• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Open Carry

P

Pace

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
1,140
Location
Las Vegas, NV
imported post

As a note, I defend open carry not because I think everyone SHOULD open carry, but that everyone has the right.

There is a huge difference. I don't think Neo-Nazi's should be protesting what they protest, but they have a right.
 
C

colorado slick

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
111
Location
Windsor, Colorado, USA
imported post

Well, you have your views and I have mine. I'll stay with mine thank you and, I do not troll. I speak my mind as I understand it. I have seen people walking about with a six shooter slung low and tied down. That call attention to the fact that that person is carrying a gun. That is something I don't want because, if enough complaints hit the capital, the open carry law could easlly be changed to no carrying of a firearm.



The ground under our feet isn't solid enough yet to run that risk plus: We do have a ton of those anti gunner from California here in Colorado to create a real problem for us pro gunners. That is why I advise caution and common sense. You guy want to create problems for yourselves, fine. Just don't create those problems for the rest of us. I tend to create enough problems for myself on my own.



There are far, far to many people out there who think that guns are the devils tools and should be banned complety..



Coorado
 
C

colorado slick

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
111
Location
Windsor, Colorado, USA
imported post

Pace:

I happen to know Frank Joseph Cullin personally and a more low down rat never lived. He was the leader of the neo-nazis a few years back the very word neo-nazis sets my blood to boiling.



Colorado
 
W

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
imported post

colorado slick wrote:
Well, you have your views and I have mine. I'll stay with mine thank you and, I do not troll. I speak my mind as I understand it. I have seen people walking about with a six shooter slung low and tied down. That call attention to the fact that that person is carrying a gun. That is something I don't want because, if enough complaints hit the capital, the open carry law could easlly be changed to no carrying of a firearm.
Coorado
Click to expand...
There is nothing about a six shooter "slung low and tied down" that is bad for OC or for firearms Rights. You may perceive it as such, but it is simply what it is; open carry of a firearm.
 
W

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
imported post

Pace wrote:
Which part. In Nevada yuo have to use proportional force, the law clearly says "serious injury or life" basically.

If someone threatens you with their fists and you shoot them, you are going to jail. I've always wondered what other choice there is, because this isn't "Kung Fu" the movie where we all can defend ourselves.


wrightme wrote:
colorado slick wrote:
The brick makes a differance here. If the attacker has nothing but his fists then he will not be considered to be able to inflict deadly force.
Click to expand...
BS. Cite to authority. What authority defined it as such?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
"Cite to authority." Go ahead.

AFAIK, NV is at least "no duty to retreat," and I know of no statute that restricts force for defense. Do you?
 
P

Pace

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
1,140
Location
Las Vegas, NV
imported post

Making me look this up, my firearm books are all packed away.

"Great Bodily Harm" is the term in Nevada, sorry. Cite: NRS 200.200.

In order to save the life or prevent great bodily harm. I do remember examples in the Nevada CCW law book examples of prosecution, thanks.. dont have infront of me.

---

NRS 200.200 Killing in self-defense. If a person kills another in self-defense, it must appear that:

1. The danger was so urgent and pressing that, in order to save the person’s own life, or to prevent the person from receiving great bodily harm, the killing of the other was absolutely necessary; and

2. The person killed was the assailant, or that the slayer had really, and in good faith, endeavored to decline any further struggle before the mortal blow was given.

wrightme wrote:
colorado slick wrote:
Sorry. I don't know anything about Nevada

Colorado
Click to expand...
I know that. I was responding to Pace on that one. :quirky

How are you at citing to the specific you claimed?
Click to expand...
 
W

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
imported post

Pace wrote:
Making me look this up, my firearm books are all packed away.

"Great Bodily Harm" is the term in Nevada, sorry. Cite: NRS 200.200.

In order to save the life or prevent great bodily harm. I do remember examples in the Nevada CCW law book examples of prosecution, thanks.. dont have infront of me.

