Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 55

Thread: Closest I have come to drawing.

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Mint Hill
    Posts
    42

    Closest I have come to drawing.

    Friday morning my son had tubes put in his ears. My wife and I both took the day off work so we could hang out with him and make sure the anathesha wore off ok. Around 11:45 I hear a knock on the small window that is just beside my front door. Not too strange as my neighbor will do that because the door bell will wake my son up during his naps. But when I look out I see a sketchy and kind of dirty guy. I also see his beat up F-250 in the cult-de-sac with a "Quality Steaks" sticker on the side. Knock on the window seems a little odd now. I open the door, gun on hip. He either doesn't notice or doesn't care. He launches right into his pitch. I stop his mid-sentence and tell him that I am good and we buy whole half cows from a family friend. Getting slightly more argessive he insists that he has chicken and pork too. Again I tell him No and start to close the door. For some reason he lurches towards the door. Muscle memory is a great thing. One move my hand is on my gun and the holster strap is popped open. He stops dead, raises his hands and says "whoa, ok ok." He backs away from the porch, turns and walks back to his truck. He left without going to anymore houses. In reality I think he may have just wanted to get on more word in about his meat but he pegged out my awareness sensor. This whole event also served as a reminder why I carry and that as the hoildays approach, people get desperate. I also had a friend over that is with CMPD last night. After telling him the whole story he proceeded to tell me they had one of the quality steak guy breaking into houses. If my son had not had tubes, we would have been gone so there is no telling what could have happened. Stay safe everyone. The crazy time of year is upon us.

  2. #2
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,273
    This time of year who knows what his intentions were. Your incident is what I keep telling people who take their gun off when they are home. The safest and best place for a sidearm when home is on their side, unless sleeping of course.
    It is well that war is so terrible otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Tubes in a young childs' ears have not been shown to be effective or needed ... just saying. My pediatrician recommended them but when I inquired as to any facts that support a good outcome, the Dr. said "duh....". Did not get the tubes and the kid is fine.

    Its a "shut-the-parents-up" procedure. Sorry, that's just the way it is.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Mint Hill
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Tubes in a young childs' ears have not been shown to be effective or needed ... just saying. My pediatrician recommended them but when I inquired as to any facts that support a good outcome, the Dr. said "duh....". Did not get the tubes and the kid is fine.

    Its a "shut-the-parents-up" procedure. Sorry, that's just the way it is.
    That might be your opinion, but since Friday he is sleeping better and has not tugged at his ear once. After months of infections and dozens of sleepless nights, this was the last option.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Mint Hill
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    This time of year who knows what his intentions were. Your incident is what I keep telling people who take their gun off when they are home. The safest and best place for a sidearm when home is on their side, unless sleeping of course.
    It's either on or very close by 90% of the time.

  6. #6
    Regular Member twoskinsonemanns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    2,489
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    This time of year who knows what his intentions were. Your incident is what I keep telling people who take their gun off when they are home. The safest and best place for a sidearm when home is on their side, unless sleeping of course.
    +10! What do they say 100% of home invasions happen in the home?
    OC 100% of the time at home.


    Also as far as the tubes. My dad, who is a doctor, had them put in my ears when I was very young. He says they worked like magic. I was inflicted with constant ear infections and the tubes ended them immediately.
    "I support the ban on assault weapons" - Donald Trump

    We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission - Ayn Rand

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Interesting story. Glad it worked out.

    I'm not sure reaching for the gun is the best idea. I'm thinking you might open yourself to a criminal complaint. AOJ* is completely absent. No weapon. No verbal threat. Not even disparity of force--just one guy versus another. Your report that you think the guy was maybe just trying to get in one more word seals the deal--it indicates that even you did not perceive a genuine threat. Had there been a criminal complaint against you, and you stated that to the cops, you would be handing the cops a great piece of evidence against you.

    Its one thing to call attention to a gun as a dissuading tactic when elements of AOJ are present; its something else when none are present. When no elements of AOJ are present, you are open to a brandishing charge or the legal equivalent. I understand this was an automatic reaction. My point is that you might want to interpose a different different response, more measured toward what really occurred.

