TexasCHLforum.com

Flatland2D wrote:

txinvestigator wrote:Your comparisons are invalid. A kleenex and tissue ARE the same thing. One is a particular brand, the other describes the object. You would not say Kleenex if you meant a paper towel. Similar, but different.

It's not an invalid comparison. It doesn't matter if one is a brand and the other is not, it's incorrect terminology none-the-less. You are adamently refusing to see my point.

Because you have no point. We are not discussing brands in reference to the AK.

txinvestigator wrote: An AK47 is a fully automatic weapon. You don't have one of those.

Please quote me when I said I had a fully automatic weapon.

OK

flatland2d wrote:I take my handgun and AK-47 over to the window and shine my 1,000,000 candela spotlight out the window and see someone trying to break into or already inside of my car.

An AK 47 is a fully automatic (actually select fire) weapon.

txinvestigator wrote: I suspect you use terms like AK47 to impress, since you are so insistent that you know the difference. To those who know, it is simply borish. Using phrases like "paint him with a laser" make you sound like an armchair commando.

I can almost see up your nose you have stuck up so high. I all honesty, I use the term AK-47 because a heck of a lot more people can relate to that than a SAR-1. I've never lead anyone to believe I have the real deal. Sorry for not cleaning up my vocabulary before presenting to the knowledge of everyone here.

You pressed the issue. I tried to be polite, you would not allow it. Whatever your reason for using the wrong term, it causes doubt as to your credibility.

txinvestigator wrote: Regarding my comprisons of the car and boat, you didn't call me on anything. Both are vehicles, just as an AK and its semi-auto clones are rifles.

No, a fair comparison would be a Lamborghini to a Lamborghini kit car. One is the real deal and the other is just a clone of it. Boats and cars? I don't think so.

Calling a snake a lizard over and over does not make the snake a lizard.

txinvestigator wrote: But a car and boat are not the same, and an AK is not an WSAR1

What's a WSAR1? I didn't know they make those. SAR-1's and WASR-10's they do make.

Of course.

Your comparisons are invalid. A kleenex and tissue ARE the same thing. One is a particular brand, the other describes the object. You would not say Kleenex if you meant a paper towel. Similar, but different.

An AK47 is a fully automatic weapon. You don't have one of those. Its like telling you to xerox something when I really want it faxed. Similar, but different functions.

I suspect you use terms like AK47 to impress, since you are so insistent that you know the difference. To those who know, it is simply borish. Using phrases like "paint him with a laser" make you sound like an armchair commando.

Regarding my comprisons of the car and boat, you didn't call me on anything. Both are vehicles, just as an AK and its semi-auto clones are rifles. But a car and boat are not the same, and an AK is not an WSAR1.

I agree with Jim. Words have meaning, and just because a person is too uneducated, lazy or unable to control himself is no valid excuse to use incorrect terminology.

A clip is NOT a magazine, anymore than a boat is a car. Although both the boat and the car have motors and steering gear and can transport people long distances does not mean they are the same and have interchangeable names.

Among novices and uneducated it is not so bad to use the wrong terminology; however, among those who claim to be knowledgeable using the correct terms shows that you really do know what you are talking about.

regarding manual safeties...

On a 1911 it is a must. On Others it is optional, but it is critical for you to practice at the range the same way you carry.

Flatland2D wrote:

txinvestigator wrote: Have you decided what and how to carry?

Steyr M9 (about the size of a Glock 19) and I'll probably be ordering a Smart Carry in the next few days so I can try and get used to wearing it around the apartment before I venture outside when my license arrives. Maybe an IWB holster also to compare with the Smart Carry. I may end up preferring one or the other for certain kinds of clothing or activities. Only one way to find out.

The M9 is a really fine weapon. We have sold several at the range. I like the feel, trigger and especially the sights.

Flatland2D wrote:

txinvestigator wrote: That is a huge difference. You do not have an AK47. The general public (non-knowledgeable about firearms) think AK47 = full auto. Let not those of us who should know better perpetuate that myth. ;)

Didn't mean to perpetuate a myth, but I think everyone here would agree the "general public" does not view this forum. Many things said in general firearms discussion would have to be claried to someone ignorant of the field.

OK. I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but if we are suppose to be more knowledgeable I think we would use terms that are more accurate. I don't call my AR 15 an M16. ;)

txinvestigator wrote: You have been watching too much TV I think. There is no evidence of that, and I certainly would not count on it.

Most likely. However, I do not feel the need to stick with such a strict vocabulary under every circumstance and may sometimes throw in a word like "paint" in reference to the red dot of a laser. For the same reasons shining a gazillion power spotlight on someone would cause them to stop or flee, don't you think the laser would have the same effect? I should have added "flee" when I talked about shining a laser on someone, not just freeze.

