'Open Carry' Law Contoversy: Gun Owner Cited

Just saw your edit, well, of course, my last few responses in this thread were all made on that the basis of the Columbus motel robbery incident. I did not and still do not state it applies to anyone, other than the deadly force law, it is different for civilians in the US, but the same for law enforcement. I'm merely trying to show you that the actions of the CCW holder were justified, and that the use of a drawn gun can be classified under act of deadly force which was legal there for Ohio's terms. It doesn't matter (to the law) if it looked like he was only going to rob the motel, even if it was really a BB gun.

In the end that particular case went the way it legally should have, but if we want to talk till we're blue on the basis of moral grounds then we can exchange points all day but it'll never get anywhere. Legally, again, much against anyone's dismay, that CCW civilian is waived from any wrongdoing.

If we don't like these kind of laws being around, then we gotta abolish them. People should vote/work to appeal those laws if they are not appreciated.

What is found to be justifiable in one state does not necessarily mean that it will be found to be justifiable in another state. That is my point. But thank you, because in effect, you supported my position that it is not illegal to defend yourself, including the use of deadly force.
 
is it illegal for me to take gun outside my home and carry it on myself at parking lot?

what's the matter? refusing to answer that simple question.... we both know why you're refusing to answer it.

It's been answered. By the law I linked you to. It isn't my responsibility if you choose not to read it and educate yourself.
 
By the law.
What law? Each case is covered by different laws, and by different jurisdictions. There isn't one federal law called or prosecuted as an "illegal shooting."

It can be illegal to shoot a BB gun into the dirt in one town, and legal to shoot at intruders with a shotgun in another, after a determination of the facts.

There's no umbrella of "illegal shooting."
 
... it is not illegal to defend yourself, including the use of deadly force.
Not true. In some jurisdictions, people who have defended themselves while cornered in their homes, by gun, have been charged because that jurisdiction doesn't allow guns in the home, period. Totally unfair but it happens.
 
It's been answered. By the law I linked you to. It isn't my responsibility if you choose not to read it and educate yourself.

I'm afraid that it has not been answered to my satisfaction. You are clearly mincing around and avoiding my question. Here's a link to NJ lawyer's website

Self Defense
A person may use force against another person if he reasonably believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by such other person. Such justifiable use of force is commonly call "self-defense." The provisions for self-defense to protect citizens from criminal charges is found in the criminal code at NJSA 2C-3-4(a), which states in part:

"... The use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the actor reasonably believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the unlawful force by such other person on the present occasion."

In other words, self defense is the right of a person to defend against any unlawful force. Self defense is also the right of a person to defend against seriously threatened unlawful force that is actually pending or reasonably anticipated.

When a person is in imminent danger of bodily harm, the person has the right to use force or even deadly force when that force is necessary to prevent the use against (him/her) of unlawful force. The force used by the defender must not be significantly greater that and must be proportionate to the unlawful force threatened or used against the defender.

Unlawful force is defined as force used against a person without the persons consent in such a way that the action would be a civil wrong or a criminal offense.

If the force used by the defender was not immediately necessary for the defenders protection or if the force used by the defender was disproportionate in its intensity, then the use of such force by the defendant was not justified and the self defense claim in a criminal prosecution falls.

Unlawful force is defined as force used against a person without the persons consent in such a way that the action would be a civil wrong or a criminal offense.

If the force used by the defender was not immediately necessary for the defenders protection or if the force used by the defender was disproportionate in its intensity, then the use of such force by the defendant was not justified and the self defense claim in a criminal prosecution falls.

A person commits a criminal trespass if, knowing that (he/she) is not licensed or privileged to do so, (he/she) enters or surreptitiously remains in any structure or separately secured or occupied portion thereof.

Our criminal law further provides that, in defense of your home:

"the use of force is justifiable...only if the actor first requests the person against whom such force is used to desist from his interference with the property, unless the actor reasonably believes that (a) such request would be useless; (b) it would be dangerous to himself or another person to make the request or (c) substantial harm will be done to the physical condition of the property which is sought to be protected before the request can effectively be made."