    I might opt for a commanding, "Stop! Leave, now!" (That last has worked for me two or three times already.) Shoving the guy in the chest might be a good one, but it opens the door to a battery complaint. Taking a boxing stance might be another.




    *For new folks who may not know, AOJ refers to Ability, Opportunity, and Jeopardy. Sometimes it is written AOJ/I, with the I standing for Intent. Without going into it extensively, these are necessary elements of justified lethal force. If you are unfamiliar with these, you want to research them and learn them. People have been killing people for millenia. In the West, the law has had a good 4500 years to sort itself out on the justifications for when one man may legally use lethal force on another. The refinements of the law may be at great odds to what you think is justified. Don't discount or minimize this. If you don't know AOJ, you really, really want to find out.
    Last edited by Citizen; 11-04-2012 at 02:13 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Mint Hill
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Interesting story. Glad it worked out.

    I'm not sure reaching for the gun is the best idea. I'm thinking you might open yourself to a criminal complaint. AOJ* is completely absent. No weapon. No verbal threat. Not even disparity of force--just one guy versus another. Your report that you think the guy was maybe just trying to get in one more word seals the deal--it indicates that even you did not perceive a genuine threat. Had there been a criminal complaint against you, and you stated that to the cops, you would be handing the cops a great piece of evidence against you.

    Its one thing to call attention to a gun as a dissuading tactic when elements of AOJ are present; its something else when none are present. When no elements of AOJ are present, you are open to a brandishing charge or the legal equivalent. I understand this was an automatic reaction. My point is that you might want to interpose a different different response, more measured toward what really occurred.

    I might opt for a commanding, "Stop! Leave, now!" (That last has worked for me two or three times already.) Shoving the guy in the chest might be a good one, but it opens the door to a battery complaint. Taking a boxing stance might be another.




    *For new folks who may not know AOJ refers to Ability, Opportunity, and Jeopardy. Sometimes it is written AOJ/I, with the I standing for Intent. Without going into it extensively, these are necessary elements of justified lethal force. If you are unfamiliar with these, you want to research them and learn them. People have been killing people for millenia. In the West, the law has had a good 4500 years to sort itself out on the justifications for when one man may legally use lethal force on another. The refinements of the law may be at great odds to what you think is justified. Don't discount or minimize this. If you don't know AOJ, you really, really want to find out.
    All that makes sense but at the end of the day I am not going to let some sketchy dude get within arms reach of me in my own home.

  9. #9
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by .40CLTlocal View Post
    All that makes sense but at the end of the day I am not going to let some sketchy dude get within arms reach of me in my own home.
    I agree with you.

    You were on your own property, within your residence, and he was moving towards you. You were completely IMO within your rights to make ready.
    It is well that war is so terrible otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by .40CLTlocal View Post
    All that makes sense but at the end of the day I am not going to let some sketchy dude get within arms reach of me in my own home.
    I understand. The home is a special place in the eyes of the law generally. Your state may not even criminalize reacting the way you did if there is a genuine attempt for him to get into your home. And, regardless of the law, which is already understood to be imperfect because it cannot possibly cover all possible situations, you are all that stands between the threshold and your family. I'm not addressing the wisdom of the law in my prior post. I'm addressing the need for another response to be added to your arsenal. It would be the height of indignity for dad to be arrested for brandishing/threatening while trying genuinely to protect the family.

    Also, don't forget that you yourself said you think he was just trying to get in the last word.

    Regarding another response, I'm a little embarrassed for failing to mention the obvious one--don't open the door to any sketchy, kind of dirty, strangers. Talk to them through the door. The reason I'm a little embarrassed to forget that solution is because Mas Ayoob recently had a video about it. I'll see if I can find it.

    Needless to say, not opening the door undercuts the whole problem.
    Last edited by Citizen; 11-04-2012 at 03:04 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Found the video:




    "When called by a panther, don't anther."
    Last edited by Citizen; 11-04-2012 at 02:39 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Mint Hill
    Posts
    42
    Most of the time I will just wave them off though the window mostly so I don't have to hold back the dogs. They were outside this time. Also because I there was some slight doubt in is intentions, I did not draw. Had I, it would have because he was following through with him threading move.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Conover
    Posts
    237
    Great job... I would have probably did the same thing. Followed by a call to the police about a guy trying to enter my house until I reached for my firearm. Remember the first one to call the cops is usually the victim. NC has castle doctrine to protect you from things like this.

    You shouldn't be fearful of opening your door. You did the right thing. Just add the call to the police
    Last edited by muccione; 11-04-2012 at 10:27 PM.

  14. #14
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by muccione View Post
    Great job... I would have probably did the same thing. Followed by a call to the police about a guy trying to enter my house until I reached for my firearm. Remember the first one to call the cops is usually the victim. NC has castle doctrine to protect you from things like this.

    You shouldn't be fearful of opening your door. You did the right thing. Just add the call to the police

    A simple reading of the statute shows Muccione is incorrect: North Carolina's defense statutes in fact do not protect .40CLT. The statutes are:

    14-51.2, which says in relevant part: (b). The lawful occupant of a home, motor vehicle, or workplace is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily harm to another if both of the following apply:(1) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a home, motor vehicle, or workplace, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the home, motor vehicle, or workplace.
    (2) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

    Notice also that section (c) says the presumption is rebuttable. Meaning, the prosecution gets to argue against the defender based, I am guessing, on whether the circumstances don't add up to something protected by the statute.

    14-51.3, which says in relevant part: (a) A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that the conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat in any place he or she has the lawful right to be if either of the following applies:
    (1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another.
    (2) Under the circumstances permitted pursuant to G.S. 14‑51.2.


    Analysis

    The most important part of the story is .40CLT's comment, "In reality I think he may have just wanted to get one more word in about his meat..."

    That comment means 14-51.2(b)1-2 do not apply. Those two sections only apply to situations where an unlawful and forcible entry is being made, and the defender knew such an entry was occurring or had occurred.

    Separately, 14-51.2 is entirely about lethal force which was not used here. So, it can't possibly protect .40CLT since it protects defenders who use lethal force.

    14-51.3 addresses force not lethal. More in line with what occurred here. However, it is still no protection for .40CLT because it is only available "when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that the conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another..." Nobody is going to accept that it is reasonable to believe that threatening by calling attention to a gun is necessary to dissuade a salesman from getting in one more word about his product.

    Also, like the lethal force statute, this statute is talking about force, not the threat of force implied by putting your hand on your gun. Remember, Muccione is saying NC law provides positive protection for calling attention to a gun as a means of defense.


    It would be really helpful if readers take a few minutes and actually try to apply the law as written to the scenario being discussed rather than tossing off a hipshot finding.

    http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/Statu...l?Chapter=0014


    ETA: Removed an incorrect reference to the current law being superceded in the near future by new language.
    Last edited by Citizen; 11-05-2012 at 01:29 AM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Conover
    Posts
    237
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    A simple reading of the statute shows Muccione is incorrect: North Carolina's defense statutes in fact do not protect .40CLT. The statutes, which are repealed effective 12/1/12 when a new version goes into effect, are:

    14-51.2, which says in relevant part: (b). The lawful occupant of a home, motor vehicle, or workplace is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily harm to another if both of the following apply:(1) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a home, motor vehicle, or workplace, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the home, motor vehicle, or workplace.
    (2) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

    Notice also that section (c) says the presumption is rebuttable. Meaning, the prosecution gets to argue against the defender based, I am guessing, on whether the circumstances don't add up to something protected by the statute.

    14-51.3, which says in relevant part: (a) A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that the conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat in any place he or she has the lawful right to be if either of the following applies:
    (1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another.
    (2) Under the circumstances permitted pursuant to G.S. 14‑51.2.


    Analysis

    The most important part of the story is .40CLT's comment, "In reality I think he may have just wanted to get one more word in about his meat..."

    That comment means 14-51.2(b)1-2 do not apply. Those two sections only apply to situations where an unlawful and forcible entry is being made, and the defender knew such an entry was occurring or had occurred.

