Visiting New Jersey, Can I store pistol at hosts home

[mipafox 438]

Arizona, Nevada, Utah, Florida, Virginia and Maine did not ask me for a reason on my concealed carry application. But again, that does not make it lawful to carry for self-defense

 

What would make it lawful to carry a loaded, concealed handgun for self defense in those six states?

 

 

[Qel Hoth 33]

It should also be mentioned that in most states carrying a firearm for the purposes of self-defense, with a concealed carry permit or under the protections of constitutional carry, is not a recognized legal purpose. If you write "self-defense" as the reason you're in applying for a concealed permit in most states, the application will be denied.

 

Assuming you are right... what is a valid reason for carrying a firearm then?

 

Valid reasons for carrying a knife other than SD:

1. Opening stuff

2. Cutting stuff

3. Glass break (for knives that have one)

4. Peeling fruit

 

Valid reasons for carrying a firearm other than SD:

1. .... Anyone help me out here?

[H.M. Murdock 0]

You are skipping over the part where carrying a knife for self-defense is illegal in NJ even if you use it in self-defense. Just because you had to defend yourself does not mean you are off the hook for possession in NJ from what I can tell. I think THAT was Dan's point, but I'll let him respond. It certainly was mine. You can carry a knife for any damn reason you want or no reason at all in most of America.

 

You are skipping over the part where I explained how I am in legal possession of a knife for lawful purposes. It seems like you skipped over a lot of what I wrote.

 

That is complete bs. I have never heard of any state denying on the basis of self-defense as a reason for a permit to carry.

 

Off the top of my head, New Hampshire (which I stated earlier)

 

If you ever decide to apply for one, you should check or write "self-defense" or "protection" because there are laws in a few states that say it must be issued for that reason to carry in a vehicle. This issue can confuse cops if you are carrying on reciprocity in a different state and you put "fishing" because you are...well, let's politely say "misinformed." In many states, if you put "collecting" or "target practice" or "competition," when you get it back it will say "self-defense" or "protection" anyway, even though they had a spot for other choices. You couldn't be more wrong about this.

 

Now I thought I just read the argument from Midwest that you don't need a reason to get a concealed permit. Of course every state's permit is different. I have all the possible non-resident permits I can apply for so I can't apply for any more unfortunately.

 

If you go back and read my original statement it was a comparison between lawful self defense and defending yourself in court (after being arrested and arraigned) by proving you acted under the strict and narrow confines of being not being able to escape, no non-lethal options, etc. I believe you live in a state that has castle doctrine and/or stand your ground integrated into the law and practically speaking your permit to carry fits together cleanly with self defense. If you are in Pennsylvania you have the protections of the castle doctrine which allow deadly force without prosecution. But let's say they change the PA law as to not allow justifiable homicide ala self defense. Your concealed carry permit will still be valid but you will not be able to defend yourself with deadly force without facing prosecution.

 

Where did you come up with this stuff? I'd like to get a load of the place.

 

The law? I didn't and the people I vote for usually don't get elected so I can't take any credit unfortunately.

 

What would make it lawful to carry a loaded, concealed handgun for self defense in those six states?

 

I took a cursory look to satisfy your question. In Virginia I don't even think I can lawfully use deadly force in my own home. In Maine I am limited to within my own home under certain conditions. The other 4 states have caste doctrine laws and some have stand your ground, all with deviations in exclusions.

[H.M. Murdock 0]

Assuming you are right... what is a valid reason for carrying a firearm then?

 

Valid reasons for carrying a knife other than SD:

1. Opening stuff

2. Cutting stuff

3. Glass break (for knives that have one)

4. Peeling fruit

 

Valid reasons for carrying a firearm other than SD:

1. .... Anyone help me out here?

 

I'll let Mipafox answer that because he alluded to the fact that his permit application had several options to choose from.

 

I don't think the answers to this have to make sense, the answer you use should merely not be "self-defense" (or that concept similarly worded) in a state that you are not legally protected from prosecution for the use of deadly force outside your home (or wherever you would need a permit to carry concealed)

[Qel Hoth 33]

I took a cursory look to satisfy your question. In Virginia I don't even think I can lawfully use deadly force in my own home. In Maine I am limited to within my own home under certain conditions. The other 4 states have caste doctrine laws and some have stand your ground, all with deviations in exclusions.

