i will be storing it either between the seats or some type of a holster by the steering wheel)

Now while your attacker is stunned quickly load a round in the open action, pump and then blast em! Load more in the tube if needed or possible.

I realize that this may not be the best plan, but it is the best one i can think of when you can not have a handgun or do not have a concealed carry permit, its better than nothing.

What do y'all think ?

 

[Bobson]

I think posting about stunning and executing an attacker shows a dangerous level of foolishness.

I also think it might be difficult, if not impossible, to validate one's need to employ lethal force if you have time to draw and load a long gun during an encounter that began at arms length.

Welcome to The High Road.

 

[Lord Teapot]

before i could carry a loaded firearm, i carried mace. in your situation, i would simply revert to carrying mace, and not bother trying to get my gun loaded. i would spray the attacker, and then stab him with a knife, in his neck, that will be much quicker than spraying him and then reaching for my gun/opening my zipper pocket/loading one round/aiming/firing.

 

[rcmodel]

I think for your first post, this is a Doozie!!

If you are attacked as you enter your vehicle, there will be no time to get out a shotgun and load it.

You would be better off with some training in SD and a can of pepper spray on your belt!!

Besides that?

If you are under 21, and the cops stop you for even a miner traffic infraction?
And they find a pistol-grip shotgun and a pocket full of shells on you??

You are going to have some Splain'n to do down at the cop shop, while they tow your car to the impound yard!!

Legal to the letter of the law, or not.

And besides that?
If you are able to 'stun your attacker'?

There is no need to load a shotgun and shoot him after he is 'stunned' and out of the fight.


rc

 

[shotgunsandkitties]

I live in a state that allows me to protect myself with deadly force if necessary although i do admit i probably should have said only to fire if the attacker continues to try to harm you. A knife in and of itself is fine, but at the college they do not allow you to carry any knife bigger than 4 inches that folds and is considered a tool. They do oddly enough however due to state law allow you to have a loaded firearm in your car or unloaded as long you are following state law, i feel more confident defending myself with a gun than a knife,because all it takes is the guy being just a little better than you to get that knifr away from you

 

[Lord Teapot]

I live in a state that allows me to protect myself with deadly force if necessary although i do admit i probably should have said only to fire if the attacker continues to try to harm you. A knife in and of itself is fine, but at the college they do not allow you to carry any knife bigger than 4 inches that folds and is considered a tool. They do oddly enough however due to state law allow you to have a loaded firearm in your car or unloaded as long you are following state law, i feel more confident defending myself with a gun than a knife,because all it takes is the guy being just a little better than you to get that knifr away from you

no easier to take a knife from someone than to take a gun or a can of mace from someone. also you already maced this guy, so he's not in any position to bruce lee your knife away.

 

[DHJenkins]

I think you should get a can of OC spray, read the laws regarding the use of deadly force in your state and stop believing what you see in movies, video games or on TV. Some actual, real-life self-defense training couldn't hurt, either.

 

[rcmodel]

You think it's easy to take a knife away from someone?

You should see how super easy it is to take a pistol grip shotgun away from someone!!

Child's play!!

You don't even need to know how.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Sy0kKAPeGYs

rc

 

[shotgunsandkitties]

Can anyone show me a case where someone in ohio has had their car taken away for carryimg in such a matter? And again i reiterate that use of the gun is if the attacker is still attemptijg to harm you after beimg stunned (whether that be by tazer, elbow to the face or pepper spray ) i feel that in their temporary state of incapacitation it would give you enough time to load the gun.

I'm not some kid who's been playing too many video games, I'm a united states citizen who has been robbed 3 times going to and from the local college campus trying to get a got dang education to better myself and almost killed. I simply want to defend myself to the best of my ability, and ive seen people get tazed and maced and it have no effect on them. That's why i tried to implement the circle of force. Using non deadly forms of defense and if all else fails lethal force

 

[Frank Ettin]

I live in a state that allows me to protect myself with deadly force if necessary...