    Separately, 14-51.2 is entirely about lethal force which was not used here. So, it can't possibly protect .40CLT since it protects defenders who use lethal force.

    14-51.3 addresses force not lethal. More in line with what occurred here. However, it is still no protection for .40CLT because it is only available "when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that the conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another..." Nobody is going to accept that it is reasonable to believe that threatening by calling attention to a gun is necessary to dissuade a salesman from getting in one more word about his product.

    Also, like the lethal force statute, this statute is talking about force, not the threat of force implied by putting your hand on your gun. Remember, Muccione is saying NC law provides positive protection for calling attention to a gun as a means of defense.


    It would be really helpful if readers take a few minutes and actually try to apply the law as written to the scenario being discussed rather than tossing off a hipshot finding.

    http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/Statu...l?Chapter=0014
    I see no law changes 12/1/2012... It DID change 12/1/2011.. It added the castle doctrine... And other things
    Your reading and understanding is not the same as mine.. Lets break it down..

    (1) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, He was NOT invited in or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a home, motor vehicle, or workplace, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the home, motor vehicle, or workplace.
    (2) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

    If the salesman stopped the closing door or opened the door, It can and would be ASSUMED he has bad intentions.
    Now the OP did nothing wrong but show a dumb ass to f-off. But the guy COULD of had bad intentions and it was stopped by this armed citizen.

    "In reality I think he may have just wanted to get one more word in about his meat..." This is the after thought after thinking about what just happened.
    Next time...Call the cops and tell them what happened. They would have found him and told him he almost got shot for unlawfully attempting to enter a armed citizen's house.
    Last edited by muccione; 11-05-2012 at 01:16 AM.

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Shoobee View Post
    SNIP ...get your own No Soliciting sign if for no other reason for the sake of the solicitors.

    So they can at least have fair warning.

    I carry my no-soliciting sign in my vocal chords. if I don't want to talk to them, I say so.

    An important element of this is that I do listen to them at least for a few moments because:

    1. They're just trying to make a living or proselytize their faith. And,

    2. Sometimes I am genuinely interested in buying something being offered. Not often, mind you. But occasionally.


    A couple of the best people I ever met happened this way. Two Mormons on their mission. I did more than listen, I asked questions. What an amazing educational experience. I learned a good bit about LDS and discovered two people I would have been glad to call friends--really decent human beings. And, they got an opportunity to practice their pitch and a glass of iced tea on a hot summer day in an air-conditioned living room. As a side note related to self-defense, one of them told me that his 21st birthday occurred a while back during his mission. On that 21st birthday he actually received a death threat from someone upon whose door he knocked. Ouch! What a route to martyrdom and sainthood. Takes a bit of courage to keep up with the mission after an experience like that, I would say.
    Last edited by Citizen; 11-05-2012 at 01:03 AM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  17. #17
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by muccione View Post
    I see no law changes 12/1/2012... It DID change 12/1/2011.. It added the castle doctrine... And other things
    Your reading and understanding is not the same as mine.. Lets break it down..

    (1) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, He was NOT invited in or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a home, motor vehicle, or workplace, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the home, motor vehicle, or workplace.
    (2) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

    If the salesman stopped the closing door or opened the door, I can and would be ASSUMED he has bad intentions.
    Now the OP did nothing wrong but show a dumb ass to f-off. But the guy COULD of had bad intentions and it was stopped by this armed citizen.

    "In reality I think he may have just wanted to get one more word in about his meat..." This is the after thought after thinking about what just happened.
    Next time...Call the cops and tell them what happened.
    Yeah! That's right! Tell the cops what happened! And, don't forget that when they ask about the lurch forward, you need to be really careful to make it sound like an attempt to enter rather than an attempt to get in one more word about his product. Gotta spin that just right. Or, you might be arrested for threatening. Nevermind maybe causing the arrest of a family man on hard times during an economic problem who gets a little too pushy. Yeah! Those pesky salesman deserve to go to jail as home invaders! That will teach them!

    Hey, tough guy. Did it occur to you that he thought that after the fact because of something he saw or didn't see at the time the incident was occurring?

    Nowhere in his story does he say the caller made a deliberate attempt to get into the house. Nevermind that even putting a foot in the door to get in the last word is not an attempt to enter, just an attempt to keep talking to the prospective purchaser. Home invaders trying to get in body-slam the door or kick it or shove it hard. Now, if I can recognize that distinction on the fly on the internet, do you really think a career-minded or anti-gun prosecutor with assistants to help him is gonna miss it?

    .40CLT just reacted automatically to the gesture. It probably caught him a little off guard. And, he had no other graduated responses practiced.

    But, you are the expert on castle doctrine. Even though you didn't quote the relevant statutory language, nor provide a comparison.

    Also, don't try to twist things now. Your first post was a positive declaration of protection by the statute. My analysis stands. If you can show how the statute positively protects by its language alone without inferences and twists and additions, please do.

    In the meantime, I'll hunt up that source about the statute changing on 12/1/12.
    Last edited by Citizen; 11-05-2012 at 01:33 AM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  18. #18
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Found the first source about the law being changed on 12/1/12. I do now notice that it only referenced a bill, not a signed law.

    http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com...-doctrine.html

    I apologize for any confusion. Will edit the earlier post to remove the error.

    Thanks to tough-guy Muccione for calling it to my attention.
    Last edited by Citizen; 11-05-2012 at 01:37 AM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  19. #19
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Shoobee View Post
    Putting up a sign if you don't want to patiently entertain door to door solicitations is the wisest approach.

    Otherwise keep your hand off your gun.
    Hmmm. Its very interesting that you thought I was arguing with you or criticizing you such that you had to come back and reinforce or clarify your earlier comment.

    Heh, heh, heh.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  20. #20
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by Shoobee View Post
    Putting up a sign if you don't want to patiently entertain door to door solicitations is the wisest approach.

    Otherwise keep your hand off your gun.
    Sorry, but you worry about your gun, I can put my hand on my firearm anytime I feel like it in my home, bugger off.
    It is well that war is so terrible otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  21. #21
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by Shoobee View Post
    The only reason to touch your gun is when you are drawing it to fire it.
    So how do you clean your handgun? How do you put it in a holster? When buying a weapon do you shoot it at the counter?

    I'm touching my handgun now, and there is nothing you can do about it?
    It is well that war is so terrible otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Troutman, NC
    Posts
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Shoobee View Post
    The only reason to touch your gun is when you are drawing it to fire it.
    Wrong!

    Anyone within a 21 foot radius of you can be on top of you before you can react to that person. With someone closer than that, if you feel threatened and you DON'T move you hand to your gun, you are foolish.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Conover
    Posts
    237
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Found the first source about the law being changed on 12/1/12. I do now notice that it only referenced a bill, not a signed law.

    http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com...-doctrine.html

    I apologize for any confusion. Will edit the earlier post to remove the error.

    Thanks to tough-guy Muccione for calling it to my attention.
    Here we go... With the name calling. You can do that if you want... I'm tough, I can take it. So sorry for point out your mistake and your feelings getting hurt. You pointed out mine...Did I call you names? Your so understanding of someone trying to get into your house but call people names when pointing out your simple reading mistake.

    As I said my interpretation and yours is just different.
    Maybe in VA salesmen are allowed to try and bully people. I did not know that hard economic times makes it ok for such actions. The car salesmen must be real fun in VA, As you leave and say no thanks he grabs your arm and holds you there while more surround you preventing you from going, just to tell you ONE more thing. Real estate brokers locking you in the house....

    My OPINION is the OP reacted fine and within his legal rights. Had he actually drew, the cops more than likely would have done nothing to him, the salesman was out of line and just learned a valuable lesson. Just be the first to call the cops. Maybe the town will stop allowing door to door sales. To me its just people on hard economic times casing your house, neighborhood.

    Perhaps Citizen you should stay in the VA part of the forums if your going to do childish name calling.

  24. #24
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by muccione View Post
    Here we go... With the name calling. You can do that if you want... I'm tough, I can take it. So sorry for point out your mistake and your feelings getting hurt. You pointed out mine...Did I call you names? Your so understanding of someone trying to get into your house but call people names when pointing out your simple reading mistake.

