CCW at home?

[ruger9 0]

Scott, just ignore (some of) these people. It's not worth it. Do what you want (that's not legal advice, but neither is any other post in this thread.)

[liquidskin 3]

Scott, I think you'd be hard pressed to find forum members that wouldn't draw on an intruder. I know I would. I'd imagine such scenarios are what made many of us gun owners.

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[hd2000fxdl 422]

Scott, I think you'd be hard pressed to find forum members that wouldn't draw on an intruder. I know I would. I'd imagine such scenarios are what made many of us gun owners.

 

 

Your Probably right a far as what a lot of people might or would do, especially if they are from other states originally that are a lot less restrictive.

 

I will say on that note that 99.99999% of the people never ever want to have to shoot anyone either, but if you decide to carry and make that ultimate decision that you need to pull your gun and point it at someone, well just remember that next decision can/will be life changing and be able to live with it.

 

I am all for protecting my family and myself from personal harm and I'd even go as far as saying if it was a choice of my families or my safety vs. some other person trying to do life threating harm, so be it, I will live with what happens next, but that will be only when I am left with no other option.

 

 

Also before anyone jumps on the above, I do hear and see both sides of the coin here and not making judgment either way, heck, it's not my place to tell anyone what to do or sway anyones opinion, but make sure if you think you may ever do this, educate yourself on pre and post actions and be willing to except responsibility for whatever you may do, and this is in regards to good and bad shoots.

[woodentoe 14]

Ok. You are assuming they care you have a gun. IMHO I'd rather have the element of surprise on my side. But hey some people want to say "Hey look at me I have a gun, so if you are going to do any harm anyway take me out first."

 

I'm not being provocative here when I ask...what good is the element of surprise if you can't draw your weapon until after someone has the drop on you?

[BlueLineFish 615]

Intruders are an entirely different matter and there is no doubt if someone enters your home you have every right to act first. Scott I was just pointing out some things for people to think about because there are a lot of people who don't realize what they may be doing by brandishing a handgun under the wrong circumstances. I'm not bashing you at all or trying to tell you what to do. I just would hate to see somebody get jammed up over something stupid. Especially how paranoid people in this state are

[BarkNBite 15]

Carry at home if you want to or not.......Trouble Doesn't Make An Appointment......I carry most of the time.

[Dan 177]

IANAL , IMO,,,

 

There are no "brandishing" laws in NJ that I'm aware of anyway. If anyone knows of the statute, please post it here.

 

I do know there is a statute for Terroristic Threats (2C:12-3). Specifically subsection b. applies when using a firearm to threaten someone without justification override from the self defense statutes.

 

When it comes to defending your property on your land, the statutes are pretty clear when it comes to using force and deadly force in 2C:3-6.

 

2C:3-6. Use of force in defense of premises or personal property

Use of Force in Defense of Premises or Personal Property. a. Use of force in defense of premises. Subject to the provisions of this section and of section 2C:3-9, the use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable when the actor is in possession or control of premises or is licensed or privileged to be thereon and he reasonably believes such force necessary to prevent or terminate what he reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission of a criminal trespass by such other person in or upon such premises.

 

b. Limitations on justifiable use of force in defense of premises.

 

(1) Request to desist. The use of force is justifiable under this section 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

 

© 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.

 

(2) Exclusion of trespasser. The use of force is not justifiable under this section if the actor knows that the exclusion of the trespasser will expose him to substantial danger of serious bodily harm.

 

(3) Use of deadly force. The use of deadly force is not justifiable under subsection a. of this section unless the actor reasonably believes that:

 

(a) The person against whom the force is used is attempting to dispossess him of his dwelling otherwise than under a claim of right to its possession; or

 

(b) The person against whom the force is used is attempting to commit or consummate arson, burglary, robbery or other criminal theft or property destruction; except that

 

© Deadly force does not become justifiable under subparagraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection unless the actor reasonably believes that:

 

(i) The person against whom it is employed has employed or threatened deadly force against or in the presence of the actor; or

 

(ii) The use of force other than deadly force to terminate or prevent the commission or the consummation of the crime would expose the actor or another in his presence to substantial danger of bodily harm. An actor within a dwelling shall be presumed to have a reasonable belief in the existence of the danger. The State must rebut this presumption by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

 

2C:12-3. Terroristic threats.