It's apparent that you have a poor understanding of the laws regarding the use of force in self defense. While in every State one may, under some circumstances, be permitted to defend himself with lethal force, what constitutes "if necessary" is a good deal more complicated and narrowly defined than you apparently think. Furthermore, you will not have the final say as to whether or not your act of violence against another human was legally justified. That call will be made after the fact by the district attorney and/or a grand jury; and if you are really unlucky it will be decided by the jury at your trial.

The question of when one may legally use force in self defense comes up regularly. Perhaps this general and high level overview can serve as a starting point for further study.

But first the usual caveats: (1) I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer; (2) This is not legal advice, but rather it's general information on a legal topic; and (3) this is intended as a general overview without reference to the laws of any particular State, and as such it doesn't consider specific state laws that might allow justification of a use of force in some circumstance not mentioned here.

Now let's look at the basic legal reality of the use of force in self defense.

1. Our society takes a dim view of the use of force and/or intentionally hurting or killing another human. In every State the use of force and/or intentionally hurting or killing another human is prima facie (on its face) a crime of one sort or another.
   
   
   • However, for hundreds of years our law has recognized that there are some circumstances in which such an intentional act of violence against another human might be legally justified.
     
     
   • Exactly what would be necessary to establish that violence against someone else was justified will depend on (1) the applicable law where the event takes place; and (2) exactly what happened and how it happened, which will have to be judged on the basis of evidence gathered after the fact.
     
     
   • Someone who initiated a conflict will almost never be able to legally justify an act of violence against another.
   
   
2. The amount of force an actor may justifiably use in self defense will depend on the level of the threat.
   
   
   • Under the laws of most States, lethal force may be justified when a reasonable person in like circumstance would conclude that a use of lethal force is necessary to prevent the otherwise unavoidable, imminent death or grave bodily injury to an innocent. And to establish that, the actor claiming justified use of lethal force would need to show that the person against whom the lethal force was used reasonably had --
     
     
     • Ability, i. e., the power to deliver force sufficient to cause death or grave bodily harm;
       
       
     • Opportunity, i. e., the assailant was capable of immediately deploying such force; and
       
       
     • put an innocent in Jeopardy, i. e., the assailant was acting in such a manner that a reasonable and prudent person would conclude that he had the intent to kill or cripple.
     
     
   • "Ability" doesn't necessarily require a weapon. Disparity of force, e. g., a large, young, strong person attacking a small, old, frail person, or force of numbers, could show "Ability."
     
     
   • "Opportunity" could be established by showing proximity, lack of barriers or the like.
     
     
   • "Jeopardy" (intent) could be inferred from overt acts (e. g., violent approach) and/or statements of intent.
     
     
   • And unless the standard justifying the use of lethal force is met, use of some lesser level of violence might be legally justified to prevent a harmful or offensive, unconsented to contact by another person.
   
   
3. If you have thus used violence against another person, your actions will be investigated as a crime, because on the surface that's what it is.
   
   
   • Sometimes there will be sufficient evidence concerning what happened and how it happened readily apparent to the police for the police and/or prosecutor to quickly conclude that your actions were justified. If that's the case, you will be quickly exonerated of criminal responsibility, although in many States you might have to still deal with a civil suit.
     
     
   • If the evidence is not clear, you may well be arrested and perhaps even charged with a criminal offense. If that happens you will need to affirmatively assert that you were defending yourself and put forth evidence that you at least prima facie satisfied the applicable standard justifying your act of violence.
     
     
   • Of course, if your use of force against another human took place in or immediately around your home, your justification for your use of violence could be more readily apparent or easier to establish -- maybe.
     
     
     • Again, it still depends on what happened and how it happened. For example, was the person you shot a stranger, an acquaintance, a friend, a business associate or relative? Did the person you shot forcibly break into your home or was he invited? Was the contact tumultuous from the beginning, or did things begin peaceably and turn violent, how and why?
       
       
     • In the case of a stranger forcibly breaking into your home, your justification for the use of lethal force would probably be obvious. The laws of most States provide some useful protections for someone attacked in his home, which protections make it easier and a more certain matter for your acts to be found justified.
       
       
     • It could however be another matter to establish your justification if you have to use force against someone you invited into your home in a social context which later turns violent.
       
       
     • It could also be another matter if you left the safety of your house to confront someone on your property.
   
   
4. Good, general overviews of the topic can be found at UseofForce.us and in this booklet by Marty Hayes at the Armed Citizens' Legal Defense Network.
   
   
5. Sometimes a defensive use of lethal force will have grave consequences for the defender, even when ultimately exonerated. For example --
   
   
   • This couple, arrested in early April and finally exonerated under Missouri's Castle Doctrine in early June. And no doubt after incurring expenses for bail and a lawyer, as well as a couple of month's anxiety, before being cleared.
     
     
   • Larry Hickey, in gun friendly Arizona: He was arrested, spent 71 days in jail, went through two different trials ending in hung juries, was forced to move from his house, etc., before the DA decided it was a good shoot and dismissed the charges.
     
     
   • Mark Abshire in Oklahoma: Despite defending himself against multiple attackers on his own lawn in a fairly gun-friendly state with a "Stand Your Ground" law, he was arrested, went to jail, charged, lost his job and his house, and spent two and a half years in the legal meat-grinder before finally being acquitted.
     
     
   • Harold Fish, also in gun friendly Arizona: He was still convicted and sent to prison. He won his appeal, his conviction was overturned, and a new trial was ordered. The DA chose to dismiss the charges rather than retry Mr. Fish.
     
     
   • Gerald Ung: He was attacked by several men, and the attack was captured on video. He was nonetheless charged and brought to trial. He was ultimately acquitted.
     
     
   • Some good folks in clear jeopardy and with no way to preserve their lives except by the use of lethal force against other humans. Yet that happened under circumstances in which their justification for the use of lethal force was not immediately clear. While each was finally exonerated, it came at great emotional and financial cost. And perhaps there but for the grace of God will go one of us.
     
     
   • And note also that two of those cases arose in States with a Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground law in effect at the time.

 

[shotgunsandkitties]

Again i have read the laws in my state i am allowed to use lethal force to defend myself without duty to retreat i am a victim of multiple armed robberies. So if this isn't a good idea, what fo i do if tazing or macing him isn't enough ? I'm sorry if i came off as some type of mall ninja, I'm just tired of being a victim... i don't want to be on the news as some college kid who got killed in a robbery, it alreafy almost happened once...I'm just scared

 

[shotgunsandkitties]

Wouldn't it be clear self defense if after being maced or tazed they are still able to attempt to cause me great bodily harm ? All i know is that in my state from what i see on the news any time someone tries to car jack someone in this state if they shoot the criminal they are acquitted under grounds of self defense. Why should it matter if thats with a pistol or a shotgun ? What would you do in that situation?

Someone is assaulting you at your vehicle, trying to rob you, kill you, steal your car. You've maced thrm and tazed them and they still keep coming, what other options is a man left with ?

 

[shotgunsandkitties]

Ohio's castle law covers my home, my place of employment (if allowed by management) and my vehicle or any vehicle of an immediate relative or spouse. Again last resort only if the person is still a threat, this is a person who is being physically belligerent or trying to steal my vehicle, which my states castle law states i have a right to stop them with deadly force.

I don't see why everyones making me out to be a mall ninja, I'm simply defending myself when all other attempts of non deadly force have failed

 

[Frank Ettin]

Again i have read the laws in my state i am allowed to use lethal force to defend myself without duty to retreat...

First, you need to cool down. Whether you have understood the laws you've read is open to question based on your comments in this thread.