 

There is no state in the union where you can not legally use deadly force. The situations in which you are legally allowed to use deadly force may be very limited (i.e. retreat as much as possible, even in the home), but EVERY state has justifiable homicide in cases where deadly force was the only reasonable reaction to the situation at hand. You may or may not be protected from civil lawsuits, but if a bad guy herds you into your closet (which happens to have your gun in it), and he is threatening you with deadly force, it is highly unlikely you will even be charged, and you won't be convicted.

[H.M. Murdock 0]

There is no state in the union where you can not legally use deadly force. The situations in which you are legally allowed to use deadly force may be very limited (i.e. retreat as much as possible, even in the home), but EVERY state has justifiable homicide in cases where deadly force was the only reasonable reaction to the situation at hand. You may or may not be protected from civil lawsuits, but if a bad guy herds you into your closet (which happens to have your gun in it), and he is threatening you with deadly force, it is highly unlikely you will even be charged, and you won't be convicted.

 

I totally agree, there are always specific circumstances in which deadly force is permissible or will go unchallenged if you can produce evidence that you meet certain conditions

 

The distinction here between those narrow exceptions and lawful self defense. In the latter you are protected from prosecution by the castle doctrine or stand your ground law. No arrest, no lawyer, etc.

 

Once you get into the possibility of prosecution, and affirmative defenses, arguing whether you could have escaped thru a window, etc. it's a gamble

 

It's getting late but I think we're on the same page

[Soju 153]

New Hampshire is one example of a shall issue state that requires a purpose that is not self-defense.

 

That is exactly wrong. The NH RSA governing the issuing of permits specifically says that it IS a valid purpose. Please don't spread lies.

 

http://www.gencourt....i/159/159-6.htm

 

RSA 159:6 License to Carry. -

Hunting, target shooting, or self-defense shall be considered a proper purpose.

 

Off the top of my head, New Hampshire (which I stated earlier)

 

Get your head checked, because it is failing you.

 

Also you may have noticed the the very next sentence of that RSA says

 

"The license shall be valid for all allowable purposes regardless of the purpose for which it was originally issued."

 

Kind of hurts your argument that because you didn't state "self defense" as a reason (or stated no reason at all), that it means self defense cannot then be a valid reason. You know, because the one state I looked up so far...specifically says the opposite.

 

But maybe being in NJ, a state the firearm laws aren't followed, you got confused.

[Midwest 28]

I checked 5 states including mine and those that surround it and could not find any requirements that they needed a reason to issue a concealed carry permit.

 

 

http://www.aries.in.gov/Firearms/Permit.aspx

 

http://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/ConcealedCarryApplicationPDF

 

http://www.kentuckystatepolice.org/conceal.htm

 

http://www.tn.gov/safety/handgun/qualifications.shtml

 

http://www.wvago.gov/pdf/gunrec/ApplicationforConcealedPistolLicense.pdf

[H.M. Murdock 0]

Alright, I condede I was wrong on NH. I was thinking of CT.

 

Now that you've focused on that one point, can find issue with the majority of my arguments?

[Soju 153]

Alright, I condede I was wrong on NH. I was thinking of CT.

 

Now that you've focused on that one point, can find issue with the majority of my arguments?

 

Well what is your argument then?

 

You said...

 

It should also be mentioned that in most states carrying a firearm for the purposes of self-defense, with a concealed carry permit or under the protections of constitutional carry, is not a recognized legal purpose. If you write "self-defense" as the reason you're in applying for a concealed permit in most states, the application will be denied.

 

Then the only state you came up with to support this, was NH. It turns out, NH happens to be the best state to prove the opposite. So I guess at this point I am confused what the rest of your arguments are.

[H.M. Murdock 0]

You said...

 

? The beginning of that post

 

How about CT or is that considered may issue?

[mipafox 438]

H.M. Murdock,

 

You said this:

 

It should also be mentioned that in most states carrying a firearm for the purposes of self-defense, with a concealed carry permit or under the protections of constitutional carry, is not a recognized legal purpose. If you write "self-defense" as the reason you're in applying for a concealed permit in most states, the application will be denied.

 

That's not true.

 

You also seem to think you can carry a gun for self defense if a state has "Stand Your Ground" or "Castle Law."

 

Neither has ANYTHING to do with carrying a gun for the purpose of self-defense. As somebody else already pointed out to you, you can use deadly force to protect yourself in most (all?) states regardless of "Stand Your Ground" or "Castle Law." Further, what you said about PA law is untrue.

