Family of Philando Castile gets $2.995 million without filing a lawsuit

[Loren Pechtel]

Should we see how many concealed carry classes talk about how to deal with an officer when you have a handgun in the car? If he had secured it in the glove compartment and not kept his insurance in there things would have been fine.

Back when I routinely transported guns in the UK, the law required that they be kept unloaded, in a locked steel box, secured to the inside of the boot (or 'trunk' as you leftpondians insist on calling it), with any ammunition secured in a separate locked steel box.

This never struck me as unreasonable.

I find it very unreasonable--how are you supposed to transport a gun if you don't have a car that you can modify in order to secure the box to it?

Drop the "secured to the inside of the boot" part and I find it reasonable, although I object to "steel"--it should specify strength, not materials.

 

[Bronzeage]

Back when I routinely transported guns in the UK, the law required that they be kept unloaded, in a locked steel box, secured to the inside of the boot (or 'trunk' as you leftpondians insist on calling it), with any ammunition secured in a separate locked steel box.

This never struck me as unreasonable.

I find it very unreasonable--how are you supposed to transport a gun if you don't have a car that you can modify in order to secure the box to it?

Drop the "secured to the inside of the boot" part and I find it reasonable, although I object to "steel"--it should specify strength, not materials.

This is one of those "why we can't have nice things" moments.

In this country, we think having a gun is reasonable, without requiring a reason. In order for a gun to be of any use, it has to be accessible. Any limit on access reduces a gun's utility, so what't the point of having a gun if you can't grab it and shoot someone with it.

That's what it's really all about. We want to have the ability to shoot someone, on very short notice. What's more, we expect people to think this is a reasonable thing to want to do.

This is why we can't have nice things.

 

[Toni]

I find it very unreasonable--how are you supposed to transport a gun if you don't have a car that you can modify in order to secure the box to it?

Drop the "secured to the inside of the boot" part and I find it reasonable, although I object to "steel"--it should specify strength, not materials.

This is one of those "why we can't have nice things" moments.

In this country, we think having a gun is reasonable, without requiring a reason. In order for a gun to be of any use, it has to be accessible. Any limit on access reduces a gun's utility, so what't the point of having a gun if you can't grab it and shoot someone with it.

That's what it's really all about. We want to have the ability to shoot someone, on very short notice. What's more, we expect people to think this is a reasonable thing to want to do.

This is why we can't have nice things.

Small clarification:
We want white men to have the ability to shoot someone on short notice. We want white women to have the ability to shoot black or brown men when they try to rape the white women or their children, grab their handbags,or enter their homes.

We also want to be able to assume that white people have perfect aim and perfect judgment about which lack or brown people are actual threats. Or where they don't belong, thinking impure thoughts.

 

[whichphilosophy]

This is one of those "why we can't have nice things" moments.

In this country, we think having a gun is reasonable, without requiring a reason. In order for a gun to be of any use, it has to be accessible. Any limit on access reduces a gun's utility, so what't the point of having a gun if you can't grab it and shoot someone with it.

That's what it's really all about. We want to have the ability to shoot someone, on very short notice. What's more, we expect people to think this is a reasonable thing to want to do.

This is why we can't have nice things.

Small clarification:
We want white men to have the ability to shoot someone on short notice. We want white women to have the ability to shoot black or brown men when they try to rape the white women or their children, grab their handbags,or enter their homes.

We also want to be able to assume that white people have perfect aim and perfect judgment about which lack or brown people are actual threats. Or where they don't belong, thinking impure thoughts.

"Who" is we? There may be one or two extremists but this comes across from some modern Champagne Marxists and Socialists who never experienced this anyway.
By Champagne I mean a person who spews out socialist ideals while enjoying a wealthy and luxurious lifestyle. (I used to be a half a lager Marxist).

This does not refer to you as you provide well thought out posts presenting a good case for what you say but in this I disagree with. In this case it is most likely true in some cases but I am sure not in the majority of instances. However we are buying into too much generalisation whether we are on the left or on the right.

- - - Updated - - -

Back when I routinely transported guns in the UK, the law required that they be kept unloaded, in a locked steel box, secured to the inside of the boot (or 'trunk' as you leftpondians insist on calling it), with any ammunition secured in a separate locked steel box.

This never struck me as unreasonable.

I find it very unreasonable--how are you supposed to transport a gun if you don't have a car that you can modify in order to secure the box to it?

Drop the "secured to the inside of the boot" part and I find it reasonable, although I object to "steel"--it should specify strength, not materials.

That would be as good as not having a gun. Take it half a step further and leave it at home

 

[repoman]

This scene from a minute in has a good example of how to deal this type of situation

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I find it very unreasonable--how are you supposed to transport a gun if you don't have a car that you can modify in order to secure the box to it?

Drop the "secured to the inside of the boot" part and I find it reasonable, although I object to "steel"--it should specify strength, not materials.

This is one of those "why we can't have nice things" moments.

In this country, we think having a gun is reasonable, without requiring a reason. In order for a gun to be of any use, it has to be accessible. Any limit on access reduces a gun's utility, so what't the point of having a gun if you can't grab it and shoot someone with it.