Deadly Force and Civil Duty to Retreat

A deadly force is not justifiable when an opportunity to retreat with complete safety is known by the defender to be at hand. The use of such force is not justifiable if the defender knew that it could have been avoided with complete safety to himself by retreating. Where these conditions are present, the defender has a duty to retreat, and his use of a deadly force under these circumstances cannot be justified as an act of self defense.

meaning.... it is illegal for me to defend myself by any means on the most part and plus I can be sued for it. Self-defense with firearm in NJ is a double-edged sword.
 
What law? Each case is covered by different laws, and by different jurisdictions. There isn't one federal law called or prosecuted as an "illegal shooting."

It can be illegal to shoot a BB gun into the dirt in one town, and legal to shoot at intruders with a shotgun in another, after a determination of the facts.

There's no umbrella of "illegal shooting."

People are not charged with legal acts, Reba.:cool2:
 
I'm afraid that it has not been answered to my satisfaction. You are clearly mincing around and avoiding my question. Here's a link to NJ lawyer's website

Self Defense








meaning.... it is illegal for me to defend myself by any means on the most part and plus I can be sued for it. Self-defense with firearm in NJ is a double-edged sword.

No. It is illegal for you to shoot someone when you have other options available that would result in protecting yourself from harm.
 
Not true. In some jurisdictions, people who have defended themselves while cornered in their homes, by gun, have been charged because that jurisdiction doesn't allow guns in the home, period. Totally unfair but it happens.

Again, we are talking about the state of NJ and the claim that it was illegal to defend yourself in that state, after I stated that it is not illegal to defend yourself in any state. It is not iillegal to defend yourself in any state. The problem seems to be that some people equate the word "defend" with "shoot". They are not one and the same.
 
Gun safety training for home defense -New Jersey Monthly - The Best of NJ
“Almost everybody says the same thing at first: ‘Oh, I would just shoot them,’” Colandro says. “But ignorance of the law is no excuse. It’s very, very important that they know when you can and cannot use deadly force.” Pulling the trigger, Colandro emphasizes, must be the last resort. New Jersey law permits a licensed gun owner to shoot an intruder only under narrowly defined circumstances. The intruder must be on the premises illegally. You can shoot only if the intruder continues to threaten after being warned or if you have a reasonable belief that you or others in the home are in clear and imminent danger.
If you do kill or wound an intruder, Colandro says, be prepared for your life to be turned upside down. Your friends and neighbors will most likely turn against you. Your legal predicament will be messy and expensive. And even if you acted within your rights, the psychological consequences are severe.
Steven, who had competed on his college rifle team, filed the necessary paperwork and fingerprints for a New Jersey firearms identification card, which is required to purchase any type of gun in the state. (In addition, to buy a handgun requires a separate handgun purchaser’s permit.) The applications were vetted by the New Jersey State Police and the FBI, as well as by the police department of the town where Steven lives. The process took a year to complete. The permits grant Steven the right to keep loaded guns in his home and to carry unloaded guns to and from a target range, provided they are properly secured. (In New Jersey, as compared to many other states, a “concealed carry” permit, required to carry a loaded gun outside the home, is practically impossible for an average citizen to obtain.)

and get this....
Pointing a revolver at the wall, Colandro demonstrates what he calls the vulture stance—shoulders hunched up, arms thrust forward, confronting the intruder.

“Don’t move!” he shouts. “I got a gun! I’ll blow your head off!”

In a crisis, Colandro explains, an authoritative voice and body language are as important as the gun itself. Even if the intruder is standing right in front of you, announce that you have a gun—it might be dark, the intruder could be under the influence of drugs or alcohol, and in any case, the warning puts you in a better legal position.

“The best thing you could ever hope for is that the perpetrator breaks and flees,” he says.

“Nobody wants to use a firearm.”

If the intruder doesn’t flee, the next step is to bark out commands: “Sit on the ground! Lock your hands behind your head and stay there!”

Startled by Colandro’s booming voice, a few customers turn to look. Colandro tells the couple, “It’s gonna be very hard to [get the intruder to comply], especially if he’s crazed.”

“So just shoot them,” says Steven, a man of medium build with a few days of dirty-blonde stubble.

“No,” Colandro says, with the barest hint of exasperation.