It's important that you understand the law, because you can wind up in jail for a long time if you don't. The justified use of lethal force is contingent on being able to articulate why a reasonable person in like circumstances would conclude that he'd be immediately killed or gravely injured if if did not resort to lethal force.

...i don't want to be on the news as some college kid who got killed in a robbery, it alreafy almost happened once...I'm just scared ...

And that is not justification for using lethal force.

Wouldn't it be clear self defense if after being maced or tazed they are still able to attempt to cause me great bodily harm ? All i know is that in my state from what i see on the news any time someone tries to car jack someone in this state if they shoot the criminal they are acquitted under grounds of self defense. Why should it matter if thats with a pistol or a shotgun ? What would you do in that situation?

Someone is assaulting you at your vehicle, trying to rob you, kill you, steal your car. You've maced thrm and tazed them and they still keep coming, what other options is a man left with ?

Wow!

I'm sorry, but as a college student it's not unreasonable that we expect you to be able to approach this very serious and complex subject in a more measured and objective fashion. Let me try to simplify things.

Whether the law will let you get away with killing another person will depend on exactly what happened and how it happened; and those situations you've described don't automatically get you off the hook. You will need to be able to convince others that you were legally justified.

 

[Bullseye]

car pool maybe ?

 

[shotgunsandkitties]

Frank wouldn't an attacker who is still trying to cause me great bodily harm or death be th justification for deadly force, i am being serious about this. I am simply stating what the law says. The law states that if i am in danger of great bodily harm or death, if someone attacks me while i am entering exiting or dricing my vehiclr i have the legal right to defend myself with lethal force. I don't see how that's not taking this matter seriously.

And lets say i don't even fire the gun, but after my attacker continues to try to cause me serious bodily harm they see it and they decide to walk away, and i don't shoot, am i breaking any laws there ?

 

[Bobson]

You may be. Brandishing a firearm, or using the threat of deadly force (read: showing someone your gun to dissuade them from attacking you) is a crime in and of itself in many states. As usual, it won't be your call to determine whether or not your actions were justified.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...I don't see how that's not taking this matter seriously....

You've tossed around a whole bunch of hypotheticals describing various situations which are all subtly different. But being exact and precise counts. So --

...an attacker who is still trying to cause me great bodily harm or death be th justification for deadly force,...

Yes, that is the standard, but in all the hypotheticals you outlined that standard isn't automatically satisfied. The totality of the circumstances of the particular event determine if the standard is satisfied.

There is no clear if-than formula for determining if lethal force is justified. Understand the basic rules and concepts and be able to exercise good judgment. And the avoidance/evasion/escape are your friends. And to perhaps better understand that review this thread to find out why "When Can I Shoot" is a lousy question.

Beyond that, a major issue with a self defense gun carried in a car instead of on your person will always be whether it is accessible enough to have it when you need it.

 

[shotgunsandkitties]

Ideally I think one should have a ccw permit and a handgun, but some people cant and i feel if they can't this is a better option than nothing when less than lethal options like mace or tazers for whatever reason don't seem to dissuade ones attacker to flee, and they insist on becoming more violent and causing great bodily harm or death to their victim. Again though as stated most of the time being tazed ir maced may be enough, but it may not, and if in that timeframe of them being stunned you can load your firearm you have some means of defending yourself since pepper spray or tazing seem not to be working.

 

[Baron_Null]

I won't touch the legal aspect, as Mr. Ettin seems to have that more than covered, but there needs to be the realistic expectation of the practicalities of not only retrieving a longarm, but loading it (with loose ammunition none the less) as well, all under stress, and all in a matter of seconds. It's unlikely that if your theoretical attacker is "stunned" enough to allow you the window to accomplish this successfully there will not be opportunities to flee or otherwise end the confrontation. Furthermore, the situation is complicated by the fact that longarms are difficult to maneuver in confined environments, especially when things like car seats are involved.

I am unfamiliar with the laws in Ohio, but it seems to me that a blunt object in which there is the ability to keep your distance would be ideal. It has been brought up many times in the non-firearm section of this forum that a cane is ideal in this regard.

