We come across this sometimes on the various gun boards. 2A issues are looked at somewhat askew from those of us in the more restrictive states. Sometimes it's relatively innocuous, like forgetting that people in other states don't have to contend with bans on guns based solely on what's attached to them. Sometimes it's more insidious, like being opposed to open carry because it would involve a felony stop, SWAT team, and losing one's right to own a firearm forever...
It permeates the view on self-defense, with the added burden of knowing that, even in the most righteous shooting imaginable, the law-abiding gun owner who shoots another in self-defense is going to be in a world of trouble. Legal bills can easily run into the tens of thousands; civil suits even more - there's no "Castle Doctrine" in MA, that's for sure. Folks who plan drills to react to home invasion are sneered at derisively, as though it's any less likely to happen than a house fire.
There was something brought up that I hadn't considered, though. In states which severely restrict the practice of the Second Amendment, there's more of a "brotherhood" feeling to fellow gun owners. We don't tend to take our Second Amendment rights for granted, and we tend to be more likely to embrace our fellow gun owners. When I see a "SigSauer" sticker on the back of a car in a parking lot, I feel a tangible kinship with the person who owns that car. I can identify with the quiet defiance behind signalling one's affectation for things that go boom...
Besides, as I've mentioned before, this is my hobby; this is something I do because I enjoy it and it brings me pleasure. I derive countless hours of zen-like happiness from shooting, finding it relaxing and able to clear my mind of the day's worries. It's hard to be stressed out when shooting a large-bore handgun.
It also happens to be a hobby that could save my life. Coin collecting it ain't...
That is all.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Jay - although I don't think it is called the Castle Doctrine I do believe it is law that you don't have to leave your own house if you are under threat. You still can't just shoot someone until they are a threat to you or your family which is fine with me but you no longer have to run. . . .
Anyone from MA can back me up on this? I will have to go looking for the law. . ..
IIRC, the "Castle Doctrine" specifically protects the (righteous) shooter from civil lawsuits as well as criminal charges.
Also, while MA does in fact not have a "duty to retreat" as law; in practice I suspect you will find it's the norm.
IOW, if someone breaks in your house and you could get out, but choose to confront them instead, you're looking at a world of hurt...
I, obviously, don't know what or how you feel so comparisons are irrelevant, but I can say that those of us who don't live in the occupied territories also feel that kinship with other gunnies.
Whether met at the range, or a conversation started on the street about open carrying, seeing a sticker on a car or whatever. We automatically have something in common to relate with one another about.
Anyway, no real point to this other than to say that the kinship phenomena is not unique to totalitarian states. And we in the "other" states feel that same kinship, combined with a healthy dose of sympathy, toward you unfortunates as well.
Curt,
Oh, I know that kinship exists, please don't misunderstand me.
It's just a lot stronger here, IMHO.
We're a lot more likely to actually get excited about seeing a 2A-related sticker on someone's car - being that it's so rare.
I think it's along the lines of the "think how good it'll feel when it stops hurting" philosophy - when 9 out of 10 reactions to "I am a gun owner" are those of disbelief, distrust, hostility and outright hatred, that 1 out of 10 who's in it with you is like a ray of sunshine on a cloudy day...
I would hope it goes without saying that the vast majority of gunnies are salt-of-the-earth, decent, good people quick to lend a hand, help you out, and/or give you a turn with their cherished blastomatic if you show the tiniest bit of interest (I know I have!)...
Brotherhood? More of a secret society. Back in PRM we had a neighbor that had issues and reported to the police that my dad OWNED a gun. [owned, not brandished, displayed, threatened, discharged - just owned an inanimate object locked in a safe in a building over yonder]
That got 8 cruisers on the scene. They inspected, and drooled, on dad's Mk2, and a couple of the exGIs were fondling my M14NM (not M1A) for an inordinate amount of time...
They had no issues with us and said the neighbor was nuts. But that was still 8 cruisers for 2 hours, and they would have hung us if they could.
Gun ownership in PRM : Like walking into a store, hollering out to the clerk that you needed some extra heavy duty tampons AND I HAVE A COUPON then whisper very softly "and a box of 22 shorts please".
MA Castle Law - apparently covers "in the home" and not everywhere.
MGL278-8A
http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/278-8a.htm
######
PART IV. CRIMES, PUNISHMENTS AND PROCEEDINGSIN CRIMINAL CASES
TITLE II. PROCEEDINGS IN CRIMINAL CASES
CHAPTER 278. TRIALS AND PROCEEDINGS BEFORE JUDGMENT
Chapter 278: Section 8A. Killing or injuring a person unlawfully in a dwelling; defense
Section 8A. In the prosecution of a person who is an occupant of a dwelling charged with killing or injuring one who was unlawfully in said dwelling, it shall be a defense that the occupant was in his dwelling at the time of the offense and that he acted in the reasonable belief that the person unlawfully in said dwelling was about to inflict great bodily injury or death upon said occupant or upon another person lawfully in said dwelling, and that said occupant used reasonable means to defend himself or such other person lawfully in said dwelling. There shall be no duty on said occupant to retreat from such person unlawfully in said dwelling.
This,
In the prosecution of a person who is an occupant of a dwelling charged with killing or injuring one who was unlawfully in said dwelling, it shall be a defense that the occupant was in his dwelling at the time of the offense
is not a "Castle Doctrine" by any definition of the word. It is an affirmative defense to prosecution for manslaughter or murder. Under a Castle Doctrine, the home owner would not be arrested, charged, tried, or civilly liable for defending himself on his property.
The MA law is based on the presumption that YOU WILL BE CHARGED if you kill someone in self defense on your property. Which makes it a little bit of Napoleonic Law right here in the US.
Disgusting is what it is.
It's quite similar here in PRC - we're a secret society with our own handshake (trigger finger extended), and we find each other by flowers arranged on front yard to form 1911 :)
The sad thing is how little of the above is a joke
The MA Mindset of left liberal moobats is:
"Why would anyone ever have a gun ?"
They equate gun ownbership the same as if you had a criminal record. Jay helps me to not lose my mind for which I am eternally grateful.
Post a Comment