 

Honestly, I think you know the least about self defense law of most of the people here. The bigger problem being you think you have it figured out whereas most people know when they don't know what they don't know. I really suggest you take a class in these matters and I can suggest a couple venues if you are interested.

 

You should have put "protection" as the reason on your New Hampshire permit. It may come back to bite you later.

[H.M. Murdock 0]

You also seem to think you can carry a gun for self defense if a state has "Stand Your Ground" or "Castle Law."

 

No, I think that even if you are lawfully carrying a firearm you can only lawfully use your gun for self defense if the state has those protections. Otherwise, you must fulfill your duties to retreat, etc. and produce evidence that you took all those steps before you used deadly force as a last resort. My point was that those 2 things go together nicely -- they provide someone carrying a gun with the legal protection of using it for self defense.

 

Out of 48 states that issue permits you are only protected from prosecution in 20 or so states that have stand your ground laws. Of the 30 or so states that have castle laws, most only limit you protection to your own home where you wouldn't need a permit to carry anyway. So when someone says they can carry for self defense, in many states they are can be liable to prosecution when they defend themselves with deadly force unless they are very careful in fulfilling their duty to retreat, etc.

 

Neither has ANYTHING to do with carrying a gun for the purpose of self-defense. As somebody else already pointed out to you, you can use deadly force to protect yourself in most (all?) states regardless of "Stand Your Ground" or "Castle Law." Further, what you said about PA law is untrue.

 

But you cannot -- you usually have to meet a narrow criteria, else you are liable to prosecution. And even if you meet the criteria you can still get wrung through court.

 

I also didn't say anything about PA law other than "castle doctrine and/or stand your ground". Is PA not a state that has those laws on the books? From what I understand in PA you have the right to use deadly force in self defense wherever you are legally allowed to be. Am I wrong? My point above was that if PA changed their law and removed those protections outside the home, your carry permit would still be valid but you would not have the protection against prosecution if using deadly force to defend yourself outside the home.

 

Honestly, I think you know the least about self defense law of most of the people here. The bigger problem being you think you have it figured out whereas most people know when they don't know what they don't know. I really suggest you take a class in these matters and I can suggest a couple venues if you are interested.

 

I'm posting on an internet forums as a matter of discussion. I am not publishing a book to be distributed to uneducated citizens as the word of law.

 

As for the suggestions, go ahead driver.

 

You should have put "protection" as the reason on your New Hampshire permit. It may come back to bite you later.

 

I put "for all lawful purposes", we'll see

[mipafox 438]

 

No, I think that even if you are lawfully carrying a firearm you can only lawfully use your gun for self defense if the state has those protections.

 

Wrong. And, you said that you can't carry a firearm for self-defense unless you have stand your ground or castle doctrine. When it was pointed out you were wrong, you started to change your story to say you meant something else.

 

Otherwise, you must fulfill your duties to retreat, etc. and produce evidence that you took all those steps before you used deadly force as a last resort.

 

Retreat or retreat if can be done in complete safety? What are all of those other steps? I want to know what steps I have to take before I defend myself. Please list "all those steps."

 

Out of 48 states that issue permits you are only protected from prosecution in 20 or so states that have stand your ground laws.

 

You are not protected from prosecution in most of those states, either.

 

Of the 30 or so states that have castle laws, most only limit you protection to your own home where you wouldn't need a permit to carry anyway. So when someone says they can carry for self defense, in many states they are can be liable to prosecution when they defend themselves with deadly force unless they are very careful in fulfilling their duty to retreat, etc.

 

But you cannot -- you usually have to meet a narrow criteria, else you are liable to prosecution. And even if you meet the criteria you can still get wrung through court.

 

You have to meet narrow criteria in states that DO have SYG and CD. Matter of fact, the criteria are almost identical. Duty to retreat, if can be done in complete safety, is often removed. Your "all those steps" you talk about, I have no idea what they are because they don't exist, so I don't know if they are removed or not. The burden is on YOU to still prove self-defense in states with SYG. Which part is it that you are alluding to but don't understand? I'd rather you look it up yourself and learn something.

 

I also didn't say anything about PA law other than "castle doctrine and/or stand your ground". Is PA not a state that has those laws on the books? From what I understand in PA you have the right to use deadly force in self defense wherever you are legally allowed to be. Am I wrong?

 

You have that right in 50 states, but somehow, Yes, you are still wrong.

