bdickens
Member
Assuming, of course, that you're at home when they come to visit.
Home Carry
- Thread starter TomJ
- Start date
- Status
Assuming, of course, that you're at home when they come to visit.
bikerdoc
Moderator In Memoriam
Couple of thoughts expanding on my post 11
It is Saturday morning. I'm sitting in my recliner in my camo pajamas, watching the NBC today show bash the president, and practicing social isolation, which by the way I invented as a life style in 2008! Anyway to you nay saying skeptics that are saying, Ha, the silly old man is unarmed !
Raspberries to you sir!
In the console of my very expensive , comfortable recliner is a 1911 and 2 mags! ( repeat raspberries) (Btw teenage grandkids are well trained)
Second thought
Being prepared is not fear - it is reality.
Lots of stupid or drug addled people in the world.
In my break in - the lawn guy, who had worked for my landscaper for a year knew we carried, knew I was a retired cop, knew the dogs didn't like him, but saw no cars in the driveway and assumed we were not home. Surprise! Her truck was in for service and I was getting my pills from the pharmacy.
So future cancer researcher decides to push in a air conditioner and climb in. Just one of many bad life decisions.
So someone else will have to cure cancer.
ETA I have since doweled the A/C windows, tight so they won't budge.
It is Saturday morning. I'm sitting in my recliner in my camo pajamas, watching the NBC today show bash the president, and practicing social isolation, which by the way I invented as a life style in 2008! Anyway to you nay saying skeptics that are saying, Ha, the silly old man is unarmed !
Raspberries to you sir!
In the console of my very expensive , comfortable recliner is a 1911 and 2 mags! ( repeat raspberries) (Btw teenage grandkids are well trained)
Second thought
Being prepared is not fear - it is reality.
Lots of stupid or drug addled people in the world.
In my break in - the lawn guy, who had worked for my landscaper for a year knew we carried, knew I was a retired cop, knew the dogs didn't like him, but saw no cars in the driveway and assumed we were not home. Surprise! Her truck was in for service and I was getting my pills from the pharmacy.
So future cancer researcher decides to push in a air conditioner and climb in. Just one of many bad life decisions.
So someone else will have to cure cancer.
ETA I have since doweled the A/C windows, tight so they won't budge.
Last edited:
whughett
Member
At 78 years young I don’t and never have worn pj’s to bed or a robe. Just my shorts and T shirt. At this age it’s often mid day or later before I even get dressed.
I’m not knocking those that seem to have a gun in their pocket or strapped on when at home 24/7 I’m not even saying it’s somewhat paranoid to have a gun on ones person or one with in easy reach within ones own home, it’s a right after all, but I am saying it’s personal choice and no less effective.
GBExpat
Member
When I first installed a window A/C in my (ground floor) bedroom window (a seasonal installation) I was surprised that there was apparently NO attention paid by the A/C design team to the security aspect. Once the unit was installed, all one had to do was lift up hard to easily defenestrate the A/C and gain access to the home.
I did some re-engineering of my own (which included being able to lock the sashes together and rethinking some of the frame structure) and added a wireless alarm system mag-switch sensor to the Construct.
Not perfect, but much better.
Last edited:
That depends entirely upon what one means by "within easy reach".
If it's not strapped on or in my pocket, I want it in the chair. On the table would be okay, but I don't like that idea. I do not want to have to move to access it.
If it is at all possible for anyone to enter tumultuously by surprise and threaten you before you can access the firearm when you are in your recliner, it is less effective. A lot less.
Do not rely upon assumptions about how long it takes to break through a reinforced door or through a porch window.
Do not ignore the risk that someone may burst in while a family member is entering. That happened a few miles from where I live, late last year.
Last edited:
Jim Rau
member
Roger that!!! What he said.
That said not everyone lives in the country and do not have any children to deal with. So to each is own. You all have to make that decision for yourself. I HOPE, in the long run, you make the right one. What I tell people, 'a gun is like a parachute, if you REALLY do need one and you don't have one, you will probably NEVER need one again'!!!
whughett
Member
At this time I think I may have a better chance of gettin the bug COVD-19 then getting shot in my living room. And I haven’t been any further from my front door than the mail box across the street for two weeks.