---

NRS 200.200 Killing in self-defense. If a person kills another in self-defense, it must appear that:

1. The danger was so urgent and pressing that, in order to save the person’s own life, or to prevent the person from receiving great bodily harm, the killing of the other was absolutely necessary; and

2. The person killed was the assailant, or that the slayer had really, and in good faith, endeavored to decline any further struggle before the mortal blow was given.

wrightme wrote:
colorado slick wrote:
Sorry. I don't know anything about Nevada

Colorado
Click to expand...
I know that. I was responding to Pace on that one. :quirky

How are you at citing to the specific you claimed?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Nothing there speaks to "proportionate force." According to you, it seemed to be "bring a gun to a fist fight." What part of 200.200 makes such claim?


IMHO, a person with obvious intent and capability fits that term, whether armed with knife, brick, or fists. Is there a specific definition of "Great Bodily Harm" that is called to? It really does seem subjective. Given your mention of martial arts, it would likely be more difficult to prove a doubt of "prevention of great bodily harm" than it would be to judge "justified."

As example, an elderly person assailed by a 6'6" 200 lb young man can reasonably be expected to act to "prevent great bodily harm" by using a firearm, even if the assailant is unarmed. But, I would agree that if the 6'6" 200 lb young man were assailed by an elderly person, it would be difficult to justify "prevent great bodily harm" if the young man killed the elderly person.
YMMV, generalizations, and IANAL nor did I sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
 
P

Pace

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
1,140
Location
Las Vegas, NV
imported post

It leaves up to interpretation, and hard questions. Someone threatens you with their fist, throws a punch and you don't do anything to stop the fight (ie, run)

You said there is no duty to retreat. This part sounds like there is.

"endeavored to decline any further struggle before the mortal blow was given"
 
W

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
imported post

Pace wrote:
It leaves up to interpretation, and hard questions. Someone threatens you with their fist, throws a punch and you don't do anything to stop the fight (ie, run)

You said there is no duty to retreat. This part sounds like there is.

"endeavored to decline any further struggle before the mortal blow was given"
Click to expand...
According to the Legislative Digest section of the proposed AB288,

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/75th2009/Bills/AB/AB288.pdf

Culverson v. State, 106 Nev. 484 (1990) is applicable.
 
W

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
imported post

Pace wrote:
It leaves up to interpretation, and hard questions. Someone threatens you with their fist, throws a punch and you don't do anything to stop the fight (ie, run)

You said there is no duty to retreat. This part sounds like there is.

"endeavored to decline any further struggle before the mortal blow was given"
Click to expand...

I am looking for that one, but another case mentions:

Culverson v. State, 106 Nev. 484, 489, 797 P.2d 238, 240-41 (1990) (holding that a person has no duty to retreat before using deadly force if he is not the original aggressor and if a reasonable person in the nonaggressor�s position would believe that the assailant is about to cause him lethal or serious bodily harm).
Click to expand...
I found one possibly non-authoritative version of Culverson, which calls to State v. Grimmett, 33 Nev. 531, 112 P. 273 (1910) as an original Nevada "No Duty to Retreat" case.

Further, I have just found an interesting dissertation of Self Defense when searching for Grimmett:

Firearms and Legal Doctrine
 
W

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
imported post

Pace wrote:
is about to cause him lethal or serious bodily harm
Click to expand...
Reasonable person.

Further, some relevant text from Culverson v. State:
I. ACTUAL AND APPARENT DANGER IN RELATION TO A CLAIM OF SELF-DEFENSE.


Culverson contends that the court erred when it failed to give the jury an instruction he submitted regarding the relationship between self-defense, actual danger, and perceived danger. At his trial Culverson submitted the following jury instruction to the court: Actual danger is not necessary to justify self-defense. If one is confronted by the appearance of danger which arouses in his mind, as a reasonable person, an honest conviction and fear that he is about to suffer great bodily injury, and if a reasonable man in a like situation, seeing and knowing the same facts, would be justified in believing himself in like danger, and if the person so confronted acts in self-defense upon such appearances and from such fear and honest convictions, his right of self-defense is the same whether such danger is real or merely apparent. The court refused to give this instruction.
Click to expand...
 
C

colorado slick

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
111
Location
Windsor, Colorado, USA
imported post

I have never posted anything indicating that I oppose OC or the right to carry a weapon because I don't. I am for it 110%. Anything that I have said referres to what I do and I have not suggested anywhere that anyone do the same as I do. How you guys carry you shooter is your business.



I will say that I have never, NEVER been stopped or bugged by a cop so, my method must work, at least for me

Colorado
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top