 

My point above was that if PA changed their law and removed those protections outside the home, your carry permit would still be valid but you would not have the protection against prosecution if using deadly force to defend yourself outside the home.

 

No, that's your new point.

 

Listen, I'm not going to jerk off with you. You said a bunch of stuff that was wildly incorrect and now you want to argue about it or say that's not what you meant, that's fine.

[H.M. Murdock 0]

Everything I have been saying is clarification to that statement I made in a hastily added postscript to my explanation of legally carrying a knife in NJ. It was one thing that was "wildy incorrect", not a bunch of stuff. My position relates to the lack of congruency between possessing a weapon and being able to use it in self defense.

 

I did not say "you can't carry a firearm for self-defense unless you have stand your ground or castle doctrine." I was talking about lawful self defense -- not being liable to prosecution -- and I still am

 

And here I thought SYG puts the burden of proof on LE to find evidence to the contrary and on the court -- SYG providing immunity from prosecution unless they can prove otherwise. Whereas in a self defense claim would normally would be an affirmative defense at a homicide trial -- along with arrest record, bail, lawyers paid and your entire future on the line. I think you are grouping 2 very different things together as self defense whereas I am not.

 

I don't think you're right about the burden of proof. You have avoided confirming the PA law. Notice I have not wavered on the only thing I mentioned about it. You say, "You have that right in 50 states, but somehow, Yes, you are still wrong." .. doesn't make sense. You also welched on your offer for suggestions. Then again, my expectations were minimal. I believe you're being intentionally obtuse.

 

I will also sign off but I promise to return if you lure me back. It was nice jerking off with you too

[Anselmo 87]

CCW and SD are independent things. Do not mix them together. You'll understand the law better that way.

 

CCW is carrying a weapon. SD is using your fists, nearby stick, legal CCW weapon, illegal weapon or anything else to defend yourself.

 

If you carry without legal permission, you can defend yourself using your weapon and may need to kill an attacker. You'll get charged with illegal possession of a weapon.

 

You can kill someone with a legal weapon but it's not self defense when it's not justifiable. You'll get charged with murder.

[H.M. Murdock 0]

That makes sense Anselmo -- and the laws governing possessing a weapon and self defense are not always congruent. Important to recognize that being able to legally possess something that can be used as a deadly weapon does not mean protection from prosecution when using it as a deadly force in self defense. And vice versa, illegally possessing something that can be used as a deadly weapon is not the end of the world if you are protected from prosecution when using it as a deadly force in self defense.

 

From what I understand the defendant will usually get charged with homicide unless they can demonstrate the cirumstances in which they used deadly force in self defense as indisputable. Otherwise they are arrested, retain a lawyer, stay in jail or raise bail and will then need to present an affirmative defense at trial. An innocent person might even plea down to a sure thing if they don't want to gamble on being outlawyered, jury emotion, etc.

 

In states that have SYG a person who uses deadly force in self defense is immune to prosecution if they believe it was necessary to prevent death or great harm to themselves. That burden of proof is on the state. This is what I would call lawful self defense in that you are not wrung thru court until you are hopefully "exonerated" by a jury of your peers.

 

In NJ I do not have this protection so if I use something as a deadly weapon in self defense out on the street, like the knife I legally carry or a large rock I find at the scene, I will likely be arrested, spend a lot of money retaining a lawyer and raising bail (if even an option) and have to assert and prove self defense at trial where any numbers of things can go wrong. If something like this happens I can only hope there is a witness to the incident and that they are honest and thick skinned. I would go thru the same if I was legally carrying a firearm and used it in self defense.

 

Now if I was in Virginia carrying a firearm legally with my VA permit and I was attacked out on the street I could immediately use deadly force in self defense. But if I was attacked and I couldn't immediately reach my firearm and needed to block a strike first before I draw my firearm I would then have the duty to retreat before I could use lethal force. If I did not attempt to retreat I would probably find myself presenting an affirmative defense at trial after gaining an arrest record and spending a lot of money.

 

If I was in Florida under the same circumstances with my FL permit I do not believe I have any obligation to retreat. I can simply defend myself with deadly force if I believe it is necessary for self preservation.

 

So when someone says they have the right to defend themselves with deadly force (as a general statement or qualified with "in all 50 states" or "with a carry firearm") the statement doesn't make sense to me. A "right" is something you should be able to exercise with the presumption of innocence. Not something you defend at trial successfully provided you have enough money and all the stars are aligned.

