Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 45

Thread: A post on disarming a random person carrying a firearm

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,569

    A post on disarming a random person carrying a firearm

    This is from another firearms group.

    "Maybe there should be an I saw you thread to out people for printing. I saw one idiot at Costco with his pistol just hanging around his knees because his pants were half off his butt. I thought to disarm him since it was so obvious and maybe get him to learn to conceal better. But I let him be."


    What the heck is he thinking?
    Throw me to the wolves and I will come back leading the pack.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,463
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Hayes View Post
    This is from another firearms group.

    "Maybe there should be an I saw you thread to out people for printing. I saw one idiot at Costco with his pistol just hanging around his knees because his pants were half off his butt. I thought to disarm him since it was so obvious and maybe get him to learn to conceal better. But I let him be."


    What the heck is he thinking?
    Maybe that poster is one of those who drives with fog lamps on all the time, does not know how to use turn signals, and cannot figure out how to turn on head and running light during periods of darkness.

    Or in short a Sanders/Obama supporter.

    Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  3. #3
    Regular Member BlueSquid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Chesapeake, VA
    Posts
    112
    I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure "disarming" someone is illegal in several ways as well, and I'd bet it's a more serious offense than "printing" in states with laws against it. If these thoughts regularly cross his mind, perhaps he needs to have his permission slip revoked. Not to mention the fact that trying to unholster someone elses firearm against their will is a good way to catch a whoopin, at the least.
    Last edited by BlueSquid; 12-20-2015 at 10:00 PM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,569
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueSquid View Post
    I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure "disarming" someone is illegal in several ways as well, and I'd bet it's a more serious offense than "printing" with laws against it. If these thoughts regularly cross his mind, perhaps he needs to have his permission slip revoked. Not to mention the fact that trying to unholster someone elses firearm against their will is a good way to catch a whoopin, at the least.
    My exact thoughts I can think of three felonies right off the top of my head.

    No law against printing in Wa BTW.
    Last edited by Jeff Hayes; 12-20-2015 at 09:48 PM.
    Throw me to the wolves and I will come back leading the pack.

  5. #5
    Regular Member F350's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The High Plains of Wyoming
    Posts
    932
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Hayes View Post
    This is from another firearms group.

    "Maybe there should be an I saw you thread to out people for printing. I saw one idiot at Costco with his pistol just hanging around his knees because his pants were half off his butt. I thought to disarm him since it was so obvious and maybe get him to learn to conceal better. But I let him be."


    What the heck is he thinking?
    I open carry; I keep a CRKT M16-14ZSF clipped to my left front pocket hinge down so it can be opened by snagging the bottom flipper on the pocket corner on the draw just for such a thing, commence "operation castration".

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    West Plains, ,
    Posts
    387
    The things some people post......

    Maybe he has become Spokane's self-appointed "you are printing OMG" monitor.

    We could have another OC pic-a-nic and invite him. See how bad he twitches when he sees all of those guns out in the open, or even better keep switching from CC to OC.


    bob

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran MSG Laigaie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Philipsburg, Montana
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by F350 View Post
    ....... it can be opened by snagging the bottom flipper on the pocket corner on the draw just for such a thing, commence "operation castration".
    Guns do not scare me, sharp things are another matter. An "accident" on drawing that weapon could be a cheap self inflicted surgery.

    Quote Originally Posted by BobR View Post
    We could have another OC pic-a-nic and invite him. See how bad he twitches when he sees all of those guns out in the open, or even better keep switching from CC to OC.
    bob
    I have been to many a picnic with Jeff and he always open carries. He has been, and still is, a huge supporter of OC and carry in general.




    The individual being discussed must not have been wearing one of the most necessary firearm accessories, a belt. I have seen my Son put a paddle holster in his sweatpants and saw the pistol and pants drop. Not very bright so he chose another method. Some people wear their pants "below the butt" and as ridiculous as it looks, at least some of them carry guns(badly).







    The disparaging remarks get tedious.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    16,172
    "I got your gun !" OP says

    "Not all of them!" Other guy

    "BANG!"