Planned return to the northeast from south west Florida is only 4 weeks away on lock down of course. I’m more concerned on how to travel 1500 miles, then serve another 14 days in quarantine when we get there. Normally only good for 5 to 6 hundred miles a day, 1500 in one shot
Planned return to the northeast from south west Florida is only 4 weeks away on lock down of course. I’m more concerned on how to travel 1500 miles, then serve another 14 days in quarantine when we get there. Normally only good for 5 to 6 hundred miles a day, 1500 in one shot
A little while ago I was in the other room, doing some, uh, contemplating. I realized another good reason for home carry, especially if you are new to carry, or getting used to a new holster. Practicing dropping trou while controlling the gun so it does not fall out or become improperly exposed in the safe home environment is a great way to make sure you have no such problems in public facilities.
Good Ol' Boy
Member
Folks who carry at home are most likely the folks that carry 24/7. The others are not part of the discussion.
Therefore the discussion is of those of us that have a gun all of the time.
What more is there to say...really.
Therefore the discussion is of those of us that have a gun all of the time.
What more is there to say...really.
JTHunter
Member
Having had a home break-in some 30 years ago (in a different house and town), I keep a few handguns near at hand (hidden) around the house. This house is in a better neighborhood, on a dead-end street, and with better neighbors than before. In the almost 16 years I have lived here, we have only had a couple of break-ins to sheds and two home burglaries. One of those turned out to be a "friend" of one of their kids and the other was a mid-afternoon break-in. I just "stay prepared".
.308 Norma
Member
Naw, I can't be "comfortable" unless you look at everything, and do everything, the same way I do.
bdickens
Member
You probably nailed it right there.
Choctaw
Member
Locks give you a few seconds of warning and a chance to prepare. Just because everyone is walking around in their bathrobes and packing a compact pistol doesn't mean they are ready and/or able to fight. If you have locks and fail to use them that's on you. Many of the calls I have responded to since 1987 involved the bad guy simply walking through an unlocked door.
bdickens
Member
But they don't keep someone out who really wants to get in bad enough.
Trunk Monkey
member
Are you certain of that?
Hangingrock
Member
NRA publication Shooting Illustrated Sherriff Jim Wilson (Senior Field Editor) in the past has written on the subject of distributing around his residence firearms. If one wants to live that way that's their choice. On the other hand there are those that make their residence less inviting. Carry of a firearm 24/7 that's another choice that others make. Each of us have choices to make how we conduct our affair's thus live our life's.
Choctaw
Member
No kidding and I didn't say they did. Anyone who thinks their locks will keep them safe are living in a dreamland. I said having your doors locked will give you warning if someone gains entrance to your house. Or should if you have decent vision and hearing.
Phaedrus/69
Member
+1 to this! Greg Ellifritz has written about this at length. The stats from his agency indicate that in something like 2/3 of all robberies the thief gained access through an unlocked door!
Anyone who carried a gun in the shower yet doesn't lock the damn door is nuts!
Yes. When I first read his ideas I thought about them--for quite awhile, actually.
I could not design a really effective way to do that.
And then there was the idea of keeping secure the firearms so distributed.
I discarded that idea years ago.
bdickens
Member
I think we agree.
I don't know that from personally conducted legal research. I'm relying on the advice of Andrew Branca, author of The Law of Self Defense. According to Branca, every state has castle doctrine. Note that castle doctrine does one thing only which is to relieve the homeowner of the obligation to retreat from an intruder even if that would be required outside the home. It says nothing about the other criteria for self defense -- innocence, imminence, proportionality and reasonableness. The variation from state to state is how much property is covered by castle doctrine. At its most restrictive, it includes only the living areas of your home. It might not include an attached garage let alone another building on your property.
Very well put, Kendahl.
It might be worth adding that evidence that locks or windows have been forcibly breached can go a long way toward making clear that the provisions of the castle doctrine apply after a use of force incident within the home.
It might be worth adding that evidence that locks or windows have been forcibly breached can go a long way toward making clear that the provisions of the castle doctrine apply after a use of force incident within the home.
Kendahl,
You are misreading page 225 of Branca's 3ed. regarding Vermont. Branca is simply restating the court's word in Hatcher which wasn't a castle doctrine case at all. He doesn't mention DC at all in table 5-1 which is the general laws regarding retreat in self defense.
