Travel with guns

Just Jeff wrote:
Tampering with evidence at a crime scene seems like a bad idea - especially if that evidence is a human body.

Yea, but you can be sued for wronful death if you shot somebody outside your house in California. There was a true story about a bugular who fell through a skylight breaking in to a warehouse. He was not killed but hurt. He sued the owners of the building and won a judgemnent.

Ture story...happened in California.

In North Carolina, the law used to be that you could shoot someone breaking into your home b/c you could assume harmful intent, but once they were actually inside and you could see them clearly, the standard changed so that you could only use deadly force if they presented deadly force, just like out in the street. It was lunacy...and actually incentivized shooting someone through the door before you could clearly identify them.

That has since changed to a full Castle Doctrine.

There is no such law that says you can't shoot somebody in your yard. You have the right to self defense no matter where you are. The circumstances will dictate whether you can use self defense or not. But inside your house the rules of self defense change because it is presumed you have the right to fear for your life just based on the fact that the suspect broke into your house. Dragging a person into your house after shooting them in self defense in your yard, is a real good way to get yourself sent to prison. It would be so obvious that you did this it would put your claim of self defense in jeopardy.

LOL in Texas, we just shoot. In out or anywhere, just shoot.

Tampering with evidence at a crime scene seems like a bad idea - especially if that evidence is a human body.

msmith1199 wrote:

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.

You are misreading this article and are not correct on several counts. First of all lets start with the word homicide. Homicide is defined as the killing of one human being by another. So this article you posted in fact a homicide occurred. Every single time the police shoot and kill somebody it is a homicide. Every time the state executes somebody it is a homicide. People often get that word confused with murder. Homicide can be legal or illegal.

Now back to California. California is a home is your castle state. Meaning if somebody breaks into your home you have the right to "assume" they are there to do you harm and you can use deadly force against them. You do not have to prove anything beyond that inside your home. It is in the California constitution as it was a ballot measure passed by the voters.

So in this case it will be investigated as a homicide just like the article says and as long as all the evidence is just as reported in the article then the police agency will forward it to the DA who will review it and determine that the homicide was a justifiable homicide.

You simply can't let people kill other people without conducting an investigation to make sure all seems as it is.

Yes, you cannot shoot someone in your yard in California. I have had cops tells friends if you shoot them in your yard drag them in to your house!

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.

You are misreading this article and are not correct on several counts. First of all lets start with the word homicide. Homicide is defined as the killing of one human being by another. So this article you posted in fact a homicide occurred. Every single time the police shoot and kill somebody it is a homicide. Every time the state executes somebody it is a homicide. People often get that word confused with murder. Homicide can be legal or illegal.

Now back to California. California is a home is your castle state. Meaning if somebody breaks into your home you have the right to "assume" they are there to do you harm and you can use deadly force against them. You do not have to prove anything beyond that inside your home. It is in the California constitution as it was a ballot measure passed by the voters.

So in this case it will be investigated as a homicide just like the article says and as long as all the evidence is just as reported in the article then the police agency will forward it to the DA who will review it and determine that the homicide was a justifiable homicide.

You simply can't let people kill other people without conducting an investigation to make sure all seems as it is.

CKNSLS wrote:

TMcArthur wrote:
On the same subject, my hiking buddy and myself have talked recently about carrying our rifles (my shotgun or 30-30 and his AR) when we back-country hike. We have not been doing it yet, simply due to the weight of carrying them, but we both agree we should be carrying them in the back-country. We do not feel that need on the established well populated trails.

Ironically, I do not feel the need to carry either of those while in town, just the handgun. No false sense of security here :)

Why do both of you neede to be armed?

Because if you don't get the bear with the first shot then you shoot your buddy in the leg and take off running.

bigcitypopo wrote:
Better yet, I'd like one real person to tell me how not having a gun really drove home that they wished they had one......

It's better to have it and not need it, then to need it and not have it.

Ck... Are you native to Utah?

Here is a good question to ask people who don't think people need guns; Are you willing to put a sign on your motorhome and/or house advertising that you have no guns. Mostly will claim they will, but it's all talk because they won't do it.

CKNSLS wrote:

Just Jeff wrote:
Glad to help!

You can also ask them if they have a responsibility to protect their families and when they say yes, just ask them what tools they plan to use if a bad guy has a weapon. Most folks who don't carry say they'll just call the cops and wait. So ask them to look up what the LEO response times are for the areas they're commonly in. In many urban areas, they'll have about 5-7 minutes of praying the bad guy has a conscience...and 45 minutes or more in rural areas. And then look up how long violent crimes usually take from start to finish. Aside from rape, most are over well before 5-7 minutes.

IMO, leaving my family's safety in the hands of a bad guy is shirking my responsibility to them. There's nothing evolved about that. Failing to plan is planning to fail, and in a game where the first failure could be your last chance, the stakes are too high for me to take that risk.

And being in the RV doesn't change that, so I look for ways to ensure I can legally protect my family when I travel. Usually that's as simple as...
- Knowing whether the states have reciprocity with my CCW permit, and any differences in laws
- Knowing whether the state has a Castle Doctrine, and if so, whether that extends to vehicles
-- Even when it doesn't extend to standard vehicles, sometimes it extends to RVs (and even tents). This is when some laws can get complicated...as in the firearm can't be in the cab, or loaded while the vehicle is in motion, etc. This usually only matters when there's no reciprocity...otherwise, I'm legal to carry anyway.
- Knowing whether the state is Duty-to-Retreat

I also carry the lockbox in case I want to have a beer. :) Don't need a gun on me with alcohol in my system!

The first few are pretty easy...it's the RV specific ones that are sometimes a little harder to find, and sometimes open to a little more interpretation.

As I said, if all goes well I'll never need to find out exactly how those laws apply! :)

You can spin it any way that suits you fancy. My bottom line is I have traveled thru over half of the USA in the past 6 1/2 months and have NEVER needed a firearm, or NEVER NEEDED to call the police. The way some RVers talk about carrying makes one think there is a bad guy in every RV campground, rest area, gas station or truckstop looking to rob you of your possessions or harm your wife.

And I haven't run in to one of them. TOTAL TRIP-16,000 miles thus far. Includes both towing and non-towing miles.

The point being this is faulty logic. I spent 28 years as a cop and although I pointed my gun at lots of people never once did I fire it at a person. Using your logic I could have carried a fake gun all those years and been just fine. People don't need to carry a gun for protection from gun toting robbers that attack on a weekly basis. A gun for protection is for when you don't beat the odds and you being that 1 in a few thousand victim of a violent crime. You are far more likely to need a gun at some point in your life than you are to becoming a millionaire in the lottery, but people still buy lottery tickets.