I do not think shining a laser on someone would have the same effect, nor necessarily any effect.

txinvestigator wrote:Under the law, the justifications are the same. Your "territority" is not defensable under chapter 9.

But under the law, isn't armed breaking and entering of a home much worse than attempted burglary of a vehicle (not talking PC9 here)? Again, scratch out my use of territory and insert "property".

I see your point. Burglary of a residence is a higher classified crime in the TPC than Burglay of a vehicle.

txinvestigator wrote: I don't think your question is ignorant at all, and I certainly am not chastising you. I tend to post rather matter-of-factly, but seldom is there any emotion attached.

I do think that your instructor short-changed you in that answer. If you presented this scenario, he had an excellent opportunity to show your class how the specific wording of the law can apply to different situations.

I do wish the instructor would have gone into greater detail. To his credit, he says he normally teaches a 2 day, 15 hour course, so he had to speed it up a little. I did have some misconceptions coming out of that class that I had clarified on here in my other thread. Just goes to show taking the class doesn't make you an expert. The way I figure is I have at least a full 60 days to educate myself on the consequences, good and bad, of carrying concealed.

Good and responsible thinking on your part!!

Have you decided what and how to carry?

Kalrog wrote:

txinvestigator wrote: Where is the spout for those Kegs?

Open container law - no spout in the car officer.

Then how do you get the beer out?

Flatland2D wrote:

txinvestigator wrote:How did you obtain an AK47?

Where else but the gun show? Sorry, what I meant to say was my Romanian Semi-Automatic Rifle model 1, which to most people in the gun world, would readily be accepted under the term AK-47 as all it's other variants. The major difference being not having a selectable rate of fire as on the original.

That is a huge difference. You do not have an AK47. The general public (non-knowledgeable about firearms) think AK47 = full auto. Let not those of us who should know better perpetuate that myth. ;)

txinvestigator wrote:Oh boy....... Shooting to kill displays a mental state that you intended to kill the other. That is murder. Texas laws do not allow that. It allows you to use deadly force to STOP certain events, and the culpability is different. Deadly force is used to stop an act that is listed under Chapter 9 of the Texas Penal Code when the justification is present.

This just sounds like word games to me. Yes, PC9 gives you justification to use deadly force to stop someone in certain circumstances. I used the word "kill" when legally I meant "stop". But, what do you think you're doing when you "stop" someone by firing two shots to the chest and one to the head (I'm sure everyone here practices drills like that, correct?). You most likely killed them. In this instance, the difference between stop and kill is a mute point to me. The only difference being the legal definitions of the two words.

Words have meaning, and in this type of situation, legal meanings are the only ones that matter. And 2/1 drills are only applicable in a narrow set of circumstances. 85% of people shot with handguns survive, so in all likelyhood your criminal will survive a handgun shot.

txinvestigator wrote:Paint them with a laser?

I'm sure you're familiar with gun related colloquialisms to know what I mean. "Shine" a laser on someone in the middle of the night and they will most likely freeze.

You have been watching too much TV I think. There is no evidence of that, and I certainly would not count on it.

txinvestigator wrote:As a Use of Force instructor I am cringing reading your continued use of he "shoot to kill" phrase. See my comments above. The Penal Code does not allow deadly force because something is "personal"

Sorry again for making you cringe. I will shoot to stop. Whether or not that kills will be determined at bullet impact. I never said I would shoot for personal reasons, but an armed home invasion is a much greater offense than say attempted burglary of a vehicle. The law allows you more "justification" in protecting your personal territory. This is the manner in which I meant my statement.

Under the law, the justifications are the same. Your "territority" is not defensable under chapter 9.

txinvestigator wrote: Again, use of force is a defense to prosecution. In your scenario, with no evidence or even with just some evidence, you would likely have your firearm taken and you would be charged. A defense to prosecution means you have to prove beyone a reasonable doubt that you met the justification. The police do not take well to people firing guns in public areas. And remember, as you set up the scenario the guy ran off, so the police have no way of verifying your story.

Thank you. This was the response that I was looking for. How could I prove that the event even happened except for maybe a broken window, or pried open door, which could have been like that to begin with? Without anything significant the cops would have no reason to believe me, so it sounds like from what you're saying they wouldn't cut me any slack. Understood.

You are welcome.

txinvestigator wrote: No, warning shots are not acceptable, and it would certainly be more than frowned upon by the cops.

Again, this was the information I was looking for. Thanks for posting it.[/quote

txinvestigator wrote: May I suggest that you take a concealed handgun course? Even if you are under 21 or have no desire to carry concealed, these issues are covered thoroughly in the class. The information and training will serve you well.

I'm sure it'll come as a surprise to you then to hear that I have recently just completed a CHL class. I asked the "warning shot" question in class and the only response I got from the instructor was "if you have the justification to use deadly force, you have the justification threaten deadly force." He didn't chastise me for asking an ignorant question or elaborate any further. I thought it would have been ok to have this better explained on this forum.

Thanks for the encouragement stevie.

Sorry to ruffle anyone's feathers over this. I didn't mean to cause any trouble. I figured it'd be best to have things explained rather than still be confused. In conclusion, I will not fire any warning shots and will shoot to "stop" in life-threatening situations or not shoot at all.

I don't think your question is ignorant at all, and I certainly am not chastising you. I tend to post rather matter-of-factly, but seldom is there any emotion attached.

I do think that your instructor short-changed you in that answer. If you presented this scenario, he had an excellent opportunity to show your class how the specific wording of the law can apply to different situations.

da.suxor wrote:



I would never kill over it.

Where is the spout for those Kegs?

Flatland2D wrote:
I take my handgun and AK-47 over to the window and shine my 1,000,000 candela spotlight out the window and see someone trying to break into or already inside of my car.

How did you obtain an AK47?

At this point I would have the right to use deadly force,

Lets stop there for a minute. There is no "right" in Texas to use deadly force. The justifications for using deadly force are a "defense to prosecution" and you are subject to prosecution for ANY use of deadly force.

There is NO blanket authorization for the use of deadly force. In your scenario, you MIGHT (and I strongly emphasize the word "might") be justified if you reasonably believe it is immediately necessary to use deadly force to prevent the imminent commission of theft during the nighttime.

but what would you guys think about firing a warning shot into the ground to scare them off?

So you shine a gazillion powered spotlight at them and they don't stop or flee? As the others wrote, you should never fire warning shots.

Since I'd already have my gun on target, I could fire another shot to kill if I see them grab for a weapon way before they could pull the trigger.

Oh boy....... Shooting to kill displays a mental state that you intended to kill the other. That is murder. Texas laws do not allow that. It allows you to use deadly force to STOP certain events, and the culpability is different. Deadly force is used to stop an act that is listed under Chapter 9 of the Texas Penal Code when the justification is present.

Or, would you just paint them with a red laser and tell them to stop, or something to that effect?

Paint them with a laser?

I most likely would decide not to kill in this circumstance since my life was not in danger. How would you guys handle a situation like this? Home invasion I may be a little more likely to shoot to kill no matter what, although it sounds like most of those guys are armed anyway. That's much more personal than breaking into my car and the potential for damage they could cause is much higher.

As a Use of Force instructor I am cringing reading your continued use of he "shoot to kill" phrase. See my comments above. The Penal Code does not allow deadly force because something is "personal"

Am I correct in assuming you are much more likely to be "no billed" for using deadly force in a home invasion vs. protecting my car or some other property?

Generally I would agree with that.

Just a little hypothetical situation here. Say I fired a warning shot into the ground and the guy ran off. Since I live in an apartment there would be a good number of people calling the police hearing a shot fired. I know this sounds stupid, but even though it's illegal to discharge a firearm in city limits, I wouldn't be issued a fine for doing so (even though I was not even aiming at the criminal)?

Again, use of force is a defense to prosecution. In your scenario, with no evidence or even with just some evidence, you would likely have your firearm taken and you would be charged. A defense to prosecution means you have to prove beyone a reasonable doubt that you met the justification. The police do not take well to people firing guns in public areas. And remember, as you set up the scenario the guy ran off, so the police have no way of verifying your story.

Since I had the right to use deadly force, I also had the right to threaten deadly force, which would trump not being allowed to shoot inside city limits, right?

Nope. Again, there is no "right" to deadly force. And yes, if you are justified in using deadly you are justified in threatening to use it; however, shooting near a person is more than mere threatening.

It's sort of like you're allowed to have your gun unconcealed if you are justified in using deadly force at the time you pull it out? I guess I'm wondering if a warning shot is an accectable and understood method of threatening deadly force, or would that be frowned upon by the cops? Sorry for the silly question, but shooting my gun would cause a big situation at my complex.

No, warning shots are not acceptable, and it would certainly be more than frowned upon by the cops.

May I suggest that you take a concealed handgun course? Even if you are under 21 or have no desire to carry concealed, these issues are covered thoroughly in the class. The information and training will serve you well.