That's what it's really all about. We want to have the ability to shoot someone, on very short notice. What's more, we expect people to think this is a reasonable thing to want to do.

This is why we can't have nice things.

I wasn't talking about accessibility, but rather the "secured" part of it--most cars don't have something in the boot to secure it to.

 

[bilby]

This is one of those "why we can't have nice things" moments.

In this country, we think having a gun is reasonable, without requiring a reason. In order for a gun to be of any use, it has to be accessible. Any limit on access reduces a gun's utility, so what't the point of having a gun if you can't grab it and shoot someone with it.

That's what it's really all about. We want to have the ability to shoot someone, on very short notice. What's more, we expect people to think this is a reasonable thing to want to do.

This is why we can't have nice things.

I wasn't talking about accessibility, but rather the "secured" part of it--most cars don't have something in the boot to secure it to.

You misunderstand; it must be secured as in 'bolted to the structure of the vehicle, with fastenings that can only be removed from inside the box'; the gunbox becomes a semi-permanent fixture of the vehicle, and its installation usually requires some holes to be drilled in the structure of the car.

The regulations are designed to make theft as difficult as possible, not just to stop the box from rattling around.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I wasn't talking about accessibility, but rather the "secured" part of it--most cars don't have something in the boot to secure it to.

You misunderstand; it must be secured as in 'bolted to the structure of the vehicle, with fastenings that can only be removed from inside the box'; the gunbox becomes a semi-permanent fixture of the vehicle, and its installation usually requires some holes to be drilled in the structure of the car.

The regulations are designed to make theft as difficult as possible, not just to stop the box from rattling around.

I do understand--what you don't understand is that that means anyone who doesn't own their vehicle can't transport a gun. That's why I find it unreasonable. It's posing an undue burden on the gun owner for very little safety improvement.

 

[Bronzeage]

You misunderstand; it must be secured as in 'bolted to the structure of the vehicle, with fastenings that can only be removed from inside the box'; the gunbox becomes a semi-permanent fixture of the vehicle, and its installation usually requires some holes to be drilled in the structure of the car.

The regulations are designed to make theft as difficult as possible, not just to stop the box from rattling around.

I do understand--what you don't understand is that that means anyone who doesn't own their vehicle can't transport a gun. That's why I find it unreasonable. It's posing an undue burden on the gun owner for very little safety improvement.

The law applies to transporting a gun in a car. You are free to carry your gun in a steel box, while walking.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I do understand--what you don't understand is that that means anyone who doesn't own their vehicle can't transport a gun. That's why I find it unreasonable. It's posing an undue burden on the gun owner for very little safety improvement.

The law applies to transporting a gun in a car. You are free to carry your gun in a steel box, while walking.

Which is usually not practical. This is a de-facto prohibition on those who don't own cars having guns.

 

[LordKiran]

The law applies to transporting a gun in a car. You are free to carry your gun in a steel box, while walking.

Which is usually not practical. This is a de-facto prohibition on those who don't own cars having guns.

People don't really carry handguns around in the UK. If you own a gun in the UK it is most likely a long gun used either as a tool for hunting and pest control or for sport.

 

[Bronzeage]

The law applies to transporting a gun in a car. You are free to carry your gun in a steel box, while walking.

Which is usually not practical. This is a de-facto prohibition on those who don't own cars having guns.

Why is this a defacto prohibition of anything? Do you want to wear your pistol on your hip while riding public transport?

The principle behind the steel box and boot rule is to not only make a legally possessed pistol less likely to be stolen, it's also less likely to be used by the driver of the vehicle. I know this sounds strange to American ears, but most people carry a gun in their car, because they think someone else has a gun in their car. As Americans, we demand the right to have lethal force within an arm's reach, because we know most other people also have lethal force at their finger tips. After that, it's really a matter of who fires first.

In other countries, they don't see the "right to return fire" as one of those basic human rights that FDR talked about.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Which is usually not practical. This is a de-facto prohibition on those who don't own cars having guns.

People don't really carry handguns around in the UK. If you own a gun in the UK it is most likely a long gun used either as a tool for hunting and pest control or for sport.

The prohibition on transport means you can't take it to the range to shoot.

And where did it say the locked-to-the-car requirement applied only to handguns?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Which is usually not practical. This is a de-facto prohibition on those who don't own cars having guns.

Why is this a defacto prohibition of anything? Do you want to wear your pistol on your hip while riding public transport?

The principle behind the steel box and boot rule is to not only make a legally possessed pistol less likely to be stolen, it's also less likely to be used by the driver of the vehicle. I know this sounds strange to American ears, but most people carry a gun in their car, because they think someone else has a gun in their car. As Americans, we demand the right to have lethal force within an arm's reach, because we know most other people also have lethal force at their finger tips. After that, it's really a matter of who fires first.

In other countries, they don't see the "right to return fire" as one of those basic human rights that FDR talked about.

I'm not talking about whether it's available for the driver. In most states if you don't have a concealed carry permit you need to have guns being transported not readily available to the driver and I have no problem with that.

My only problem with it is the requirement that it be secured to the car--you can modify your own car but you can't do that to a rental.

