Question about firearms

Crap meant to add the Cliff Notes pertinent advice... sigh my rambling i apologize.

#1 - ALWAYS apply the reasonable standard. That is, what would a reasonable person have done in similar circumstances. It's the bar that judges and juries measure your actions. For instance if someone steals your car at a gas station and you see them drive off.... This does not give you a right to protect yourself and shoot at your moving vehicle. Seems a no brainer but it has occurred twice in my area in the last year.

#2 - Its better to be judged by 12 then carried by 6

#3 - Grandpappies favorite advice, "Everything in moderation" (like my advice) and "it's a dog eat dog world and you're wearing milk bone underwear."

 

I carried illegally for over 25 yrs as an OTR driver.

I've held a neighboring states permit near 15 years now along w NH and FL non resident.
I carried while off duty only.


Then the George Floyd protests and riots started in town and the climate changed.

I work at night in some of the most sketchy and dark remote areas of the city.
My job is task oriented and requires focus while wearing PPE in areas accessible by anyone most times. Very easy to get the jump me as I work and I am aware of my surroundings.

I understand the responsibility but put my personal safety first. The police will be of no help in most situations.

In my state I have an obligation to retreat and while we don't have a Castle Doctrine law they recognize the principles.

I will assume the risks if I ever have to use a firearm, and hope to never have too, but I am well prepared to abide by a juries decision, even in today's political climate. I also carry USSCA coverage.

 

AND the Police are under no requirement to provide that help.

DeShaney vs. Winnebago and Town of Castle Rock vs. Gonzales
Primary Holding
The Fourteenth Amendment does not require the state to intervene in protecting residents from actions of private parties that may infringe on their life, liberty, and property.

The above is a UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT DECISION that is binding everywhere.

Warren v. District of Columbia

This case comes out of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. It is binding in the DC Federal Circuit and a guiding opinion elsewhere.

My Attorney and I were discussing this subject a while back while working on my estate planning after I adopted Keri. He made it clear if you are a gun owner and carry to have a FULL understanding of the Florida V JL SCOTUS decision. Keep in mind there are a lot of "Karens" out there that love to call the cops on people that are legally carrying. I don't recommend debating with a cop, but I highly recommend knowing the law as well as the governing case law.

As interstate truckers, we all have to understand the legal landscape with regard to carrying in ALL the states!

 

MY state passed a law that protects concelaed carriers that work at companies that prohibit firearms on property. For example, you work at a business that prohibist firearms. So when you come to work you store your gun in your car, which is also marked "no firearms". As long as you are otherwise legal to poses a firearm you are protected from criminal prosecution for the gun in the car. I don't recall if the state law can/will protect you from getting fired by the employer for bringing a firearm into the parking lot. Probably not possible to outlaw that.

 

No. The state doesn't matter. The United States Supreme Court definitively solves these matters for often partisan state courts. See all of the precedent involving the States of New York, California and Illinois (Chicago). That's why it's so scary seeing politics enter the USSC. Ginny Thomas.. tsk tsk!

Again get out your pocketbook. Until State and local officials are held to the same standards as the rest of us, egregious over reaches of power to keep their most vocal, becoming more powerful anti gun constituents happy, we are all in trouble. The problem with color of law civil tort is that it comes out of the taxpayers pockets regardless. Unscrupulous District Attorney's & Policing staff are protected from all but the most shocking offenses. District Attorney's should be required to wear body cams Police personnel should lose pensions.

Moose1958 Most gun owners are people willing to protect themselves therefore this came as no surprise and is one of the NRA's bedrock arguments: "A State's failure to protect an individual against private violence generally does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause, because the Clause imposes no duty on the State to provide members of the general public with adequate protective services." I was of the understanding that this case specifically was to again limit government/taxpayer liability of those that believe in a nanny state. Taking one precedent out of context is also confusing. You have to be a #### constitutional scholar (i'm not) to understand other case law and precedent in the totality of whatever situation at hand. IMO this case came down to this, should taxpayers be on the hook for millions of dollars because several social workers dropped the ball and allowed this poor child to be beaten by his father into retardation? Of course not, the state will pay regardless for his institutionalization when his family cant care for him. Why allow family to squander the new found windfall and drop him in said institution regardless?

Dad goes to prison. Administrators & Social Workers lose jobs and any accreditation's they learned are stripped . Civil tort should allow said pensions of terminated for cause government employees to come into play just like when you or i are sued for cause and they want your bank, assets and 401k information.

 

Edited the first post to clarify Civil Tort SHOULD allow the seizure of government pension and i ended up quoting myself unable to delete this.

 

The reasons and contexts dosent really matter. What matters is the case law. The politics of the decision is not really within the scope of this forum.