 

a.A person is guilty of a crime of the third degree if he threatens to commit any crime of violence with the purpose to terrorize another or to cause evacuation of a building, place of assembly, or facility of public transportation, or otherwise to cause serious public inconvenience, or in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror or inconvenience. A violation of this subsection is a crime of the second degree if it occurs during a declared period of national, State or county emergency. The actor shall be strictly liable upon proof that the crime occurred, in fact, during a declared period of national, State or county emergency. It shall not be a defense that the actor did not know that there was a declared period of emergency at the time the crime occurred.

 

b.A person is guilty of a crime of the third degree if he threatens to kill another with the purpose to put him in imminent fear of death under circumstances reasonably causing the victim to believe the immediacy of the threat and the likelihood that it will be carried out.

[NJScott 15]

Thanks, guys. While I understand some may disagree with my position, it's mine and I'm sticking to it. I pray to God I never have to put it into practice, though.

 

BLF, I never thought you or anyone else was doing a basheroo on me; it was just frustrating trying to translate how I felt when someone entered my property at night during adverse circumstances, and thinking about how that might embolden them to go a bit further in the near future.

 

Respectfully,

 

Scott in Bayonne

[TheLugNutZ 21]

Some of that could be a OC vs CC argument. There are pros and cons of each obviously...

[blksheep 466]

 

 

I'm not being provocative here when I ask...what good is the element of surprise if you can't draw your weapon until after someone has the drop on you?

 

It's about tactics. When I carry off duty I don't walk around with it for the world to see.

[woodentoe 14]

It's about tactics. When I carry off duty I don't walk around with it for the world to see.

 

indeed.

 

But, as a law enforcement officer, are the rules of engagement the same? You're on duty even when you're off. Your weapon is for personal protection but also for the protection of others and to thwart crime. If you see a criminal act taking place, aren't you allowed to draw your weapon and intervene? even if that criminal act doesn't involve meeting force with force but rather as a deterrent or threat of force?

 

As a civilian, I am only allowed to use force (drawing my weapon and pointing it being considered force) on my own property when meeting force with force thereby standing my ground as protected by the Castle Law (which does exist in NJ). However, in order to deploy that force, I need to immediately and reasonably believe that I or others in my premises are under direct physical threat tantamount to death. The concern is that in order for me to reasonably believe that, doesn't the perp already have to have the drop on me? Because of this dilemma for a civilian, can you see how the clear existence of the firearm on display can act as the deterrent? Basically, advertising that if you threaten my family, you're leaving with extra holes?

[Shane45 807]

Here are some of my issues.

This one is more an open carry vs concealed carry issue.

There are a lot of lying scumbag people that can put you in a bad situation with LE right quick when you have that minor altercation OUTSIDE your home but on your property. All they have to say is you pointed it at them even if you didnt. They can see your armed and make it easy to get even with you if they are devious(the fact they are trying to steal from you implies they arent the must upright folkes). LE rolls up on the complaint and your indeed carrying, I think you will get a ride to the pokey. Do you really want to be removed from your house leaving loved ones alone at a bad time?

 

Brandishing:

It is a worthy topic to discuss because like BLF, I feel it is important to understand as well as justified escalation of force. If this is not given its due consideration, it puts all our rights in jeopardy. So understanding the difference between justified escalation of force and brandishing is important. Remember this is not a moral argument, its a legal one. And the legal ramifications in this state, if you get it wrong, are a strong consideration.

 

So if it was me:

intruder in the house

Justified

 

man taking scrap

not justified

 

man attempting to take generator in a emergency putting me and family at risk presents some situational questions like if it was night or day and if he did not flee the second he realised my presence.

