The Gun thread

I've never really gotten the "excessive force" laws. If you're in immediate danger, it's dark and you can't really see if your assailant is pulling out a knife or a gun, are you supposed to stop and turn on the lights so you will be able to see that he has a gun and it's safe to use yours? Or are you supposed to go ahead and defend yourself with your gun and when it's over realize you should have put your gun down and grabbed a bat?

As someone who's never been in a position to know how I'd act, I can only say that as of where I sit, I'd like to have as much defense/deterrent as possible, rather than have to worry about grabbing something that may not do me any good.

I never got it either, if I'm in my house and someone breaks in my first reaction would be to eliminate the threat by any means possible, I'm not going to try and figure out what the proper level of response is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TC
I've never really gotten the "excessive force" laws. If you're in immediate danger, it's dark and you can't really see if your assailant is pulling out a knife or a gun, are you supposed to stop and turn on the lights so you will be able to see that he has a gun and it's safe to use yours? Or are you supposed to go ahead and defend yourself with your gun and when it's over realize you should have put your gun down and grabbed a bat?

As someone who's never been in a position to know how I'd act, I can only say that as of where I sit, I'd like to have as much defense/deterrent as possible, rather than have to worry about grabbing something that may not do me any good.

Not to mention physical differences. A 98lbs woman attacked by an unarmed 260lbs bodybuilder with fists the size of sledgehammers?
 
Not to mention physical differences. A 98lbs woman attacked by an unarmed 260lbs bodybuilder with fists the size of sledgehammers?
Yep, doesn't even have to be like this, a UFC champion attacking me would be in a much better position to win unarmed despite the fact that I'm not exactly tiny. By the same token if I'm a big dude and break someone's jaw with a punch is it also excessive force? I mean clearly I outmatched them armed or not...

I get the idea behind it, like if the assailant is running away and you shoot them it can be a bit iffy. Or if you see someone loitering near your fence and shoot them or a million other cases where it's either not clear that your life was in danger or unreasonable to assume, but someone breaking into your house.... yeah shoot first.
 
Last edited:
Texas law on the matter is rather explicit and relatively simple:

Code:
? 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE.  (a) Except as provided in 
Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against 
another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is 
immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or 
attempted use of unlawful force.
	(b)  The use of force against another is not justified:                        
		(1)  in response to verbal provocation alone;                                 
		(2)  to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows 
is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace 
officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or 
search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under 
Subsection (c);
		(3)  if the actor consented to the exact force used or 
attempted by the other;
		(4)  if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted 
use of unlawful force, unless:
			(A)  the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly 
communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing 
he cannot safely abandon the encounter;  and
			(B)  the other nevertheless continues or attempts 
to use unlawful force against the actor;  or
		(5)  if the actor sought an explanation from or 
discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences 
with the other person while the actor was:
			(A)  carrying a weapon in violation of Section 
46.02;  or                  
			(B)  possessing or transporting a weapon in 
violation of Section 46.05.    
	(c)  The use of force to resist an arrest or search is 
justified:            
		(1)  if, before the actor offers any resistance, the 
peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts 
to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search;  
and
		(2)  when and to the degree the actor reasonably 
believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself 
against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use 
of greater force than necessary.
	(d)  The use of deadly force is not justified under this 
subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, ? 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.  
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, ? 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 
1994;  Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 190, ? 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

Code:
? 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON.  (a) A person 
is justified in using deadly force against another:
		(1)  if he would be justified in using force against the 
other under Section 9.31;
		(2)  if a reasonable person in the actor's situation 
would not have retreated;  and
		(3)  when and to the degree he reasonably believes the 
deadly force is immediately necessary:
			(A)  to protect himself against the other's use or 
attempted use of unlawful deadly force;  or
			(B)  to prevent the other's imminent commission of 
aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual 
assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
	(b)  The requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not 
apply to an actor who uses force against a person who is at the time 
of the use of force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the 
habitation of the actor.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, ? 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.  
Amended by Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 5316, ch. 977, ? 5, eff. 
Sept. 1, 1983;  Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, ? 1.01, eff. Sept. 
1, 1994;  Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 235, ? 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

Code:
? 9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON.  A person is justified in 
using force or deadly force against another to protect a third 
person if:
		(1)  under the circumstances as the actor reasonably 
believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31 
or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against 
the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes 
to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect;  and
		(2)  the actor reasonably believes that his 
intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, ? 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.  
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, ? 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 
1994.
Code:
? 9.34. PROTECTION OF LIFE OR HEALTH.  (a) A person is 
justified in using force, but not deadly force, against another 
when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is 
immediately necessary to prevent the other from committing suicide 
or inflicting serious bodily injury to himself.
	(b)  A person is justified in using both force and deadly 
force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes 
the force or deadly force is immediately necessary to preserve the 
other's life in an emergency.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, ? 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.  
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, ? 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 
1994.

Code:
? 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY.  (a) A person in 
lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is 
justified in using force against another when and to the degree the 
actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to 
prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful 
interference with the property.
	(b)  A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, 
movable property by another is justified in using force against the 
other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force 
is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the 
property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit 
after the dispossession and:
		(1)  the actor reasonably believes the other had no 
claim of right when he dispossessed the actor;  or
		(2)  the other accomplished the dispossession by using 
force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, ? 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.  
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, ? 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 
1994.

