Concealed Handgun License

I was stopped for speeding over the weekend, around midnight. (68 in a 60) The trooper approached the passenger side window and was shining his flashlight all around the interior. I had both hands on the wheel holding my license and insurance card and slowly moved my left hand to lower the passenger side window.

"Hello! I've got a favor to ask. I hope you don't treat this as a felony stop. I'm not moving either of my hands but I wanted to let you know that I keep two handguns right next to me and I didn't want you to get too excited."

He moved the light so he could see them, then shined the light on my face, blinding me, then moved it again. "I'll make you a deal. If you don't go for yours I won't go for mine." And to cap it off he let me off with a warning for speeding.
 
DavidWhite said:
So what do the english do if they cant defend themselves? Hide under the bed and hold a picture of the queen? Serious question here.
Click to expand...

To answer that question would lead the discussion to Spin Zone. Post the question there if you want answers.
 
DavidWhite said:
So what do the english do if they cant defend themselves? Hide under the bed and hold a picture of the queen? Serious question here.
Click to expand...

It's not that they can't defend themselves. It's that they can't defend themselves with illegal weapons.

If someone breaks into my house, and I blow them away with an AA-12, I suspect I'll take some heat for it, because I am not licensed to carry an AA-12.

To answer your question, they could use a baseball bat (or a cricket bat), they could install an alarm, they could have a crowbar of their own. There are a host of ways to defend yourself without using a shotgun.
 
I'm pretty sure shotguns are legal in england, especially on farms.
 
Steve Foley said:
It's not that they can't defend themselves. It's that they can't defend themselves with illegal weapons.
Click to expand...

Currently illegal weapons include ANY firearms, and knives.


If someone breaks into my house, and I blow them away with an AA-12, I suspect I'll take some heat for it, because I am not licensed to carry an AA-12.
Click to expand...

What is an AA-12?


To answer your question, they could use a baseball bat (or a cricket bat), they could install an alarm, they could have a crowbar of their own. There are a host of ways to defend yourself without using a shotgun.
Click to expand...

There are discussion currenty going on in the UK about the legality of bats for self defense. Alarms can be defeated, and don't "defend" just alert.

I'm not too sure if Grandma, or Grandpa or many adults for that matter could successfully defend themselves against young, sometimes hopped up multiple assailants with lethal weapons including guns, knives, or crow bars, because the criminals don't typically limit the kind of weapon they use. Do you?
 
In the english case, I don't think it was a question of the weapon used, it was more about the use of deadly force against a burgular. I'd bet the result would have been similar if he'd used a bow, or a bat, or any other weapon and killed the intruder.

Don't agree with the outcome, but I don't think it was about "guns" as much as it was about "force".

Personally, I think the force continuum gets drastically shorter when someone enters your dwelling without authorization. If the intruder exhibits any hostility mine gets shortened to "Leave, or Die".
 
Steve Foley said:
, they could use a baseball bat (or a cricket bat), they could install an alarm, they could have a crowbar of their own. There are a host of ways to defend yourself without using a shotgun.
Click to expand...

True but nothing beats the stopping power of a shotgun. Also, if you have a bat or crowbar, that is essentially hand to hand combat. I'm on the smaller side 5'10 and 140lbs. If two big guys break into my house and I come at them with a bat, I probably won't win that one.

I guess I could learn to throw tomahawks.

Finally, if someone breaks into your house, its reasonable to assume they are armed. Maybe not with a gun, but you don't go breaking into people's homes unarmed.

Thank god I don't live there.
 
Last edited:
We left England, Europe, and other countries, and wrote a Constitution for a reason. Personal self defense, and the freedom from harm was one of them. I will leave it at that.
 
Steve Foley said:
It's not that they can't defend themselves. It's that they can't defend themselves with illegal weapons.


To answer your question, they could use a baseball bat (or a cricket bat), they could install an alarm, they could have a crowbar of their own. There are a host of ways to defend yourself without using a shotgun.
Click to expand...


Sure, because apparently people think firearms are evil and are never appropriate for use in self-defense.

There may be a host of ways to defend yourself without using a shotgun, but d*** few more effective methods.
 
Cool! Thanks Steve.

Yes for anything fully automatic you've got to jump through a lot of legal NFA hoops, and pay the $200 tax stamp per weapon. With the ban of newly imported or made fully auto weapons and the least expensive starting at over $20K, they have been effectively made unobtainable unless you're a criminal, and convert or steal one. Often our media, and politicos confuse semi-auto with full auto. Big difference.
 
dell30rb said:
Finally, if someone breaks into your house, its reasonable to assume they are armed. Maybe not with a gun, but you don't go breaking into people's homes unarmed.
Click to expand...

In a stroke of magic, BJS increased the number of 'burglaries while armed' a couple of years ago. Before that, if a violent crime happened inside of a home and the perpetrator was not authorized to be in that home, it was counted as whatever the violent crime was (assault/rape etc.). Now, anytime a home is entered, it is counted as 'burglary'. Leads to some interesting statistical quirks, e.g. a sizeable percentage of 'burglars' entering the property with a key, a large percentage of perpetrator/victim combinations in being former intimate partners and an elevated risk of suffering a home invasion if you are alaskan native.
The resulting statistics are imho suspect and unless someone ferrets out the domestic violence and regional contamination near useless.
 
DavidWhite said:
So what do the english do if they cant defend themselves? Hide under the bed and hold a picture of the queen? Serious question here.
Click to expand...

Steve Foley said:
It's not that they can't defend themselves. It's that they can't defend themselves with illegal weapons.
Click to expand...

This is my basic understanding of the law; I am neither lawyer nor barrister, so take it with a grain of salt. Hopefully this isn't too Spin Zone-ish.

In English law you have a "duty to retreat" and your act of self-defense must be "reasonable". In other words if there is a way to escape the situation you must attempt to do so and preemptive action is generally frowned upon and often prosecuted(as in the Tony Martin case).

So let's take a hypothetical situation... my wife and I sleep in an upstairs bedroom and hear an intruder enter the house. I grab my legal firearm and head for the single staircase. At the bottom of the stairs stands the intruder with what looks like a weapon. Fearing for my family's life, I shoot him.

In Tennessee or any other US State with castle law, this is a pretty open and shut non-case from a criminal standpoint (though I'd be open to civil litigation I suppose). In England (and, to a lesser extent, states without castle law like New York) my actions are entirely open to interpretation by the prosecutor. In England I will almost certainly be sued by the offender or his family as well. In a trial it will be up to a jury to decide if I had other escape options I could have chosen, or if I should have barricaded my wife and I in the bedroom instead of trying to go downstairs towards the exit. If they decide I had other options and should have used them, it is likely I will face jail time. Then the prosecutor will argue that the intruder did not pose a significant enough threat to justify the level of force which I used. The prosecutor will spend days arguing that my decisions, which were made in seconds based on scant information at hand, were wrong and that I am a menace to society worthy of jail time. If the jury decides I acted reasonably and with no other real options I may escape jail time.

Under "castle doctrine" the property owner gets the benefit of the doubt, whereas in the English system that seems to go to the intruder. I'll be happy to be corrected if I'm wrong.
 
Many U.S. state Castle Doctrine laws include a waiver from a civil suit by the intruder or their heirs. Check your state law carefully.
 
Andrew Sego said:
This is my basic understanding of the law; I am neither lawyer nor barrister, so take it with a grain of salt. Hopefully this isn't too Spin Zone-ish.

In English law you have a "duty to retreat" and your act of self-defense must be "reasonable". In other words if there is a way to escape the situation you must attempt to do so and preemptive action is generally frowned upon and often prosecuted(as in the Tony Martin case).

So let's take a hypothetical situation... my wife and I sleep in an upstairs bedroom and hear an intruder enter the house. I grab my legal firearm and head for the single staircase. At the bottom of the stairs stands the intruder with what looks like a weapon. Fearing for my family's life, I shoot him.

In Tennessee or any other US State with castle law, this is a pretty open and shut non-case from a criminal standpoint (though I'd be open to civil litigation I suppose). In England (and, to a lesser extent, states without castle law like New York) my actions are entirely open to interpretation by the prosecutor. In England I will almost certainly be sued by the offender or his family as well. In a trial it will be up to a jury to decide if I had other escape options I could have chosen, or if I should have barricaded my wife and I in the bedroom instead of trying to go downstairs towards the exit. If they decide I had other options and should have used them, it is likely I will face jail time. Then the prosecutor will argue that the intruder did not pose a significant enough threat to justify the level of force which I used. The prosecutor will spend days arguing that my decisions, which were made in seconds based on scant information at hand, were wrong and that I am a menace to society worthy of jail time. If the jury decides I acted reasonably and with no other real options I may escape jail time.

Under "castle doctrine" the property owner gets the benefit of the doubt, whereas in the English system that seems to go to the intruder. I'll be happy to be corrected if I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

You're generally correct. Generally US law is closer to Castle doctrine than English Law, although it varies a bit. In most US locations retreating to a safe location in your house (like the bedroom) and calling law enforcement is required, and you can use deadly force in your home if you've retreated that far and are pursued - you're not required to risk jumping out a window or climbing on your garage roof, for instance (where you might be in England).

Castle doctrine removes the requirement to flee in your own home. While you'd likely still be in trouble if you shot someone simply for entering your home, as long as you can reasonably articulate a threat you're covered. And many Castle states are adding protection from civil liability as well. If the DA calls the shoot legal, you're done and can't be sued.
 
Anthony said:
Many U.S. state Castle Doctrine laws include a waiver from a civil suit by the intruder or their heirs. Check your state law carefully.
Click to expand...

Doesn't mean you can't be sued. Just gives you and your insurer a strong tool to get the suit dismissed early on. Even then its not over yet as such a dismissal can be appealed (as happened in WI 2-3 years ago).
 
TMetzinger said:
Castle doctrine removes the requirement to flee in your own home. While you'd likely still be in trouble if you shot someone simply for entering your home, as long as you can reasonably articulate a threat you're covered. And many Castle states are adding protection from civil liability as well. If the DA calls the shoot legal, you're done and can't be sued.
Click to expand...

Interestingly, Tennessee law (HB 1907) allows an individual to use deadly force to protect him or herself wherever they have a legal right to be. The bill also provides civil immunity for those who defend themselves from criminal attack.

The Tennessee law absolutely DOES NOT protect you from being sued or held criminally liable for collateral damage to persons or properties, something that was pounded into us pretty hard at the CCW course. I can't see a lot of situations where I'd draw a gun in a crowded place.

Here's the actual Tennessee law, since I find it interesting:
39-11-622. Justification for use of force — Exceptions — Immunity from civil liability.

(a) (1) A person who uses force as permitted in §§ 39-11-611 — 39-11-614 or § 29-34-201, is justified in using such force and is immune from civil liability for the use of such force, unless:
(A) The person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in § 39-11-106 who:
(i) Was acting in the performance of the officer's official duties; and

(ii) Identified the officer in accordance with any applicable law; or

(iii) The person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer; or
(B.) The force used by the person resulted in property damage to or the death or injury of an innocent bystander or other person against whom the force used was not justified.
(b) The court shall award reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by a person in defense of any civil action brought against the person based upon the person's use of force, if the court finds that the defendant was justified in using such force pursuant to §§ 39-11-611 — 39-11-614 or § 29-34-201
Click to expand...

Not a bad idea to refresh on this stuff for the state you live in.
 
Last edited:
Andrew Sego said:
Interestingly, Tennessee law (HB 1907) allows an individual to use deadly force to protect him or herself wherever they have a legal right to be. The bill also provides civil immunity for those who defend themselves from criminal attack.

The Tennessee law absolutely DOES NOT protect you from being sued or held criminally liable for collateral damage to persons or properties, something that was pounded into us pretty hard at the CCW course. I can't see a lot of situations where I'd draw a gun in a crowded place.
Click to expand...
Me either. Well, I might draw it, but probably wouldn't fire it.

One of the sobering things taught in "Hogan's Alley"-type shooting ranges like those at FLETC or Quantico or military urban set-ups is how accuracy suffers under stress, and where some of those rounds ends up. I once "killed" a bystander half a block away when I missed my intended target. It helped me slow down that tiny bit that makes the difference in later exercises.
 
Yep, and AA-12s being invented after 86 are illigal for us mear mortals.

However the 20K number is inaccurate.

MAC-10s start in the mid 3s, MP5s are in the 18 range and it's M16s that go for about that 20 number depending on the model. Some of the belt feds like 1919s are in the low 5 figgures
 
Does H&K make a semi-only version of the MP5 legal in the US? I thought they're only for military/LE.

It was my favorite weapon, just for how easy and accurate it was. For any sort of close-quarter shooting, it's sort of like the small-gun equivalent of the DC-3. Nothing else replaces it. In my opinion anyway, I haven't used a submachine gun in almost a decade.
 
Yes, HK makes a semi MP5, and there are also several knock offs. Buying a machine gun, short barreled rile or shotgun is not a big deal. Depends on our local laws, but it is a two page form, and a check if done through a trust or corporation, if an individual, fingerprints and local LEO sign off. Big pain s the wait o get paperwork done.

http://www.sturmgewehr.com/webBBS/nfa4sale.cgi good website for mg's for sale.
 
N2124v said:
Yes, HK makes a semi MP5, and there are also several knock offs. Buying a machine gun, short barreled rile or shotgun is not a big deal in Texas. Depends on our local laws, but it is a two page form, and a check if done through a trust or corporation, if an individual, fingerprints and local LEO sign off. Big pain s the wait o get paperwork done.
Click to expand...
FTFY.

It's a bigger deal elsewhere. I may go ask the shop where I bought my last Sig what the deal is in VA.
 
That is why I said it depends on local laws. Btw, if you think dealing with the FAA is fun, you should try the ATF.

Make sure your local dealer will sell NFA items. There is extra licensure and fees involved and some will not do it.
 
TMetzinger said:
Does H&K make a semi-only version of the MP5 legal in the US? I thought they're only for military/LE.

It was my favorite weapon, just for how easy and accurate it was. For any sort of close-quarter shooting, it's sort of like the small-gun equivalent of the DC-3. Nothing else replaces it. In my opinion anyway, I haven't used a submachine gun in almost a decade.
Click to expand...

There are Semi versions with long barrels sold as rifles and short barrels and no buttstock sold as pistols.

There are also many perfectly leagal (nationaly anyway) pre 86 converted full auto versions available, and in all variations including SD and PDW.
 
TMetzinger said:
Does H&K make a semi-only version of the MP5 legal in the US? I thought they're only for military/LE.

It was my favorite weapon, just for how easy and accurate it was. For any sort of close-quarter shooting, it's sort of like the small-gun equivalent of the DC-3. Nothing else replaces it. In my opinion anyway, I haven't used a submachine gun in almost a decade.
Click to expand...


HK94 is the 'rifle' version (looks like a full-size MP5 with a huge barrel)
SP89 is a 'pistol' version (looks like MP5k without stock and foregrip).

In addition to being semi only, both have the cosmetic changes required by NFA. Also, they had to be made in a way that you can't just replace the modular trigger assembly or bolt to convert them into a MP5 (well, you can, but it requires a bit more than that).

And I agree on the utility of the tool.
 
Last edited:
Just so that we have a legit post that combines aviation with firearms....It's been a few years since I've read Chickenhawk, by Robert Mason. About his time as a helo pilot in Viet Nam. The best aviation book out there, hands down.

So I'm re-reading it and a few minutes ago I get to the part where the crew chief is showing off his .45 to him, about how he gave it a hair trigger and he keeps trying to get Mason to hold it. He takes the mag out and forces it at Mason, "Just dry shoot it once....Here, I cleared it" and Mason finally takes it. He tries to find a place to aim it...another Huey, the back of another soldier, etc. finally points it at a guage in the panel and is contemplating pulling the trigger when it goes off.

"They hung the remains of the omni in the operations tent. A little note was attached explaining that it was the victim of the first shot fired at the Cav from inside one of its own helicopters."
 
Fascinating discussion; my only modest comment is this:

Accidents kill 6 times as many people as homicides. Carrying a weapon is not unwise by any means, but applying the finite amount of time and effort one has available in becoming proficient in its emergency use would, based on statistics and the concept of allocation of resources proportionate to risk, be better spent in first applying your finite resources toward quality first aid training. And only when you've got that done, and you've started to establish a healthy lifestyle for you and your loved ones does it make sense to expend some effort on proper weapons training.

So if you're packing heat, but don't know how to handle a medical emergency, I humbly suggest you are overdue on learning the latter.
 
Jim, I'm a gun nut and don't disagree with you there.

The gun is just another survival tool, but as the story above shows quite the useful one.
 
Skylane81E said:
Jim, I'm a gun nut and don't disagree with you there.

The gun is just another survival tool, but as the story above shows quite the useful one.
Click to expand...

I saw that article - the woman did a good job. Glad to see the emergency operator didn't tell her "don't shoot."

I haven't fired a weapon in three decades; if I took it up again I'd have to go do some training to feel safe and comfortable. But I've never learned proper first aid or handling most medical emergencies - that next on my list. I've already got the elliptical trainer and have been using it (as has my wife) - and I have been eating right for several years. The "bad guys" I know who will harm me most have a higher probability of being in my blood stream than outside my window. Once I have that squared away I'll worry about the lower probability issues.
 
Jim Logajan said:
Accidents kill 6 times as many people as homicides. Carrying a weapon is not unwise by any means, but applying the finite amount of time and effort one has available in becoming proficient in its emergency use would, based on statistics and the concept of allocation of resources proportionate to risk, be better spent in first applying your finite resources toward quality first aid training. And only when you've got that done, and you've started to establish a healthy lifestyle for you and your loved ones does it make sense to expend some effort on proper weapons training.
Click to expand...

You are way too logical about this, this is an issue of feelings and emotions, not cold cold facts.

Previously in a similar discussion, I had suggested that the best thing most people who carry could do to improve their longevity, would be to loose 10lbs, go on a diet low in processed carbs/meat and see their doc for regular cholesterol checks.

Turns out concealed carry proponents lack humor and insight, kind of like pilots.
 
weilke said:
Previously in a similar discussion, I had suggested that the best thing most people who carry could do to improve their longevity, would be to loose 10lbs, go on a diet low in processed carbs/meat and see their doc for regular cholesterol checks.
Click to expand...

Well, yeah. The actuaries say you should stop flying small airplanes, too. That's not a dismissal of what you're saying, necessarily, but clearly everyone's bias influences their behaviors. People are also more prone to move towards things they can clearly control. The ability to defend oneself with a firearm is a self-evident article of control. The ability to save oneself from a heart attack by reducing cholesterol intake is a less certain, obvious, and immediate form of control. Hell, we'd probably be safer if we didn't drive at all, so why worry with seat belts? Perspective is important in these cases.
 
Skylane81E said:
You mean like th eoperator in NC did recently? Way to try and get the victims dead!
Click to expand...
Even worse then that - she implied that the officers were on the scene or nearly there and to put the firearm down MINUTES before they showed up.

They also had the kids walk through the unsecured house without the firearm to go outside.

A couple bad calls IMO.
 
No kidding. What a dumb ass operator. You already shot one of them, if he comes back, or if his friend comes back they're probably looking to get even.
 
Yeah,
"tell the cops im in xxxroom on the x floor, I'll come out when they are outside the room"
 
jesse said:
Even worse then that - she implied that the officers were on the scene or nearly there and to put the firearm down MINUTES before they showed up.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing she is someone who supports strict gun control laws, based on the naive theory "why does anyone need a gun when we have the police to protect us".

I've gotten in more than a few discussions with friends who believe that guns are bad and should be illegal... ALWAYS I hear this argument.

Sorry but the cops are there to investigate crimes and bring perps to justice... AFTER they are committed. The consequences of the police and jail after a crime is the only way the police can effectively prevent crime. If the cops are a block away, and happen to save you from a violent criminal in your home, that's pure luck.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top