    In CT:

    Sec. 53a-21. Use of physical force in defense of property. A person is justified in using reasonable physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent an attempt by such other person to commit larceny or criminal mischief involving property, or when and to the extent he reasonably believes such to be necessary to regain property which he reasonably believes to have been acquired by larceny within a reasonable time prior to the use of such force; but he may use deadly physical force under such circumstances only in defense of person as prescribed in section 53a-19.
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 12-21-2015 at 11:40 AM.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,569
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    "I got your gun !" OP says

    "Not all of them!" Other guy

    "BANG!"

    In CT:

    Sec. 53a-21. Use of physical force in defense of property. A person is justified in using reasonable physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent an attempt by such other person to commit larceny or criminal mischief involving property, or when and to the extent he reasonably believes such to be necessary to regain property which he reasonably believes to have been acquired by larceny within a reasonable time prior to the use of such force; but he may use deadly physical force under such circumstances only in defense of person as prescribed in section 53a-19.
    In Washington

    RCW 9A.16.050
    Homicide—By other person—When justifiable.
    Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:
    (1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his or her presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or
    (2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his or her presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he or she is.

    Theft of a firearm is a felony under RCW 9A.56.300 deadly force is justified under RCW 9A.16.050 A(2)
    Throw me to the wolves and I will come back leading the pack.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,569
    [QUOTE=davidmcbeth;2173342]"I got your gun !" OP says

    "Not all of them!" Other guy

    "BANG!"

    In CT:
    Last edited by Jeff Hayes; 12-21-2015 at 09:20 PM. Reason: double tap slow internet connection
    Throw me to the wolves and I will come back leading the pack.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,061
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Hayes View Post
    Theft of a firearm is a felony under RCW 9A.56.300 deadly force is justified under RCW 9A.16.050 A(2)
    Whether theft of a firearm is a felony or not, I'd never use deadly force to prevent nor stop the mere theft of property.

    I would, however, use deadly force to defend myself from the grave injury that any reasonable man would have to assume an assailant intends to inflict upon me when said assailant evidences a willingness and ability to disarm me. Why would anyone try to seize control of my lawfully, peacefully carried firearm except to use that firearm to inflict grave injury upon me?

    If non-lethal, but harsh physical force such as an elbow to the head, and stern commands do not persuade an assailant to break off his attack, I see little reasonable recourse except to the threat of deadly force and then escalating as quickly as necessary to actual use of deadly force. And if by some means he did manage to gain control of one of my firearms, it would seem especially urgent to use my second firearm to put an immediate end to the threat.

    Charles

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,569
    [QUOTE=utbagpiper;2173419]Whether theft of a firearm is a felony or not, I'd never use deadly force to prevent nor stop the mere theft of property.

    The point was/is theft of a firearm is a felony and deadly force "CAN" be used to stop that felony upon a person in progress. The fact that you or I or the guy down the street would never use deadly force to prevent nor stop the mere theft of property is a moot point.
    Throw me to the wolves and I will come back leading the pack.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Grim_Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pierce County, Washington
    Posts
    770
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    Whether theft of a firearm is a felony or not, I'd never use deadly force to prevent nor stop the mere theft of property.
    I sure as hell would use deadly force to prevent the theft of my firearm. I can logically assume that if someone were to try and steal my firearm, that I would then become the first target of such firearm and thus, I would be protecting my own life from the use of deadly force.
    Armed and annoyingly well informed!

    There are two constants when dealing with liberals:
    1) Liberals never quit until they are satisfied.
    2) Liberals are never satisfied.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    16,172
    Quote Originally Posted by Grim_Night View Post
    I sure as hell would use deadly force to prevent the theft of my firearm. I can logically assume that if someone were to try and steal my firearm, that I would then become the first target of such firearm and thus, I would be protecting my own life from the use of deadly force.
    I think Charles noted that he would shoot a guy if he got a hold of his piece. But not if a guy stole his cheeseburger (for example).

  15. #15
    Regular Member F350's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The High Plains of Wyoming
    Posts
    932
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie View Post
    Guns do not scare me, sharp things are another matter. An "accident" on drawing that weapon could be a cheap self inflicted surgery.
    I practice the knife draw several times a week (just like the sidearm draw); very little chance of self inflicted wound, the blade doesn't open till well out of the pocket.