“Why not? They’re in your house. You have every right to.”

“But you’re not in clear and imminent danger,” Colandro says patiently.

“That’s ridiculous,” says Miriam. “If there’s a stranger in my house, I’m gonna have to shoot them.”

“I’m just telling you the law,” Colandro says. “Prosecutor’s gonna say, ‘Why didn’t you hit him with something? Why did you have to use deadly force?’”

Steven is unfazed. “I’m not a lawyer,” he says after the lesson, “but if someone breaks into my home, they’re getting shot. Period.”
Now what is this nonsense? Now am I supposed to act like a police officer in my own house, yelling at burglar to get down on his knees and interlocked his fingers? Isn't that me being a vigilante? a police-wannabe?

NJ government and you seem to think burglar's life values more than homeowner's life.

Now you see that it's illegal for me to defend myself unless I hire an expensive lawyer to justify it?
 
No. It is illegal for you to shoot someone when you have other options available that would result in protecting yourself from harm.

sssssssssssshhhhhhhhh............... you just shot your own foot....
 
People are not charged with legal acts, Reba.:cool2:
Yes, they are because the acts legality are not always determined at the time the charges are made. That's why charges subsequently get dropped. :cool2:
 
Again, we are talking about the state of NJ and the claim that it was illegal to defend yourself in that state, after I stated that it is not illegal to defend yourself in any state. It is not iillegal to defend yourself in any state. The problem seems to be that some people equate the word "defend" with "shoot". They are not one and the same.

it is illegal for me to defend myself with a gun in public area. it is illegal for me to defend myself with a gun in my own car. it is illegal for me to defend myself with a gun at Walmart parking lot. and it is illegal for me to defend myself with a gun if there were other imaginary available options concocted by prosecutors.

Over 45 states in America legally allow you to defend yourself by any means ANYWHERE, ANYTIME and no question will be asked. Unfortunately - I do not have that rights in NJ.
 
No. It is illegal for you to shoot someone when you have other options available that would result in protecting yourself from harm.
That's not the castle doctrine.

One doesn't need to prove that one had no other options. The presence of the culprit is proof enough that the shooting was justified.

That's for states with castle doctrine laws.
 
Do you carry it when you go grocery shopping?

again - does it matter? if it's legal, then it should not be asked nor criticized.

this is a discrimination.
 
Gun safety training for home defense -New Jersey Monthly - The Best of NJ




and get this....

Now what is this nonsense? Now am I supposed to act like a police officer in my own house, yelling at burglar to get down on his knees and interlocked his fingers? Isn't that me being a vigilante? a police-wannabe?

NJ government and you seem to think burglar's life values more than homeowner's life.

Now you see that it's illegal for me to defend myself unless I hire an expensive lawyer to justify it?

So...you have problems with restrictions that protect the rest of society from guns?
 
again - does it matter? if it's legal, then it should not be asked nor criticized.

Of course it matters, Jiro. That is the whole point. You don't seem to understand that having a gun in public places where you could put others in danger is a completely irresponsible act and doesn't say much for the stability of the person toting the loaded gun around.
 
Reading the NJ law and understanding it, if Jiro has a NJ CCW, he can make the decision to shoot at an threatening suspect if specific conditions occur. If he was cornered into a room or was chased to the back of a warehouse and someone walking up to him with a gun, by all means he can pull his gun out and shoot.

Same as if an armed person walks up to his home, forces him to fall back into the bathroom.

It doesn't have to do with if there is another weapon he should use or ditch his gun for his car's tire iron to strike back at someone pointing at him with a gun. It's clearly up to his choice to make at that moment, and not yours or anyone else's.
 
So...you have problems with restrictions that protect the rest of society from guns?

I don't understand your question.

but I have a problem with restrictions that protect criminals from the society defending itself from criminals. I have a problem with restrictions that deter society from defending itself from criminals.

does that answer your question?
 
That's not the castle doctrine.

One doesn't need to prove that one had no other options. The presence of the culprit is proof enough that the shooting was justified.

That's for states with castle doctrine laws.

I did not say it was the castle doctrine. I was responding specifically to Jiro's misunderstanding.
 
Back
Top