You are misreading page 225 of Branca's 3ed. regarding Vermont. Branca is simply restating the court's word in Hatcher which wasn't a castle doctrine case at all. He doesn't mention DC at all in table 5-1 which is the general laws regarding retreat in self defense.
Regarding Vermont, most of their self defense law is apparently from common law, Mitch Vilos in his Self Defense Law of All 50 States provides a bit better guide than Branca for that. State v. Hatcher, 706 A. 2d. 429, 435 (1997) is the more recent case, "As for the duty to retreat, the court instructed that if defendant honestly and reasonably believed "it was immediately necessary to use deadly force to protect himself from an imminent threat of death or bodily injury, the law does not require him to retreat." Thus the jury could have acquitted on the basis of self-defense even if it found that defendant failed to exercise an opportunity to retreat." This is a reiteration of the 1917 Vermont Supreme Court case of State v. Albano, 102 A. 334, 335 (1917). Both Hatcher and Albano deal with failed appeals of convictions where self-defense was raised in part of the shotgun (multiple issues raised in the appeal) appeals of alleged trial errors. This means the Vt. Supreme Court gave perfunctory attention to the self defense arguments as part of broader appeals for a variety of issues raised by the convicted appellant.
I checked Branca's 3rd edition and Vermont does not apparently have a castle doctrine. (see page 225). Part of the reason is that Vermont's Supreme Court has not updated some really old self-defense precedents--neither the Vermont Bar's pattern of jury instructions http://vtjuryinstructions.org/?page_id=607 has any mention of retreat or the duty to do so but instead has this language, "Whether (Def)_______________’s actions were justified as self-defense depends upon whether it reasonably appeared to [him] [her] that it was necessary to use the force that [he] [she] actually used. " and this from the instructions regarding where a homicide occurs, " A person in that situation has the right to use only such force as is reasonably necessary to repel the attack."
From this 1891 case, State v. Roberts, 63 Vt. 119 (1891), the court said this,
"5. The respondents claim that they acted in self-defense, and requests 6, 7, and 8 had relation to the law upon that subject. The error complained of is that under the charge the right of the respondent to defend himself was taken away if he in fact had the means of escape, whether they were apparent to him or not. To justify one assailed in taking life it must be apparent to him that he has no means of escape. If he has means of escape, but they are unknown to him, if he does not know that he can avail himself of them, he is justified in defending himself by force from the apparent danger he is in. This, we understand, was the rule laid down by the court below { Editorial, the Sup. Ct. of Vt. is discussing the jury instructions by the trial judge in the following sentence.}.
The judge said: “When a person is unlawfully assaulted by another, the party assaulted has a right to defend himself and to use sufficient force to make his defense effectual. But the law never permits the unnecessary use of force. Therefore, when a man is attacked he must not use force to defend himself if he can otherwise protect himself. If he has other means or ways of avoiding the assault that appear to him at the time sufficient and available and that are in fact sufficient and available, he must resort to them, and cannot justify the use of force for his defense, for in that case its use would be unnecessary.” And what follows is in the same line, viz.: “Perhaps you cannot judge of the act altogether, as it now seems to you. It should not be judged of wholly in the light of what, in looking back upon it, you can see, in cool thought, Roberts might have done differently. But, assuming his claim to be true, in the situation he claims he was in, in the time he had to think and act, were there means to have escaped, or means that to him then seemed available for escape? If not, then he had a right to use means sufficient to protect himself from harm, and if he used no more force than was necessary, or at the time seemed to him necessary, then he is not responsible for the consequences. And if he saw no available means of escape, *426 or of disarming his assailant, and was obliged to resist Walder's assault with force, in order to protect himself,” etc.
It is claimed that the following words in the latter part of the charge, “Were there means to have escaped, or means that to him then seemed available for escape?” are inconsistent with what goes before, and conveyed a different meaning. It might have been plainer if the conjunctive “and” had been used in the place of “or,” but we think the sense and meaning of the expression, taken in connection with the rest of the charge, was the same as though it had been. It was not. If he had means of escape he could not defend himself, but if he had means of escape, i. e., such means as the judge had been speaking of, means of escape that seemed to him available, then, and in that event only, was he obliged to retreat.
