Constitutional Carry or Stand your Ground Law ?

[Choid]

I think you're getting confused again. A better way to communicate what your position is would be to say a reasonable person or a person of ordinary intelligence, under the circumstances, would not be negligent or reckless in believing ...


The point being that while not being a completely objective standard, the "reasonable" portion of the "reasonable belief" standard is an attempt to add in some objectivity to the standard by asking what a reasonable person would believe under the circumstances or what a person of ordinary intelligence would believe under the circumstances.

I am, again, not confused. But thank you. You are making a distinction without a difference in trying to make some obscure point. I see that you keep googling definitions, but you seem to be unclear on the concept, even if you can recite the words. It seems to be a common problem with you and legal decisions, which is why you always seem to predict them incorrectly after making lofty proclamations. Anyway, this is getting boring.

This is exactly what is wrong with what I would call judicial fiat and any non-textual method of statutory interpretation.

It leads to people thinking it is an intelligent and valid thing to say that a reasonable belief is a belief that is not unreasonable LOL. Completely circular logic and meaningless word soup.

It creates a don't believe your lying eyes method of interpreting statutes and the law is what I say it is round of never ending circular arguments.

Again, you get things wrong because you are overly reductive in understanding textual interpretation. It certainly isn't the kind of textualism of a Scalia or Bork, it is one devoid of understanding any precedent, as opposed to one that is not unduly constrained by it. How did they let you through law school?

 

[TurboTrout]

Especially these days, I don’t offer compromises when it comes to my rights.

Also if you break into someones home, you have already chosen forfeit your life. Don’t want to get killed, don’t break into homes or go around victimizing folks, it’s not rocket surgery.

“Laws” that don’t respect the above are exactly what jury nullification is for, and why you’re a damn fool if you try to get out of jury duty.

 

[S197]

I got into a lengthy discussion with a friend of mine today that turned into a shit storm of back and forth concerning Constitutonal Carry being poised as useless among a myriad of reasons; one being “just because everyone in a constitutional state can carry doesn’t mean they are allowed to use their gun to protect themselves legally, but the Stand Your ground law is a much more important law to lawful gun owning citizens than constitutional carry, as it protects the individual far more than constitutional carry does.

I was asked, hypothetically, if given the choice between the two which would be the wisest decision for a state to pass if it can not have both(obviously I believe In shall not be infringed but we all see how that’s going) I am slightly embarrassed that I’m not sure I can come to a conclusion of which is the best of the two.
Well, hope I don’t come across as being an ignorant tool on the subject, but I wouldn’t be asking if I wasn’t.


Looking up states; 13 states have Constitutional Carry, and 25 states have Stand your ground law. Not all states that have Constitutional carry also have stand your ground and vice versa.

TLDR; which law gives more protection to our second amendment rights and which would you choose if you hypothetically had to choose one.

It really depends on the city, county, state that you live in, the jurors that get picked and a good lawyer. But if there could only be one, then it would be stand your ground. Stand your ground will give you the best protection in court.

 

[Choid]

A lot of your confusion seems to be that it seems that you (from your comment earlier that the only difference between OK and MT is that in OK it would be justified to shoot an intruder that unlawfully and forcibly entered to steal a TV is that in OK it would be justified when the intruder is leaving) confuse the history and case law of “use of force” subsection in the MT statute with the language for “use of force likely to cause death” subsection of the statute. The plain language clearly requires a reasonable belief of violence or threat of violence for shooting. The MT pattern jury instructions on these issues are attached to illustrate the above point. By not understanding that the statute has separate subsections, you think that complex methods of statutory interpretation are needed where in reality the plain language is sufficiently clear.

You’re trying to make easy to understand language of the statute much more complicated than it needs to be by conflating two different subsections of a statute.

View attachment 7573587

View attachment 7573588

You still seem to be misunderstanding. Your problem is that you believe you can divine meaning from words without context, which is, again, why you get all legal analysis wrong. You believe it is the only way to do it. Let me help you out, since you seem so fucking determined to be wrong again. Montana allows for lethal force if there is a reasonable expectation of forcible felony. It also defines forcible felony in a way you are trying to make overly small. Luckily for us, it also gives a partial list of forcible felonies in section 45-5-102, which deals with concurrent crimes and homocide:

(b) the person attempts to commit, commits, or is legally accountable for the attempt or commission of robbery, sexual intercourse without consent, arson, burglary, kidnapping, aggravated kidnapping, felonious escape, assault with a weapon, aggravated assault, or any other forcible felony and in the course of the forcible felony or flight thereafter, the person or any person legally accountable for the crime causes the death of another human being; or

Mont. Code § 45-5-102

Since you are so good with plain English, you might notice that Burglary is listed in a list of forcible felonies. It is in nearly every other state as well, especially hot prowl burglary. Do you need the plain English definition of burglary, because it means entering an occupied structure in order to commit a crime. Now that you know this, can we please move on from this stupidity?

 

[Choid]

Your position didn’t work out very well in the Missoula case where the guy shot the burglar who stole the purse. Still serving 70 years on that one and the defense position was what you just stated and was convicted anyway.

When asked why he was prosecuting; the prosecutor stated, that’s just the way the statute reads.

Well, there was the whole baiting the guy in thing. At this point you look like a fool, but from what I can tell, you are used to that.

 

[Rthur]

By the disagreement here one would think the law was purposely written to be confusing.
I wonder why they would do that?...

R

 

[Howland]

Whether anyone has gone to law school or not is completely irrelevant. Statutes should be easily understood by anyone with tenth grade education. If anything, that someone would need to go to law school to understand the text of a statute is a sign that something has gone very far off the rails.

There is something wrong if you think that the words: ""Forcible felony" means any felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual" .... are hard to understand and would involve complex statutory construction to understand the meaning of the statute.

The words are plain and unambiguous and speak for themselves. No other manner of interpretation is needed. Anyone of ordinary intelligence understands what violence or physical force is.

And, no the only thing I have googled is Montana's and Oklahoma's statutes. Everything else is very basic 8th grade civics or should be at least.

This! To much mischief is done by judges who, not liking what the legislatures have passed into law, declare that the law actually means something other than what it says. This is not judicial error. This is judicial malfeasance. Laws mean exactly what they say. Nothing more, nothing less.

To OP's original question regarding Constitutional Carry, any federal or state statutes that criminalize acts explicitly declared to be rights by the highest law of the land are repugnant to the Constitution.

Regarding Stand Your Ground, the right to life is meaningless without the right to defend your life and the right to defend yourself is meaningless if you are deprived of the means to defend yourself. Laws that impose a duty to retreat have the effect of declaring that you have no right to self defense and impose an obligation to surrender your property upon demand of anyone who threatens you and put yourself at their mercy when they may have none. One issue of the FBI's annual Uniform Crime Report finds that intended victims of violent felonies who use a firearm to defend themselves suffer fewer injuries than victims who comply with their attacker's demands.

The question is a false binary. I choose both.

 

[Choid]

You are getting pretty stalker-ish dude.

 

[Choid]

Again, stalkerish and weird, but also arrogating to me arguments I've never presented and positions I've never taken. Slither away, weirdo.

 

[Choid]

The weirdo definitely wouldn’t be the person that refers to themself as a short disproportionate dick lol

Oh man, you are savage, and original. FYI, you are referring to a choad, which is taken from Spanish. Keep on stalking.

 

[TurboTrout]

Your position didn’t work out very well in the Missoula case where the guy shot the burglar who stole the purse. Still serving 70 years on that one and the defense position was what you just stated and was convicted anyway.

When asked why he was prosecuting; the prosecutor stated, that’s just the way the statute reads.

The prosecutors argued that even though the defending home owner’s home was being burglarized, he did not fear for his safety. The case still hasn’t been successfully appealed and the 70 year sentence is still in effect.

What a joke the system is. Dude probably wishes he just SSSed it at this point. It’s like when people try to be honest and do the right thing they get tossed under a parade of busses, where as criminality is rewarded, all aboard the clown world train [honk honk]