    As I said my interpretation and yours is just different.
    Maybe in VA salesmen are allowed to try and bully people. I did not know that hard economic times makes it ok for such actions. The car salesmen must be real fun in VA, As you leave and say no thanks he grabs your arm and holds you there while more surround you preventing you from going, just to tell you ONE more thing. Real estate brokers locking you in the house....

    My OPINION is the OP reacted fine and within his legal rights. Had he actually drew, the cops more than likely would have done nothing to him, the salesman was out of line and just learned a valuable lesson. Just be the first to call the cops. Maybe the town will stop allowing door to door sales. To me its just people on hard economic times casing your house, neighborhood.

    Perhaps Citizen you should stay in the VA part of the forums if your going to do childish name calling.
    (sigh)

    No, this isn't just a matter of differing opinion. Your opinion is not supported by the statute. You said the statute protects .40CLT. It doesn't. I showed how it doesn't. Your opinion has to float on twists and adding things that aren't there.

    Regarding salesman, you're now evading the point that you would cause an arrest record for someone who was just trying to get in one more word about his product. You use a strawman argument in the quote above. I didn't say anything about salesmen committing battery or false imprisonment. You're exaggerating and then arguing with an exaggeration I didn't give.

    Cops not arresting the guy for even drawing the gun is not protection from the statute. It is protection afforded by cops on their own judgement. Yours is an inapplicable argument.

    I used the tough-guy to describe your attitude. You're arguing from emotion, certainly not a plain reading of the statute. Note that I did not call you a(ss), d(ick)head, or jerk. I tailored the word to something that fits the behavior. Correct name calling is not an offense. It is simply a shorthand way of saying, "You're arguing from emotion rather than rationality and seem to want to be hardnosed against against people who trying to make a living, etc."

    But, I think I made my point back in the post where I quoted the statute. At this point you're just arguing for the sake of arguing and to be right. If you had a valid argument you would have already shown where my analysis of the statute was wrong, not gone off on tangents, exaggerations, strawman arguments, etc.
    Last edited by Citizen; 11-05-2012 at 04:12 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    326
    I am of the belief that you should never reach for a holstered weapon unless you are intending to draw and discharge that weapon to stop an aggressor. Police grip their pistols because they are trained to escalate a situation so they are always one level above the subject. When a law abiding citizen does it they become the aggressor. I read the OP's account so I know how he described the man but what if it was someone like you or me, legally ccw'ing, out trying to make a living. We go to a house giving our sales pitch, the guy partially opens the door and we try to reorient ourselves to speak face to face with the potential customer. He perceives this as a lurch and reaches for his weapon that I may or may not have noticed. At this point I fear for my life and draw my concealed weapon and end the actions of the aggressor, the guy reaching for a weapon.

    What if the dirty looking guy had been an undercover officer and had the wrong address or whatever, I can give you story after story where they serve no knock warrants on the wrong house so it happens. What do you think would happen then when you reached for your weapon?

    No, Solicitation signs do not work, I always have to point out the one I have posted. There are several correct ways to answer a door with a stranger. The OP says he usually doesn't answer the door because he has to hold the dogs back. I'm betting he had to in this situation also. I have to keep my 2 150 pound dogs at bay when I answer the door also. This is the method I use. Door only gets opened enough to make contact. Most of my body stays behind the door so only a deliberate and aggressive move could open the door any further. I place my weak hand on the door knob while keeping my strong hand on my holstered weapon that is either concealed by the door or my body depending on which side the door opens from. This way I never have to reach for anything becoming an aggressor, every action I make is a reaction. One foot is placed directly against the bottom of the door to act as a door stop. I have live fire trained to fall to my back, draw my weapon and fire at an aggressor in case of a home invasion.

    My friend Don, Sootch00 from youtube, doing this very same training I am referring to.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	579667_4088529684079_1649410003_n.jpg 
Views:	91 
Size:	67.9 KB 
ID:	9500
    Last edited by NC-Heel; 11-05-2012 at 07:13 PM.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •