The right to fire warning shots

[terraformer]

Howdy all. I am on my way back from the Gun Rights Policy Conference held by our friends at the SAF in Balmy San Francisco. I will post a few more details of the meeting later today (been up for 24 hours and I have another 8 to go before I get home to sleep) or maybe this morning while I wait for my next flight.

But I wanted to post this little tidbit that I have been processing in my tiny little brain all night. Gene Hoffman of Cal Guns Foundation and Calguns.net publicly stated during his talk that they will be challenging CA's "brandishing laws"* as well as the "right to fire a warning shot" and yes, he used that term. He basically stated that it was absurd that in a confrontation you were basically pushed all in at the point you are forced to unholster and that the law should not bias against those who choose not to open fire or who fire warning shots.

Given the case in NY recently, this has some applicability elsewhere. Should we be fighting to protect our right to warn off attackers with a display of arms and to fire warning shots?

* quoted because I am not sure if it is statutory or constructive assault case law.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

...

 

[TheWookie]

A warning shot means you missed.

A warning shot could endanger bystanders.

A warning shot is a wasted bullet. Make each shot count.

The warning at my house is on the front porch. A replica peacemaker with the attached sign, "We don't call 911".

 

[Lignum Vitea]

It's hard to imagine every scenario that one would find the need to un-holster the weapon.

I would think the friendlier the laws are in this situation would be helpful.

That said, firing warning shots you are asking for trouble. If breaking leather presenting the muzzle at your life threat doesn't work only an idiot would shoot into the air.

 

[Jose]

A warning shot means you missed.

A warning shot could endanger bystanders.

A warning shot is a wasted bullet. Make each shot count.

This

I don't understand the mentality behind warning shots at all. They are irresponsible and chickenshit.

 

[fbirdquik6]

Carry an airhorn if you want to warn people.

 

[JimB]

in watching conceal and carry they do not encourage drawing you firearm

unless your confronted with a firearm. your in a walmart parking lot

and your gonna fire a warning shot, WHERE do you point...

 

[terraformer]

"We don't call 911".

My GF got me a refrigerator magnet of TX with that on it. People think twice about drinking my beer...

 

[Dziner]

I don't believe the warning shot is a good idea, too many things could go wrong. If you shoot it straight up in the air you it ends up hitting some poor girl sitting along a parade route a few blocks away watching the parade go by (I am pretty sure this happened not long ago). If you shoot near the BG but intentionally miss, do you truly know your "warning shot" target and whats beyond? I highly doubt it. Never shoot unless you have to. However, displaying the firearms to de-escalate a situation without having to fire makes sense. Some people feel "threatened" at different stages. The way the law is now it also sounds as though you do not have the right to draw unless the BG basically has a weapon trained on you and is ready to end you. Before you let the BG get the upper hand by having a weapon drawn first, displaying your firearm would put yourself in a better more defensible situation in my opinion. I'm not saying its alright to display a weapon when some guy 100 yds from you is yelling at you, but if the person begins angrily charging at you I feel this would be an acceptable time to display your means of protection while he still has the ability to choose to walk away. If the BG already has weapon drawn, you are betting on his lack of skill to protect you while you unholster and ready yourself.

 

[salesman]

I think we should have the right to do so. I also think that doing so is idiotic.

 

[Jose]

in watching conceal and carry they do not encourage drawing you firearm

unless your confronted with a firearm...

Then stop watching that stupid, ignorant show.

What are you going to do when three attackers say they want to kick your ass and have no visible weapons but start flanking you? Have you seen what repeated blows to the head from fists and boots do? Hint: they inflict severe bodily injury or death.

What are you going to do when someone pulls a knife on you? IDK about where you live, but where I live assault with a knife is assault with a deadly weapon because you will sustain severe bodily injury or death.

What are you going to do when one or more attackers have blunt impact weapons? Have you seen what a baseball bat does to bones? In my state broken bones and head trauma are severe bodily injury.

In my state any threat that has the means, opportunity, and intent to inflict severe bodily injury or death can be repelled with deadly force if attempts to de-escalate or escape do not work.

So guess what will do in the above situations?

 

[twogunwilly]

Two warning shots in the chest if my life is threatened. Why let some perp go on to do harm to someone else.

 

[Jose]

if the person begins angrily charging at you I feel this would be an acceptable time to display your means of protection while he still has the ability to choose to walk away.

Can you articulate what in this situation would put you in fear of death or severe injury?

ETA: Maybe you should become a little more observant of people so that you do not have to wait to see a weapon before you start moving up to condition orange. And maybe you should work on your draw so that you do not have to pull it out so early and pre-emptively. And maybe you should work on hand to hand skills so that your only response to an unarmed man charging you is not a gun.