But generally speaking, justified.

 

These are my personal opinions and not to be construed as legal advice.

[blksheep 466]

We can debate this until the Eagles win another game. The fact of the matter is at some point you will have to make a decision and stick with it. Right or wrong.

[Forddsl96 0]

For target sports and to protect your life in the event somebody is trying to take yours. Not to scare off undesirables in your neighborhood just because they look shady.

 

Well said.... Trying to scare someone off isnt the best idea and more than likely the next person who you see walking up the alley will be an LEO... They dont call it CCW for nothing. Keep it "concealed" unless your life is danger period!

 

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

[ruger9 0]

Well said.... Trying to scare someone off isnt the best idea and more than likely the next person who you see walking up the alley will be an LEO... They dont call it CCW for nothing. Keep it "concealed" unless your life is danger period!

 

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

 

Statistics have proven this wrong for decades. Every year, THOUSANDS of crimes are stopped by the mere brandishing of a firearm. Shots not even fired. Call me crazy, but I'd rather be involved in one of those instances than one where I shoot somebody. However- don't mistake my feelings on the matter for the unwillingness to shoot.

 

 

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2002/10/17/lottbrandish/

[Forddsl96 0]

 

Statistics have proven this wrong for decades. Every year, THOUSANDS of crimes are stopped by the mere brandishing of a firearm. Shots not even fired. Call me crazy, but I'd rather be involved in one of those instances than one where I shoot somebody. However- don't mistake my feelings on the matter for the unwillingness to shoot.

 

 

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2002/10/17/lottbrandish/

 

 

True.... I wont argue with you there... I may not have put my thoughts clear in black and white.. I guess I was referring to the people that find it humorous to show off or prove they have a gun on there person to make them feel important or "special"

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

[ruger9 0]

True.... I wont argue with you there... I may not have put my thoughts clear in black and white.. I guess I was referring to the people that find it humorous to show off or prove they have a gun on there person to make them feel important or "special"

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

 

yeah, that's foolish. I have never witnessed that in real life, guess I have only met responsible common-sense gun owners so far.

[johngo1 0]

Wow!! I can't believe this thread is still going based on my one question. Lots of good info and conversation.

[MikeK77 8]

Wow!! I can't believe this thread is still going based on my one question. Lots of good info and conversation.

 

My cat's breath smells like cat food.

[johngo1 0]

 

My cat's breath smells like cat food.

 

Another winner.

[bulpup 98]

I can't believe i am the inly one that sees it this way buy iy makes perfect sense to me.

 

If i saw someone near my generator or whatever and thought perhaps they would steal it I would be out side to see if my PRESENCE scared them off. In that case you get the "fight or flight" reaction. I want "flight" but showing my handgun is ready makes them think twice about "fight."

 

So i am not brandishing and threatening to kill someone over my property, I am convincing them that leaving is better than coming at me.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ruger9 0]

I can't believe i am the inly one that sees it this way buy iy makes perfect sense to me.

 

 

 

Dude! You're NOT the only one! Have you been following the thread?!?!

[bulpup 98]

 

Dude! You're NOT the only one! Have you been following the thread?!?!

 

Yes actually.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ruger9 0]

Yes actually.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Well then you know you're not the only one. Jeez, try to side with a guy...

[bulpup 98]

 

Well then you know you're not the only one. Jeez, try to side with a guy...

 

I think that we all agree in the end but I'm trying to point out a slight difference in the logic in how I got there.

 

I don't think a lot of people considered that it's not that you're protecting your property it's that you're protecting yourself while you're investigating a person on your own property. That person might be a criminal they might not be you don't want to be just calling the police on someone either.

 

i believe this is an important distinction.

 

It isn't threatening to kill someone over property, it is about protecting yourself while you're checking something out.

 

That Thief could well turn into your murderer if he feels he can get away with it.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk