Personally, I will not live in a state where you can not defend your property without first having to subject yourself to a vicious attack that you can not escape. While here in SC is not as good as Texas defense laws, it only takes entrance into your home as the prerequisite to shooting the intruder dead. And that is how it is supposed to be.

I’m pro second amendment all the way. Believe firearms are over regulated today. Don’t think you should have to have a permit to carry concealed so long as you are legally able to possess a weapon. But I have to tell you, I’m not a fan of “Stand Your Ground” or “Castle Doctrine” laws. I can take, but would rather leave, “Castle Doctrine.” But I do not like “Stand Your Ground.” Just sayin’.

I have to add, Wyoming doesn’t have either of those laws. The “duty to retreat” is not onerous, though. At least in Wyo, the “duty to retreat” has been applied reasonably in the cases I am aware of. Also, the question did the defendent have a duty to retreat (from the situation) is a question the jury answers, not a judge. So, I guess it would be better to say I’m happy with the self-defense laws in Wyo as they are.

Being a Texan and a retired police officer I like our laws the way they currently are and the fact that the DAs are inclined to give the home owner/resident the benefit of doubt. We have a lot of crime and the police officers and deputy sheriff’s in many jurisdictions are now assigned to write tickets where investigators are few and far between. Once your place is burglarized or you are held up if the arrest isn’t made at the scene or within short order by the responding officers you probably won’t ever see your stuff again. And of course if they intended to kill you and you weren’t prepared to defend yourself you’d probably be dead. Thus the emphasis has been to let the citizen take action to protect not only themselves and their families but that of neighbors as well. Granted you really need to be careful on the second part of that but if you see someone obviously burglarizing the neighbor’s property you can effect a citizen’s arrest. And if they decide to start shooting you can protect yourself by returning fire. Obviously very few people would go this far but I’d certainly do it for my neighbors and know that at least one of them would have the gutts and ability to do the same for my family and I as well.

When criminals understand that they may well be killed while committing these crimes and they also understand that the citizen will be within his/her rights to do so it has an effect on them. Is their life worth a few bucks? If so that’s a choice they made.

Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke Jr. recently came out and asked his citizens to learn how to use firearms so they could defend themselves while they waited for the police. He’s to be commended for telling people the truth.

Sorry Sir Aaron, when faced with a mortal threat, people do not have time to take a gander as to what is behind that threat or take a drive around the block to get locations of any homes or businesses. Now this does not mean be stupid, but gun battles are not usually stationary and you must do what is necessary to survive. Theory and reality are two very different things and when faced with a situation where your life is on the line, all scenarios go out the window and you do what is needed to live, then worry about everyone else. I also do not get where you think anyone is talking about random shooting. You also state know your target……..what kind of scenario would you be thinking about where you would not know your target. Moe is not referring to war or battleground, it would be a home invasion, attack on your person, etc where the target would be clearly known.

As to what the Bible allows, you are getting out in left field with this one. Much of what would be allowed in those times and by the Bible would not be allowed under current laws. Since God says to honor/obey the law of man unless it requires you to sin, we must abide by our laws even if those laws say to escape. That is a dumb law that needs changed, but until it is, the Bible commands we follow the law. Everything I have ever read about the Bible says the it supports the killing of man when life is in danger or others lives are in danger, so not sure where we need to worry about a Biblical basis.

Simple rule; never gamble with a gun, no mater what end you are on. The bad guy generally understands this thus why they run and the bad guy who does not is not a bad guy for very long.

you’re right – the idea that Joe Biden should be giving this advice to his wife is absurd, it’s clearly an attempt to be all I’m-one-of-you everyman thing.

I do think though that the third criticism is wrong. Biden said she should fire into the air, so that isn’t using deadly force to protect, it’s just firing a gun into the air. I don’t see how that would be illegal in Delaware law (as described).

And,the Reason guys are wrong. You can load several rounds into a shotgun. I don’t use one, my dad has a hunting rifle and I have a 22, but my buddy who has a shotgun says when he is firing he shoots 1, loads 4, then shoots one. He says he can keep his average rate of fire to about 1 shot every 2 seconds. There’s plenty of videos on Youtube for “how t load a shotgun”

I think I found Joe Biden’s twitter account

https://twitter.com/oldwhitemansays

lol

you’re absolutely right.

You would desperately fail the most basic gun safety course.

Site clown chimes in I see. What does that verse have to do with killing an attacker or whether or not the Bible allows for self defense? And what does David’s reaction to war and its horrible nature again have to do with self defense or what the Bible allows? Maybe you should be old enough to understand the Bible before you lecture adults on its meaning.

Stick to WOW mommy’s boy, stay out of my conversations.

“…the dumbest to ever reside in the White House.” I do hope that isn’t a prescient statement. Currently it isn’t true, hopefully it will never be true. Bad enough he gets away with saying all kinds of stupid/malicious stuff because he gets the “crazy Uncle” image, we don’t need Crazy Joe residing there.

This statement alone should disqualify Biden to be the point person pushing for new gun restrictions – in addition to the compelling reasons Mr. Lane stated above – in instances where a gun is actually effectively used for self defense, something like 90% of the time it isn’t even fired. so Biden’s encouraging people to be far more reckless than is 1) necessary and 2) their natural inclination.

And his whole general premise that a shotgun is all you need for home defense is almost equally ridiculous. For one thing, you may encounter more than 2 intruders (there was an incident reportedly recently involving a homeowner who defended his home and multiple children against 3 armed intruders. He had a gun that fired more than 2 billets and was still wounded — which suggests if he’d been limited to 2 shots he would’ve wound up dead)

Well, see that’s the thing. As the law has been applied, and rather consistently I might add, you have no duty to abandon your family or others in danger. This is why I wrote my follow up below. I have to be frank. I am very familiar with self-defense laws in Wyo and not in other states. That’s why I said I’m happy with the law as it is.

If you are in a fight in the parking lot of a bar, you have to leave if reasonably possible. No going to your truck to get your gun. No pulling a knife if you can run. If you are in your home with your family and your leaving does not save your family from danger, you don’ have the duty to retreat. You might say, “Well, that is essentially the Castle Doctrine.” If it is, fine. It’s not called that here.

I think we often times project the personal meaning of words, like “Castle Doctrine,” without being familiar, or even acknowledging, the self defense laws are different and can be applied differently from state to state.

I cannot think of one case in Wyo where a home invasion resulted in the homeowner fatally shooting the intruder and the homeowner was prosecuted. Not one. It is true, you cannot use leathal force to protect your property in Wyoming (think Johnson County War). You can only use leathal force to protect your life, or the lives of others, in immediate danger. It’s worked fine for us so far.

If there is ever an injustice, I guess I’ll revaluate then. Until then, we are doing just fine, thank you very much.

The way the “law is applied” stands as long as that is the norm for District Attorneys in the state. If a DA wishes to charge you, you have no automatic defense. I worked with a number of prosecutors and I would not put my faith in the way things work now continuing forever. Better to have the law on your side and the DA have to prove to the court that the statute doesn’t apply before anything can proceed. All of the horrendous stories about how bad things would be if X passed (remember Florida, the Gunshine State?, FL and TX and, and “There will be blood running in the streets if concealed carry is allowed”, etc.) have not come to pass with Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground laws. The “biggie” was the Martin/Zimmerman case – and Stand Your Ground did not apply at all. Zimmerman had no way to retreat with Martin on top of him. Yet “Stand Your Ground” was blamed for weeks. It’s the way the Left works.

Oh, and if you have to go across the parking lot to your truck to get a firearm, and then go back to the confrontation, you have a world of trouble under “stand your ground”, because you already have retreated.

We are arguing in circles. If you are defending yourself and/or others from an immediate threat, the law is on your side in Wyo. Period. There are reasons why you can’t use leathal force to protect your property in Wyo. Very good reasons.
Being from Texas, what would you do if some October day some guys came walking across your property, or property you leased (so you have the rights of ownership), armed with high-powered rifles? You didn’t invite them and they do not have permission to be there?

The discussion here is largely academic.