It's more than unfortunate that people you will never meet have the ability to make decisions about your life and the way you choose to protect it, but the law is the law and the hired guns of those people will enforce those decisions with lethal force if they deem it "necessary".

Furthermore, don't trust that law enforcement officers know the very laws they're tasked to enforce. I've been carrying a handgun since I was 19 (which is the legal age of handgun ownership/posession, in my state) and have followed the letter of the law with regards to that. Regardless, I know that there were officers out there who would arrest me for breaking a law that doesn't exist, and there was one in particular who openly stated that they would do just that if they ever "caught" me carrying. Whether you describe this as a blatant violation of an individual's sovereignty or, as RC described it, "having some 'splaining to do," the fact remains that you may be treated as a criminal for doing nothing more than practicing your rights under the Constitution and following the restrictions placed upon you by the state.

 

[old lady new shooter]

The attacker has to be trying to cause you "great bodily harm", not just rob you. And as a young male, unless the attacker is way bigger than you you probably don't have a disparity of ability argument, which means for you to use deadly force the attacker better be armed.

That said, if you are determined to use a firearm to defend yourself I would say a revolver would be a lot better choice than a shotgun, a shotgun is a big long thing that would be very unwieldy in the situation you describe, and pretty easy for BG to grab away from you I think. A revolver would be harder to get away from you and also really easy to quickly just load one round into since you seem sure you are sufficiently skilled that one shot will be enough. Plus faster because there is nothing to rack, AND usable with one hand if BG has your other one occupied.

 

[Davek1977]

If you have time to load a shotgun and fire, you have time to drive away and remove yourself yourself from the situation. The idea that you've tazed and pepper sprayed a guy, and he is still coming at you with such speed that you're afraid for your life, and you HAVE to shoot him, because there are NO other options, doesn't seem very likely. Like I said, if you have time to laod a shotgun, you have time to shift into drive and slam the accelerator. Removing yourself from the situation if at all possible seems a lot more prudent than executing (as it will likely be seen in court) someone you've already incapacitated to a degree via taser and pepper spray. You're confident you'd be acquitted in such cases because of what you've read, saw on tv, and heard about. I'm not willing to be my freedom on things I've heard secondhand, and I'd suggest you not either. Being a victim of a crime sucks, but being victimized by our courts by doing something that made sense to you, but not the the prosecution sucks just as bad if not moreso


as to the effectiveness of tasers--We've all "heard" stories about the guy who was shocked and acted as though nothing happened. It does happen. That said, watch 100 random people get tasered, and you'll rapidly see the vast majority of them will NOT be wanting to continue the fight anytime soon....

 

[old lady new shooter]

"If you have time to load a shotgun and fire, you have time to drive away and remove yourself yourself from the situation."

+1000, the best point of all.

 

[LUCKYDAWG13]

Now while your attacker is stunned quickly load a round in the open action, pump and then blast em! Load more in the tube if needed or possible.

that would be murder

 

[Coyote3855]

I'm curious as to the details of your three robberies. When, where, and how did these incidents occur? You might give thought to avoiding such situations. Awareness of your surroundings, the locations you choose to frequent, simple preventative measures are all better than dealing with a confrontation.

Scan the area before you approach your car, including beneath it (Massad Ayoob suggests dropping your car keys as excuse to look under your vehicle.) Lock your car doors as soon as you get inside, don't wait for the auto lock to engage as you drive away. Same drill getting out of your car. Stay in it with the doors locked if there are questionable people in the area and find another place to park.

Don't be talking on your cell phone or texting as you approach or leave your vehicle.

And just by the way, if you ever do use lethal force and kill or injury someone, your posts on social media and internet forums may be used in the decision to charge you or presented at trial.

Your discussion here would not help your case as it appears you have not adequately researched case law or actual shootings (see Frank's links) and are determined to find justification to shoot someone. Not smart.