Code:
? 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY.  A person is 
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or 
tangible, movable property:
		(1)  if he would be justified in using force against the 
other under Section 9.41;  and
		(2)  when and to the degree he reasonably believes the 
deadly force is immediately necessary:
			(A)  to prevent the other's imminent commission of 
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the 
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime;  or
			(B)  to prevent the other who is fleeing 
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated 
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the 
property;  and
		(3)  he reasonably believes that:                                             
			(A)  the land or property cannot be protected or 
recovered by any other means;  or
			(B)  the use of force other than deadly force to 
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or 
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, ? 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.  
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, ? 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 
1994.

I get the idea behind it, like if the assailant is running away and you shoot them it can be a bit iffy.

Many states have a 'fleeing felon' rule, where you can shoot someone who has assailed you but is now running away. In Texas, if you are absconding with my property or my neighbor's property and the sun is down, I can legally shoot you in the back to stop you from leaving with the property. If you throw the property down and continue to flee, that gets problematic.

Yes, this does mean that if someone steals my wallet I am fully justified under the law in shooting the mugger in the back as many times as it takes to retrieve my wallet. Nobody here but the criminals has a problem with this.

Or if you see someone loitering near your fence and shoot them or a million other cases where it's either not clear that your life was in danger or unreasonable to assume, but someone breaking into your house.... yeah shoot first.

In Texas, it depends on what side of the fence they're on. If they're on the public side of the fence and not doing anything threatening, no, you can't shoot them. If it's nighttime and they're on YOUR side of the fence (and acting suspicious) without your permission, that comes under the 'criminal mischief during the nighttime' clause among others and you can shoot them under the law. You don't have to wait for them to come into your house and attack you or steal your stuff. The reason for that - think about ranches and farms. They have many outbuildings in which valuable things are stored; you don't want people making off with your stuff while you stand there helpless because they are studiously avoiding the house.
 
Last edited:
Texas is kind of the execption though.

Most any state around here you will be charged from shooting soemone over property or if they are retreating.

Only excuse here is standing your ground/if someone enters your house/dwelling/car and you 'fear for your life' (though that is slightly lax).
 
Someone on Reddit posted a link to a German firearms auction house and they have some interesting stuff. Does anyone know how easily one could import something? I know I can't fly over there and bring something back in my luggage. What I'm particularly interested in is a Korth revolver. They usually go for a ton of money over here, but there are couple there with starting bids in the 900-1000 euro range.
 
Last edited:
Someone on Reddit posted a link to a German firearms auction house and they have some interesting stuff. Does anyone know how easily one could import something? I know I can't fly over there and bring something back in my luggage. What I'm particularly interested in is a Korth revolver. They usually go for a ton of money over here, but there are couple there with starting bids in the 900-1000 euro range.

Basically forget about it unless you are or know a registered arms importer. Can be more expensive to import a weapon than it is to import a car.

They will also have to stamp the importer's full information and perhaps even the warning disclaimer all over the pistol, which will completely ruin the value.
 
Last edited:
Basically forget about it unless you are or know a registered arms importer. Can be more expensive to import a weapon than it is to import a car.

They will also have to stamp the importer's full information and perhaps even the warning disclaimer all over the pistol, which will completely ruin the value.
I asked on a local gun forum and got the names of a couple of importers. I've seen some pretty ingenious ways of getting around the import mark requirement, I know of one importer that puts their mark underneath the bolt handle, and I've heard of some putting it on the bottom edge of a pistol's slide. On a Korth, I think it could be done on the grip frame, which is completely covered by the factory grips.
Here's a Korth on Gunbroker, I don't know if it's a private import or an official one, as I can't see an import mark anywhere.
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=334069416
 
543790_285033421629843_1842304639_n.jpg



[video=youtube;_T-F_zfoDqI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T-F_zfoDqI[/video]
 
Last edited:
We are battling idiots. You really would think that people trying to ban things would research those things, a little at least.


"I will tell you these are ammunition -- bullets -- so the people who have those now they are going to shoot them, and so if you ban -- if you ban them in the future, the number of these high capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot and there won't be any more available," she said.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...cts-on-high-capacity-magazines/#ixzz2PVTZKlNf
 
We are battling idiots. You really would think that people trying to ban things would research those things, a little at least.


"I will tell you these are ammunition -- bullets -- so the people who have those now they are going to shoot them, and so if you ban -- if you ban them in the future, the number of these high capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot and there won't be any more available," she said.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...cts-on-high-capacity-magazines/#ixzz2PVTZKlNf

This is not new....
 
CT and MD fall to the clueless.

Beretta says it will move out of MD, probably to VA. Wonder if Colt will move out of CT?
 
I was planning on getting the out of this state, and SB281 seals the deal.
Fuck Maryland, Fuck O'Malley, and fuck everyone who voted for it.
 
Sorry for the double-post but this is completely unrelated to the above.

Comrades, I am ready to take the fight to the German and protect the Motherland with my new 1942 Mosin! ...right after I get all the damn cosmoline off of it, that is. The history of this thing amazes me. Entered service in 1891 and is still used in some countries. That's 122 years of military service and counting. Used in over 30 wars by 44 countries, including China, Japan, Israel, the UK, the USA, and obviously USSR/Russia. Over 37mil made. Ridiculous.
 
Top