Travel with guns

Jerrybo66 wrote:
Before this subject gets zapped, as most all gun topics quickly do, I'd like to add my two cent opinion. If a RVer travels across this Country with a firearm in their coach or tow vehicle they will be breaking the law in a lot, if not most States. Even if one tries to observe the confusing State laws, there's always the Mickey Mouse City laws to deal with. There is absolutely NO WAY a person can travel State wide with a firearm legally, no matter how hard he tries. So my thought, why bother to even try to appease the irrational politicians? I don't tell anyone I am armed and I don't answer if someone asks. If some bad guy threatens the safety of my wife of over 55 years, the last concern I would have as I put him down, is if some law says it's OK or if I'm not allowed to protect myself or family. I carry concealed where ever I go. No,I am not paranoid, just cautious and aware of the shootings of the bad guys on the streets daily. My wife had her purse stolen at gun point at noon in front of a shopping center. Bad guys are bold and everywhere. I'll not be a victim no matter what big brother says. ... IMO...

I can travel in all 50 states with a loaded and concealed firearm and be completely legal. So there is a way it can be done.

Terryallan wrote:

Remember the police officer wouldn't be asking you, if he didn't need your permission to search! "The right to be free from unreasonable searches is one of America's most precious First Liberties."

Actually, that is not a true statement. As a retired cop I can tell you that we would almost always ask for permission even if we had probable cause. Even if I had a search warrant, I would often ask for permission. Why you may ask? Because if I have a search warrant and if I have consent two search then I have to completely different lawful reasons to search the vehicle. So when it comes time to go to court lets say for some reason there was an error on the search warrant and the judges rules the warrant invalid. Well that's fine because I also had consent to search so the search is still good.

Administrative searches are often done like this. For example the Game Warden shows up at your hunting camp. They have the administrative authority to search your camp without your permission (depending on a variety of factors) but they will generally always ask your permission. If permission is granted they then have two lawful reasons to search. If permission is not granted they search anyway under the administrative authority.

I don't think the idea of proportional response is ludicrous in and of itself. For example, I support the laws stating that if someone pushes me out on the street, I'm not justified in shooting them. Generally every state says I'm only justified in using deadly force (outside my home) if I'm confronted with what I perceive to be deadly force. (Obviously that perception is likely to be scrutinized afterwards.) I think that's a reasonable law.

In my home, the Colorado law actually states “any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant.”

That also sounds like a reasonable law to me since it's restricted to actions inside my home. It also sounds reasonable to me that Colorado extends this doctrine to include my vehicle, where I should have a reasonable expectation of safety, and the ability to protect myself from deadly force.

It also sounds reasonable to me to extend this doctrine to RVs, since it's my "home" for the time I'm in it. Even more so than a normal vehicle, it baffles me how some states do not extend the same protections I have in my home to my RV. My life is no less valuable and the potential threats are no less real just b/c this home has wheels.

But the idea of proportional response is ok with me outside the home as it prevents public gunfights over silly things.

"Duty to Retreat" inside the home, on the other hand, is absolutely ridiculous.

CKNSLS wrote:

brooks379 wrote:
I always have a firearm with me ! I might not walk into the café with it or I might not walk in and pay for fuel with it and I might not have it with me when I go to the store, but when I'm set up somewhere or boondocking I have it near by. I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6....

Statistically, you probably in more danger at those places you mentioned than boon docking.

True enough. I'm not worried about being armed at all times but I do have a firearm and carry it when I want to and have it nearby most of the time. 20 years ago in southern California I needed one and didn't have one and that wasn't a good feeling.

The very idea of proportional response is ludicrous. Some one attacks you, in your home while high on alcohol or whatever?
This is the idea in the bizzaro world, now in Britain.

TMcArthur wrote:
Very valid points Pat.

Ask my kid about the night we tried to picked the lock of an LAPD detective's house. :B

To all: It ain't what it sounds like. ;)

LS

Very valid points Pat.

TMcArthur wrote:
An example of a state that values a criminal life more than the law abiding people sleeping in their own home:
Ontario Resident Shoots, Kills Intruder. The suspect was shot and killed while attacking the resident’s sleeping son

In any other state, this would be a clear cut case of self defense. Not in California, where "The case will be investigated as a homicide". "The homeowner, the citizen, has to be able to articulate or apply the appropriate amount of force that was done against them,” Ontario Police Sgt. David McBride said.

So, in California, you cant shoot a criminal who is threatening to kill you until he kills you first. Or, in this case, you are only justified to shoot him AFTER he kills your son.
Do make sure you brush up on the laws before entering each state.

Tim,

It was a homicide; a human was killed. That's the way it works. They have to investigate it as such because there may have been previous contact between the individuals that could have lead to a less than friendly confrontation.

When I left CA, the right of self defense was still in effect and this case may well end up acknowledging that.

Pat

An example of a state that values a criminal life more than the law abiding people sleeping in their own home:
Ontario Resident Shoots, Kills Intruder. The suspect was shot and killed while attacking the resident’s sleeping son

In any other state, this would be a clear cut case of self defense. Not in California, where "The case will be investigated as a homicide". "The homeowner, the citizen, has to be able to articulate or apply the appropriate amount of force that was done against them,” Ontario Police Sgt. David McBride said.

So, in California, you cant shoot a criminal who is threatening to kill you until he kills you first. Or, in this case, you are only justified to shoot him AFTER he kills your son.
Do make sure you brush up on the laws before entering each state.

brooks379 wrote:
I always have a firearm with me ! I might not walk into the café with it or I might not walk in and pay for fuel with it and I might not have it with me when I go to the store, but when I'm set up somewhere or boondocking I have it near by. I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6....

Statistically, you probably in more danger at those places you mentioned than boon docking.