  16. #16
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,266
    situational awareness...

    so who screwed up in a normal environment to allow someone out of the blue to get behind or near enough or, or,

    this is strictly what if hyperbole and testosterone chest thumping...

    ipse
    Last edited by solus; 12-22-2015 at 09:49 PM.
    "He who pays the piper calls the tunes..." (OBE as Grape called melody!!)

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,569
    Quote Originally Posted by solus View Post
    situational awareness...

    so who screwed up in a normal environment to allow someone out of the blue to get behind or near enough or, or,

    this is strictly what if hyperbole and testosterone chest thumping...

    ipse

    The guy never said how close he was to the carrier. I know in my case if someone is over there it is a lot different than of they are right next to or right behind me. Much to my wife's chagrin I will and have asked people to step back from me if they get too close and I can not move away.

    I too suspect this might have been a very misinformed young male chest thumping.
    Throw me to the wolves and I will come back leading the pack.

  18. #18
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,266
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Hayes View Post
    The guy never said how close he was to the carrier. I know in my case if someone is over there it is a lot different than of they are right next to or right behind me. Much to my wife's chagrin I will and have asked people to step back from me if they get too close and I can not move away.

    I too suspect this might have been a very misinformed young male chest thumping.
    i am always shifting positions when folk start to 'crowd' me tho i have not actually told anybody to back off...yet!!

    more testosterone than me i think...

    ipse
    "He who pays the piper calls the tunes..." (OBE as Grape called melody!!)

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    northern wis
    Posts
    2,929
    Here's some interesting data. charts and graphs at the source

    http://www.gunwatch.blogspot.com/201...wn-gun-vs.html

    When people talk about open carry, a common comment is that the open carrier will have their gun taken from them and used against them. I have yet to find a case in the United States where that happened to someone who was not a law officer. Law officers almost all open carry, and some have their guns taken from them and used against them, but the numbers are vanishingly small
    Personal Defensive Solutions professional personal firearms, edge weapons and hands on defensive training and tactics pdsolutions@hotmail.com

    Any and all spelling errors are just to give the spelling Nazis something to do

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,569
    Quote Originally Posted by solus View Post
    i am always shifting positions when folk start to 'crowd' me tho i have not actually told anybody to back off...yet!!

    more testosterone than me i think...

    ipse
    I do not allow people that I do not know to invade my personal space, I move away when I can but if I can not I will tell them to back away from me. There is never a need to stand so close to me in a grocery store check out line that you are touching me. No one needs to stand six inches behind me in line at the bank or a checkout line at a store.
    Throw me to the wolves and I will come back leading the pack.

  21. #21
    Regular Member decklin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Pacific, WA
    Posts
    758
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Hayes View Post
    I do not allow people that I do not know to invade my personal space, I move away when I can but if I can not I will tell them to back away from me. There is never a need to stand so close to me in a grocery store check out line that you are touching me. No one needs to stand six inches behind me in line at the bank or a checkout line at a store.
    I'm with you. I do the same thing. Often times I will stand sideways in line. It forces people to give you some breathing room and as an added benefit encourages them to have a conversation. When they can see your face people like to ask anything and everything about firearms. Usually it's about getting a cpl and the process for buying a firearm.
    I value my personal space. For safety, health, and comfort.
    "Loyalty above all else except honor. " -John Mahoney

    "A Government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have." -Gerald R. Ford

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,061
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Hayes View Post
    The point was/is theft of a firearm is a felony and deadly force "CAN" be used to stop that felony upon a person in progress. The fact that you or I or the guy down the street would never use deadly force to prevent nor stop the mere theft of property is a moot point.
    Quote Originally Posted by Grim_Night View Post
    I sure as hell would use deadly force to prevent the theft of my firearm. I can logically assume that if someone were to try and steal my firearm, that I would then become the first target of such firearm and thus, I would be protecting my own life from the use of deadly force.
    The point may be legally moot in the abstract. In the specifics, including if anyone ever has cause to start reading my posts as evidence of my mindset, I want to be clear that I personally reserve deadly force for cases where I reasonably believe such force is necessary to preserve my life and limb, or that of my immediate and innocent family members. It may be a felony to steal my car. But unless that theft endangers my life and limb (ala a car jacking while I'm in the car), I'm not using deadly force. My property is insured and my deductible is way less than what a decent attorney will cost just to show up and advise me over the "routine" questions following a perfectly justifiable shooting; not to mention what legal bills might be if in the calm aftermath it looks to some anti-gun prosecutor like maybe it wasn't so clear cut.