Most home invasion victims could have protected themselves. The law would not have been an issue.

Identifying oneself as a potential victim is the key.

There are hundreds of instances across the United States where a homeowner is sued by the burglar they shot in their home, or found guilty of murder and imprisoned if they kill one. Sometimes, the law is indeed an issue…especially when it’s a stupid law.

Joe Biden is evidence that Homo sapiens, as a species, may be somewhat overrated…

What that verse has to do with it was far better explained to you by Ari than I could do so.

But your initial discussion was about laws in other states (Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground). It sort of goes without saying that if you don’t want commentary about your posts…

After a career in law enforcement, working in several states (though not WY), I know something about prosecutors in general. One thing I know for sure is if the law doesn’t make it legal, a prosecutor is able to initiate prosecution at any time he danged well pleases. And sometimes it doesn’t matter to the prosecutor whether he wins the case. Some (usually in a “safe” elected office) will try prosecution, for harassment and to cost the target time and money, even when the statute is clear that the behavior was legal. And we all know the old saying about a prosecutor being able to convince a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich. Well, not a ham sandwich, but it is generally true of the Grand Jury system that if a prosecutor desires an indictment, he’s most likely to get it.

Points taken.

When you have been here long enough to have dealt with all the idiots, fools, mommy’s boys, etc that the rest of us have, then come talk to me. When you are promoted to mod, then tell me how to act. When you own the site and have an invested interest in it, then worry about what I say. Until then, as long as the actual site mods and site owners do not have issue with me, then your opinion does not matter. And when morons stop with stupid comments to me that have nothing to do with either the topic or my comment, I will stop calling them out. And considering your posting history, not sure you need to worry about me embarrassing anyone.

Next time you feel the need to lecture me, skip doing it. You do not like what I post, run and report it. But never feel important enough to me or the site to correct me as you are not. Is that simple enough for you? I have been here longer than almost anyone here outside of the mods. I know the rules, I know the limits, and I know what I can and can not do. I have spent years on this site and some johnny come lately with less time on this site than most is not the one who will direct me on how to comment, clear enough for you?

Good grief. Number one, whether I have or not is irrelevant. It is also quite easy to claim anything on this site or the internet which is why I avoid it. But a person can know how to defend themselves and what is lawful whether or not they have been in the situation or not. So no, it is not useful to others for them to know my background.

I do not care what you claim to have done, again irrelevant.

Lastly, I know reading comprehension is tough for some of you, as it was with the above posters on what Moe stated, but I clearly stated there is a difference between “being stupid” and defense. You break into my home, car, businesses, you get killed, period. There will be no restraint nor is any warranted. You try to hurt me or my family, no restraint will be used except the restraint used to keep from firing the entire second clip into the twitching body. All the “shoot-don’t shoot” is your problem and your decision, it is not mine. I never look for trouble, but I am prepared to end trouble. And just for you bub, I have fired my weapon, many times from 68 on and it was a bit more than citizen arrest situations. I have also used it once since then in my home. Does that clear it up for you? Good!

This is a little late, but I was on vacation.
One of the first firearms safety rules is “know your target and what is beyond.” That doesn’t mean you need to stop and interview an attacker or spend an inordinate amount of time analyzing an intrusion into your home. What it means is that you don’t shoot randomly into the air when you hear an unidentified sound. It also means you don’t shoot randomly into a bathroom just because you suspect an intruder.

The “what is beyond” part is designed to prevent the death of innocent bystanders who may be standing directly behind your target. Like your children.
As for the Bible…a discussion of Biblical principles is never “out of left field.” The Bible has guidance for all of life. The law given to Israel in the Old Testament sets forth legal standards for appropriate and inappropriate uses of lethal force to protect one’s life and property. I realize that we aren’t Israel so we aren’t under the law so to speak. But some of the principles found therein, still have applicability. So while the government may say that I’m allowed to shoot somebody who comes onto my property to steal my watch, the Bible may have a higher standard to which I am ultimately accountable. So my advice to any and all gun owners (and to everyone for that matter) is to be familiar with Biblical principles of self defense because your ultimate responsibility is to God.