[Anselmo 87]

That makes sense Anselmo -- and the laws governing possessing a weapon and self defense are not always congruent. Important to recognize that being able to legally possess something that can be used as a deadly weapon does not mean protection from prosecution when using it as a deadly force in self defense. And vice versa, illegally possessing something that can be used as a deadly weapon is not the end of the world if you are protected from prosecution when using it as a deadly force in self defense. Agreed

 

From what I understand the defendant will usually get charged with homicide unless they can demonstrate the cirumstances in which they used deadly force in self defense as indisputable. Otherwise they are arrested, retain a lawyer, stay in jail or raise bail and will then need to present an affirmative defense at trial. An innocent person might even plea down to a sure thing if they don't want to gamble on being outlawyered, jury emotion, etc.

 

In states that have SYG a person who uses deadly force in self defense is immune to prosecution if they believe it was necessary to prevent death or great harm to themselves. That burden of proof is on the state. This is what I would call lawful self defense in that you are not wrung thru court until you are hopefully "exonerated" by a jury of your peers. I'm not sure how SYG works. But what you say seems to agree with what I've read coming out of Florida regarding Zimmerman.

 

In NJ I do not have this protection so if I use something as a deadly weapon in self defense out on the street, like the knife I legally carry or a large rock I find at the scene, I will likely be arrested, spend a lot of money retaining a lawyer and raising bail (if even an option) and have to assert and prove self defense at trial where any numbers of things can go wrong. If something like this happens I can only hope there is a witness to the incident and that they are honest and thick skinned. I would go thru the same if I was legally carrying a firearm and used it in self defense. Agreed

 

Now if I was in Virginia carrying a firearm legally with my VA permit and I was attacked out on the street I could immediately use deadly force in self defense. But if I was attacked and I couldn't immediately reach my firearm and needed to block a strike first before I draw my firearm I would then have the duty to retreat before I could use lethal force. If I did not attempt to retreat I would probably find myself presenting an affirmative defense at trial after gaining an arrest record and spending a lot of money. See below.

 

If I was in Florida under the same circumstances with my FL permit I do not believe I have any obligation to retreat. I can simply defend myself with deadly force if I believe it is necessary for self preservation. The problem is if what you believe is necessary is reasonable. Someone pulled a knife while you are minding your own business is reasonable. Someone looked at you funny is not reasonable. The gray area is in between these two extremes.

 

So when someone says they have the right to defend themselves with deadly force (as a general statement or qualified with "in all 50 states" or "with a carry firearm") the statement doesn't make sense to me. A "right" is something you should be able to exercise with the presumption of innocence. Not something you defend at trial successfully provided you have enough money and all the stars are aligned.

 

You do have a right to defend yourself. I think you're misunderstanding what duty to retreat means. It's a common rhetoric on gun boards. Sometimes life is black and white. Some thug with a long arrest record just out on parole accosts you from 5 feet in front of you, pulls a knife, says he don't like the way you look and comes after you. You can use deadly force in all 50 states. You don't have to get stabbed first. If you're in a duty to retreat state and you have a safe escape route, you must take it. For example, if you're sitting in your car at a stop light late at night and our thug from above is across the street from you and threatens you. If in a SYG state you can sit there and confront him if you so choose. In a duty to retreat state you are obligated to drive away. If your route of escape is blocked, you are permitted to do what you have to do stay safe.

 

The gray area: Say you're walking down the street and bump into a guy. He says, "Sorry man, hope I didn't hurt you." You think he's being a wise a**. Things escalate, words are exchanged, etc. There is a fight. Someone gets stabbed or shot. Say someone gets killed. Did you both have a duty to retreat? Are you both allowed to stand your ground?

 

Ayn Rand said that it's not a right if you have to ask permission. In many states you have to ask permission to have a gun so perhaps the definition of "a right" is not what it once was.

[H.M. Murdock 0]

Thanks for the explanation. Good examples

 

My biggest fear in most states is having to defend myself but being unable to prove that I first attempted to retreat. In the heat of the moment will I risk turning my back to an assailant so that I can flee?

 

It seems like I can take some solace in that an escape route must be considered safe, presumably by a reasonable person. The prosecution may argue that there was a safe escape route that I did not take and I may legitimately not have even considered that route once the adrenaline started pumping. I guess all I can do it revert to my instincts and training if the time comes and hope I will have the opportunity to explain myself to an unbiased judge and jury.