 

[pipmaster1971]

I'll have to agree with most other posters here, firing warning shots is both dangerous and pointless. If you need to pull the trigger make every shot count. The idea that you can't even unholster your weapon does seem odd though. I think they just changed the law in NH to permit this.

 

[Jose]

The idea that you can't even unholster your weapon does seem odd though. I think they just changed the law in NH to permit this.

Why is a legal change even needed?

You reach a point where you reasonably believe that you are in danger of death or severe injury if you do not act. You draw down and the threat thinks better of it and leaves. You holster and call the cops.

The key in an instance where you draw when you had the right to but did not fire is to be the first to call the law and get your side of the story as the victim out first.

 

[Boston_Shooter]

3 warning shots...2 in the chest 1 in the head. I think it's a pretty fair warning to OTHER criminals who are thinking of trying some dumb $shit.

 

[FhvnLT4A]

In the words of the CO in my convoy security team... "Nighthawk elements DO NOT fire warning shots. Only well aimed killing shots will be taken." If it ain't good enough to do overseas where a misplaced round injuring or killing the enemy isn't good enough, why in gods green earth would the liberals here even CONSIDER anyone who did it here anything less than a killer?? The wookie hit it all on the head. Shoot to kill or dont shoot at all. SHOWING YOUR WEAPON and your willingness to use it on the other hand has been proven to be an effective deterrent, so long as the person doing so is willing to bring it to the next step in escalating force.

 

[terraformer]

Why is a legal change even needed?

You reach a point where you reasonably believe that you are in danger of death or severe injury if you do not act. You draw down and the threat thinks better of it and leaves. You holster and call the cops.

The key in an instance where you draw when you had the right to but did not fire is to be the first to call the law and get your side of the story as the victim out first.

Incidentally in MA, a "legal change" is not really needed as we have no brandishing law. But what we do have is really atrocious case law where men and women have been convicted of A&B w/ Deadly weapon for unholstering. Most famously the women out in the western part of the state. She dies of cancer penniless and broken before she was able to clear her good name.

 

[Jose]

Incidentally in MA, a "legal change" is not really needed as we have no brandishing law. But what we do have is really atrocious case law where men and women have been convicted of A&B w/ Deadly weapon for unholstering. Most famously the women out in the western part of the state. She dies of cancer penniless and broken before she was able to clear her good name.

Your state is f-ed up to a far deeper dimension than any place I have ever heard of or been to.

 

[terraformer]

Your state is f-ed up to a far deeper dimension than any place I have ever heard of or been to.

I talked with some californians who said their laws were the worst. I just simply said that when you a) can't understand your laws and b) when their state starts banning things without passing any actual law against it they can get back to me. That caused them to think a little bit.

 

[JackDaniels]

For all you freedom hating ma**h***s, its not about whether or not its a good idea. Its about whether it should be legal. Today, we live in a country where spineless liberal cowards draw up a law over everything that they feel is a bad idea. From riding a bike without a helmet to not owning health insurance. Someone else's gut feeling that something is a bad idea should, not be what determines what my law abiding activities are limited to. A warning shot in a safe and otherwise legal direction, should be legal. If you have the 500 ft. of space required around my house to do so, there should be nothing illegal about it, if you have reasonable fear that your life is in danger. Now, a warning shot in a tight neighborhood is a different legal issue, but it should not be made especially illegal because it was a "warning shot".

 

[Bill Nance]

It's precisely the situation Jose described that would make me pull the weapon out, though I might not immediately fire. It totally depends on the situation.

My pistol has left the holster exactly once. I had a gang-banger attempting to come up onto my Dad's property to assault someone he'd been chasing. (dad was inside calling the cops). I told him to stay off the property and he flipped me the bird and kept coming. I drew down on him and warned him again because I really did not want to shoot him. He stopped, no one got shot, the cops came and he went to jail for trespassing and assault.

I'm very glad I didn't HAVE to shoot the guy, but my finger was on the trigger and I was about to if he didn't stop. (In Washington you can use deadly force to prevent any felony upon a person and assault while trespassing at a residence is second-degree assault/felony).

There are many situations where you COULD legally shoot someone where simply having the firearm out will deter an attack. I have no desire to ever shoot anyone. If the weapon is displayed and that ends it, then that's a good thing AFAIC. As for a warning shot? No way. If that gun fires, someone is getting shot.

 

[dcmdon]

Howdy all. I am on my way back from the Gun Rights Policy Conference held by our friends at the SAF in Balmy San Francisco. I will post a few more details of the meeting later today (been up for 24 hours and I have another 8 to go before I get home to sleep) or maybe this morning while I wait for my next flight.

But I wanted to post this little tidbit that I have been processing in my tiny little brain all night. Gene Hoffman of Cal Guns Foundation and Calguns.net publicly stated during his talk that they will be challenging CA's "brandishing laws"* as well as the "right to fire a warning shot" and yes, he used that term. He basically stated that it was absurd that in a confrontation you were basically pushed all in at the point you are forced to unholster and that the law should not bias against those who choose not to open fire or who fire warning shots.

Given the case in NY recently, this has some applicability elsewhere. Should we be fighting to protect our right to warn off attackers with a display of arms and to fire warning shots?

* quoted because I am not sure if it is statutory or constructive assault case law.

Only an idiot fires warning shots.

Its very simple. You can only use deadly physical force (In CT, but I'm guessing MA and the rest of the northeast are the same) if you reasonably feel your life or someone else's life is threatened.

if you do not reasonably feel that your life or the life of someone else is not at imminent risk of "grave physical harm", you are not justified in presenting the weapon.
So if the threat does not rise to the standard to justify shooting the threat you have no reason to present the firearm.
If you do present the firearm on a less than deadly threat. You have just created a scenario where someone else is justified in shooting YOU. (You are now a deadly threat against the person who presented a less than deadly threat to you)

Its all just a cluster F*k of a quagmire.

Botom line, is you don't draw unless it is a deadly threat. If, upon seeing your firearm the threat IMMEDIATELY retreats, you stop. Otherwise you continue your smooth trigger squeeze.

The only exception to this is in your home. Shoot him in the back he is fleeing to another part of the home. There might be others and you need him out of action so that you can defend your family. If he's running out the door, the threat is gone and so is your justification to shoot.

This is all very very simple. Deadly threat = good shoot. no deadly threat=bad shoot

Finally, why on gods earth would you put innocents at risk by firing warning shots? I just don't get it.
If you are not comfortable with possibly having to take a life, you should not be carrying a firearm for defensive purposes. Seriously, think long and hard about it. Everybody should.

 

[Twigg]

Personally I see no reaason for a "warning shot". I can however, see a reason for presenting and not firing. If I draw and all I see is a**holes & elbows the threat is over and there is no need to fire. If I'm in the latter incident I want my sidearm out untill the threat has passed.

At least up here in NH they've done away with this "no brandishing" foolishness.

 

[strangenh]

Why is a legal change even needed?

You reach a point where you reasonably believe that you are in danger of death or severe injury if you do not act. You draw down and the threat thinks better of it and leaves. You holster and call the cops.

The key in an instance where you draw when you had the right to but did not fire is to be the first to call the law and get your side of the story as the victim out first.

Right.

The new NH law doesn't "permit it" really. It should be obvious that display of force is justified where its actual use is justified. What the new NH law does is to broadly insulate from prosecution the person who draws in self defense but does not fire, under the general justification for use of force section:

"A person who responds to a threat which would be considered by a reasonable person as likely to cause serious bodily injury or death to the person or to another by displaying a firearm or other means of self-defense with the intent to warn away the person making the threat shall not have committed a criminal act."​

The problem was that the justification section explicitly protected the person who in self-defense uses deadly force; not the one who just presents it. It was a potential hole an over-zealous prosecutor could run with. And now ... it isn't. That's NH for ya. Now we need a stand-your-ground law to get past the veto.

On the other issue: I agree with most posters here that warning shots really are a bad idea for many reasons, from defense tactics, to actual public safety. I guess I understand someone wanting to "legalize" them, but I think that effort in that direction is a Hollywood movie distraction that will undermine the real self-defense momentum. Almost makes me wonder if the person who suggested that is a closet anti?

 

[jasons]

Only an idiot fires warning shots.

Yeah, we know. You're missing the point.

....the law should not bias against those who choose not to open fire or who fire warning shots.

Dumb, yes, but it shouldn't be illegal.

 

[Jose]

I just simply said that when you a) can't understand your laws and b) when their state starts banning things without passing any actual law against it they can get back to me. That caused them to think a little bit.

Check mate

 

[stinx]

Im not wasting a round to do something I can simply do by opening my mouth and giving a clear and concise verbal command. In Ma if your warning shot hits an inncocent party you will be charged the same as if you ment to hit the person. As many others have said we own every round we fire from the moment it leaves the muzzle till its final resting place.

 

[atmay]

I'm going to go ahead in put myself in the "it's retarded but shouldn't be illegal" camp. Obviously, if you end up shooting someone random, there's got to be consequences, but in the very, very limited circumstances where a warning shot may be prudent and possible, why not?

 

[AntiHippie]

in watching conceal and carry they do not encourage drawing you firearm

unless your confronted with a firearm. your in a walmart parking lot

and your gonna fire a warning shot, WHERE do you point...

Anyone wondering where to 'point' when preparing to fire a warning shot in a Wal-Mart parking lot should be sure to carefully aim that warning shot such that it will pass through both of their testicles, thus avoiding any potential harm to innocent future generations.