Under the circumstances, no ruling by the Vt. Sup. Ct. as far as a Westlaw search mentions a castle doctrine, nor any special rules for the home, vehicle, or business. In fact, an tort case dealing with an intentional infliction of emotional distress that was defended by a self defense claim (road superintendant used a horsewhip and dragged a woman apparently trying to defend her property from an alleged trespass). Despite the law permitting the road construction on the property in question, the self defense claim to the intentional tort was rejected by the court as using unreasonable force. This would tend to shade any claims of stand your ground as invalid in the state. But, both Roberts and Foss are really old cases.
I checked Branca's 3rd edition and Vermont does not apparently have a castle doctrine. (see page 225). Part of the reason is that Vermont's Supreme Court has not updated some really old self-defense precedents--neither the Vermont Bar's pattern of jury instructions http://vtjuryinstructions.org/?page_id=607 has any mention of retreat or the duty to do so but instead has this language, "Whether (Def)_______________’s actions were justified as self-defense depends upon whether it reasonably appeared to [him] [her] that it was necessary to use the force that [he] [she] actually used. " and this from the instructions regarding where a homicide occurs, " A person in that situation has the right to use only such force as is reasonably necessary to repel the attack."
From this 1891 case, State v. Roberts, 63 Vt. 119 (1891), the court said this,
"5. The respondents claim that they acted in self-defense, and requests 6, 7, and 8 had relation to the law upon that subject. The error complained of is that under the charge the right of the respondent to defend himself was taken away if he in fact had the means of escape, whether they were apparent to him or not. To justify one assailed in taking life it must be apparent to him that he has no means of escape. If he has means of escape, but they are unknown to him, if he does not know that he can avail himself of them, he is justified in defending himself by force from the apparent danger he is in. This, we understand, was the rule laid down by the court below { Editorial, the Sup. Ct. of Vt. is discussing the jury instructions by the trial judge in the following sentence.}.
The judge said: “When a person is unlawfully assaulted by another, the party assaulted has a right to defend himself and to use sufficient force to make his defense effectual. But the law never permits the unnecessary use of force. Therefore, when a man is attacked he must not use force to defend himself if he can otherwise protect himself. If he has other means or ways of avoiding the assault that appear to him at the time sufficient and available and that are in fact sufficient and available, he must resort to them, and cannot justify the use of force for his defense, for in that case its use would be unnecessary.” And what follows is in the same line, viz.: “Perhaps you cannot judge of the act altogether, as it now seems to you. It should not be judged of wholly in the light of what, in looking back upon it, you can see, in cool thought, Roberts might have done differently. But, assuming his claim to be true, in the situation he claims he was in, in the time he had to think and act, were there means to have escaped, or means that to him then seemed available for escape? If not, then he had a right to use means sufficient to protect himself from harm, and if he used no more force than was necessary, or at the time seemed to him necessary, then he is not responsible for the consequences. And if he saw no available means of escape, *426 or of disarming his assailant, and was obliged to resist Walder's assault with force, in order to protect himself,” etc.
It is claimed that the following words in the latter part of the charge, “Were there means to have escaped, or means that to him then seemed available for escape?” are inconsistent with what goes before, and conveyed a different meaning. It might have been plainer if the conjunctive “and” had been used in the place of “or,” but we think the sense and meaning of the expression, taken in connection with the rest of the charge, was the same as though it had been. It was not. If he had means of escape he could not defend himself, but if he had means of escape, i. e., such means as the judge had been speaking of, means of escape that seemed to him available, then, and in that event only, was he obliged to retreat.
Under the circumstances, no ruling by the Vt. Sup. Ct. as far as a Westlaw search mentions a castle doctrine, nor any special rules for the home, vehicle, or business. In fact, an tort case dealing with an intentional infliction of emotional distress that was defended by a self defense claim (road superintendant used a horsewhip and dragged a woman apparently trying to defend her property from an alleged trespass). Despite the law permitting the road construction on the property in question, the self defense claim to the intentional tort was rejected by the court as using unreasonable force. This would tend to shade any claims of stand your ground as invalid in the state. But, both Roberts and Foss are really old cases.
- Status