    "I didn't shoot because the guy was stealing my property that happened to be a gun. I shot because he was attempting to gain control of my deadly weapon which indicates to any reasonable man an immediate, credible, and imminent risk to my life and limb. Guys who want to steal a gun, break into unoccupied homes and cars. Guys who try to forcibly take a gun from a holster on my belt have to be assumed to be very intent on killing me and then raping my wife or daughter."

    The material facts look all but identical. The difference in mindset may be important.

    Charles

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    16,172
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    The point may be legally moot in the abstract. In the specifics, including if anyone ever has cause to start reading my posts as evidence of my mindset, I want to be clear that I personally reserve deadly force for cases where I reasonably believe such force is necessary to preserve my life and limb, or that of my immediate and innocent family members. It may be a felony to steal my car. But unless that theft endangers my life and limb (ala a car jacking while I'm in the car), I'm not using deadly force. My property is insured and my deductible is way less than what a decent attorney will cost just to show up and advise me over the "routine" questions following a perfectly justifiable shooting; not to mention what legal bills might be if in the calm aftermath it looks to some anti-gun prosecutor like maybe it wasn't so clear cut.

    "I didn't shoot because the guy was stealing my property that happened to be a gun. I shot because he was attempting to gain control of my deadly weapon which indicates to any reasonable man an immediate, credible, and imminent risk to my life and limb. Guys who want to steal a gun, break into unoccupied homes and cars. Guys who try to forcibly take a gun from a holster on my belt have to be assumed to be very intent on killing me and then raping my wife or daughter."

    The material facts look all but identical. The difference in mindset may be important.

    Charles
    UT...would you also "approve" deadly force to protect the freedoms that you enjoy? Any set of circumstances where you would use deadly force beyond that of protecting a person?

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,061
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    UT...would you also "approve" deadly force to protect the freedoms that you enjoy? Any set of circumstances where you would use deadly force beyond that of protecting a person?
    I approve of defensive wars to protect and defend the US Constitution and my nation from foreign enemies.

    I approve of capital punishment following proper due process to protect and defend the US Constitution, my nation, and my community from domestic enemies including traitors and the worst of "common" criminals.

    I support the intent of the Founding Fathers in having a well armed populace and militia to prevent tyranny at the hands of our own government and the ability to throw of such tyranny should that ever become the only option. I believe men are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

    I believe liberty is protected by four boxes: The soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box. I believe they should be used in that order and we are not to the point of needing to much discuss anything beyond the jury box. Getting frustrated over a lack of perfect candidates' winning easily and not voting is not just cause to start jumping over the other steps. I believe we are still very much at the point of being able to obey the law while working within legal means to repeal bad laws.

    Charles

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,569
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    The point may be legally moot in the abstract. In the specifics, including if anyone ever has cause to start reading my posts as evidence of my mindset, I want to be clear that I personally reserve deadly force for cases where I reasonably believe such force is necessary to preserve my life and limb, or that of my immediate and innocent family members. It may be a felony to steal my car. But unless that theft endangers my life and limb (ala a car jacking while I'm in the car), I'm not using deadly force. My property is insured and my deductible is way less than what a decent attorney will cost just to show up and advise me over the "routine" questions following a perfectly justifiable shooting; not to mention what legal bills might be if in the calm aftermath it looks to some anti-gun prosecutor like maybe it wasn't so clear cut.

    "I didn't shoot because the guy was stealing my property that happened to be a gun. I shot because he was attempting to gain control of my deadly weapon which indicates to any reasonable man an immediate, credible, and imminent risk to my life and limb. Guys who want to steal a gun, break into unoccupied homes and cars. Guys who try to forcibly take a gun from a holster on my belt have to be assumed to be very intent on killing me and then raping my wife or daughter."

    The material facts look all but identical. The difference in mindset may be important.

    Charles
    I agree with you Charles, I am not shooting someone over a TV/car/$100 either, but that was not what I said either. I said it would lawful to shoot the guy nt that I would shoot him. I simply recited the law to point out just how much danger he would put himself in if he tried a firearms grab.
    Throw me to the wolves and I will come back leading the pack.

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •