TMF

Nope.

Yeah, I just can't pass up any opportunity for a Back to the Future quote.

Wow. How did you power the flux capacitor?

Well, if you can draw your pistol faster than 160 mph then I would say discharging your weapon at it would be justified. Their strike radius is about 2/3 of their body length. If you are within that range then there is absolutely nothing you can do other than get bit. If you are outside that range you can simply walk away.

Police draw their weapons all the time and don't shoot people. Believe it or not, they're bound by the same laws as we are. If they draw a pistol on someone who is jaywalking they can be charged with a crime... not likely but it can happen. If you call the police and tell them there is an intruder in your shed chances are they are going to approach the situation with weapons drawn. Why shouldn't I? It's my damn property. On my property I'm drawing a weapon on anyone who is there illegally. Whether or not I shoot them is up to them.

Yeah, you're not diffusing a situation if you just shot someone's dog. Wait for the police. If the guy is acting in a threatening manner attempt to remove yourself from the situation, however, I would assume that since you just displayed your willingness to use a firearm the owner probably isn't going to do anything stupid. Besides, the police would probably be there pretty quick after a firearm being discharged.

Rog, if someone is trespassing with the intent to conduct criminal activity on my property the rifle is coming out. Whether or not that rifle starts talking is really up to him.

Well I think that is something that is situational. For example, you can OC in TN, right. So if you enter an environment where you feel you need to OC as a deterrent that isn't a threatening gesture. The example you gave above seemed to fit that scenario. He felt as if his environment suited having an exposed weapon and therefore he exposed it. I think where you could be seen as threatening someone is if, for example, you are in an argument with someone and suddenly expose your firearm. This could be interpreted as threatening them with your weapon.

I agree that so many people aren't capable of taking criticism or complaints without getting defensive, but still I feel it is the right thing to do to always talk to the person first before taking it to the next level. It just seems like nowadays people are incapable of solving their problems face to face and actually seeing them resolved. If the neighbor is an a-hole then he probably won't respect a civil request to keep his dogs inside at night, but I think everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt until such time that they show their true colors. This guy might have no idea his dogs are such a bother at night. But if he reacts poorly, then get the cops out there in the wee hours when his dogs are carrying on. The police can give out tickets and are more likely to when the guy answers the door and gives the police officers a hard time.

I would say so. Many of the clauses you're gonna find in these contracts are pretty difficult to prove, but, in the instance that the issue arises they can use their discretion. I doubt the management really care if occupants have firearms. With that said, if one of these roommates is suffering from vaginitus and taddles to mgmt the issue is going to have to be addressed. This is how the exchange should look: Mgmt: "It has come to our attention that you are possessing a firearm in your apartment which is in direct violation of your lease." Occupant: "Oh, there must be some misunderstanding, I have no firearm and will do everything I can to comply to your set of rules. If you would like you may inspect my apartment to satisfy your concern." Mgmt: "No problem. Just wanted to make sure you knew the rules and the potential consequences. We are pleased to hear that this was just a misunderstanding and that your roommate is just a giant gaping vagina. Good day sir." All management wants is steady rent, no legal issues or anything else that would distract from the daily routine.

If not I still have no issues explaining my actions to a jury. My house is my castle 24/7 whether I'm sleeping in it or walking through the front door.

HAHAHA!

I'm all about security detaining someone they've witnessed them stealing, but if I'm minding my own business and Paul Blart decides he's going to try and subdue me I'm going to hurt him and continue to hurt him until such time that he decides it ain't worth it or the police show up.

Yeah, I'd say it's safe to assume that someone who has trespassed on your property with the purpose of committing a crime is presenting a threat. As a property owner I'm not going to stand by and allow myself to be victimized. My gun is coming out because I am under the assumption that anyone who would commit such an act is probably armed in some way.

Now you're getting in to equal opportunity housing laws. My statement was more to illustrate how I can kick anyone off my property for any reason I want. Getting into housing laws, no, there are certain things you can't do. However, I think it's a stretch to compare denial of housing due to race and denial of housing due to firearms possession. These clauses most likely exist so that the property owner can't be held liable in civil court if someone is shot on their property. By putting in the lease that weapons aren't allowed it is an argument that can be used in defense of a civil suit. With that, I'm sure there is a clause in there about illegal drugs possession. Now, considering the proximity to a college campus it would be safe to assume that the majority of apartments there have some marijuana in them.... I know it was that way when I was in college. Somehow no one's getting evicted for smoking a bowl every now and then.

Roger, I misunderstood his intent.

Sorry, I understood the post as referring to a crime being committed in public (not on my property), in which case I'm not getting involved other than calling the police. If it's on my property I'm pulling a gun. I have a wife and kids to protect. My castle starts at the property line, not at the front door.

Yeah he sure can. However, in order to evict him for violating terms of the contract they're gonna have to prove it. If he says he doesn't have one there isn't much they can do. I don't see them frisking him upon entry/exit. Also, inspections are done in the presence of the renter, meaning the landlord can't just rifle through your stuff when you're at class. It's something that will be difficult to prove and is going to be more trouble than it's worth to the management. It's hard enough to evict someone who doesn't pay rent.... imagine how hard it would be to claim he actually has a firearm. In regards to his roommates, maybe being a little more discreet is the proper approach. However, if the issue is pushed I see them investing in a few postings which would make his possession a criminal act. They can simply call the police and say they saw him with a firearm. If the cops find him with one he will be charged and it will be enough evidence to evict him for violating the clause.

After reading the law it sounds to me if you just ignore the problem there isn't much they can do unless they pursue it in civil court. You can just say that you got rid of the pistol but keep it anyway. I think if you continue to make a big stink about it they're gonna read the law too, and then post signs, at which time you'd be violating the law and could be prosecuted. I'd drop it and just keep doing what you're doing.

They're not. If I rent out my property I can make a rule of no firearms on the property. It's my house. On my property I can dictate what rights someone can exercise. If someone exercises their right to free speech and I don't like what they say, I can kick them off. As much as I think it's an undereducated policy to not allow firearms, I support the right of the property owners to decide what's acceptable on THEIR property.

911 works too. By no means am I pro-crime, but unless the crime being committed is a violent offense and someone's life is in danger it isn't worth getting involved. Everyone has cell phones now. I know this is a hypothetical here, but wargaming "what can I do" evolves right into "what will I do", ya know? Just because the law states that you can detain someone who is hotwiring a car, should you? Is it worth putting you in a situation where you may now have to use physical force and then have to explain your actions in court (criminal or civil)? Police are trained and paid to handle those matters. A HCP doesn't make us supermen or put us in a category of responsibility to interdict crime anymore than a citizen without a HCP. IMO, if the situation doesn't warrant me pulling my pistol, then I'm not getting involved; I'm dialing 911.

Nutjobs. Their agenda is for all of us to be vegetarians and completely outlaw pets... you know, let them run free. They also spoke out against how law enforcement handled the situation in Ohio. I bet they'd have a different opinion if their kid was mauled by a lion while walking to the bus stop in the morning. Any message regarding ethical treatment of animals, spaying and neutering pets is lost on their whacky sideline agendas.

You got the right stock wrench to put it on?

... beat me to it!

Civil disobedience. It works if an environment exists that is receptive to changing the laws.