Here in America we regard the right to guns to be pretty fundamental, only to be denied with good reason, as opposed to a luxury where it doesn't matter if you preclude large portions of the population.

Thus I am opposed to things which de-facto deny it based on reasons unrelated to their law-abiding nature.

Thus, I'm fine with locked storage for guns, but not fine with requiring such storage to either be fastened to the structure (thus precluding renters) or so heavy as to not be safe if it's not resting on the ground (thus precluding anyone living above the ground floor and anyone with a house that doesn't rest on the ground in the first place. It also rules out a self-defense weapon for those who sleep above the ground floor.

Very little additional safety is obtained by such requirements. How about requiring the locked storage to weigh 100 pounds, counting all weight involved (thus, a lightweight box with a cable wrapped around a 100# bedframe would qualify)? That's enough a burglar isn't going to carry it off, but not so much that it can't be on an upper floor.

 

[Toni]

Which is usually not practical. This is a de-facto prohibition on those who don't own cars having guns.

People don't really carry handguns around in the UK. If you own a gun in the UK it is most likely a long gun used either as a tool for hunting and pest control or for sport.

This is how things were when I was growing up (in the USA). I come from a family of hunters, and some pretty skilled marksmen.

 

[bilby]

People don't really carry handguns around in the UK. If you own a gun in the UK it is most likely a long gun used either as a tool for hunting and pest control or for sport.

The prohibition on transport means you can't take it to the range to shoot.

And where did it say the locked-to-the-car requirement applied only to handguns?

The number of assumptions that you are making here, and appear to be totally unaware of, is staggering.

In the UK, handguns are far more restricted than long arms, and handgun owners are typically required to keep their guns at the range, where they are secured by the range operator when not in use. They are typically only permitted to be used for competitive target shooting, and/or training for such competition.

The vast majority of private vehicular transport of guns is by farmers and other landowners, and occurs over their own private land; Such transport is not subject to the same restrictions as the transport of guns on the public highway.

The majority of guns transported on the public highway are being moved by professionals - gun makers and repairers, land agents, and employees of large estates; In my case, I was working for a gunsmith in Yorkshire, and routinely drove to the Birmingham proof house to have them proofed, reproofed after repair, or certified deactivated.

Private (and licenced) citizens rarely have a need to transport a firearm, but when they do, they must typically only comply with the requirement to take reasonable steps to protect their firearms from theft, and to ensure that they do not cause 'alarm and despondency', which usually means keeping the weapons out of the sight of a casual observer. What is considered 'reasonable' for a private citizen transporting a single shotgun is very different from what is considered reasonable for a gunsmith transporting a large number of guns; The latter should be aware of the higher risk that he might be specifically targeted for theft, and is expected to take the kinds of precautions I outlined above.

It is unlawful to keep a gun for the purpose of self defence (or defence of ones property) in the UK; The question of having a gun accessible for use if needed simply doesn't arise. Indeed, having a gun readily accessible for immediate use in self defence (without a clear reason to have it ready for a legitimate purpose) would, in most circumstances, constitute a crime.

I have (in my capacity as a private licenced gun owner) walked through the centre of Leeds on a busy Saturday, with a shotgun (in a case) over my shoulder - I was involved in a display staged by the Royal Armouries Museum, which included events at two sites about a mile and a half apart. This was perfectly legal, as long as I had a valid shotgun certificate, it wasn't clear to a casual observer that I was carrying a gun, and as long as the gun was unloaded. The rules have certainly changed since then (1989), and as I am no longer in the industry, I have no idea what the current situation is.

 

[fast]

It is unlawful to keep a gun for the purpose of self defence (or defence of ones property) in the UK; The question of having a gun accessible for use if needed simply doesn't arise. Indeed, having a gun readily accessible for immediate use in self defence (without a clear reason to have it ready for a legitimate purpose) would, in most circumstances, constitute a crime.

Is it unlawful to use a kept gun for the purpose of self defense in the UK? Not sure if I worded that right. I get it that you can't keep a gun FOR THE PURPOSE OF self defense, but you can keep a gun, so let's say you are keeping a gun for a legal purpose and a situation arose where you needed it for self defense. If you USED the gun for self defense, it wouldn't mean that you were keeping the gun for the purpose in which you used it.

 

[bilby]

It is unlawful to keep a gun for the purpose of self defence (or defence of ones property) in the UK; The question of having a gun accessible for use if needed simply doesn't arise. Indeed, having a gun readily accessible for immediate use in self defence (without a clear reason to have it ready for a legitimate purpose) would, in most circumstances, constitute a crime.

Is it unlawful to use a kept gun for the purpose of self defense in the UK? Not sure if I worded that right. I get it that you can't keep a gun FOR THE PURPOSE OF self defense, but you can keep a gun, so let's say you are keeping a gun for a legal purpose and a situation arose where you needed it for self defense. If you USED the gun for self defense, it wouldn't mean that you were keeping the gun for the purpose in which you used it.

That depends on the exact circumstances. There have been cases where use of a gun in self defence has been upheld by the courts; and there have also been cases where homeowners have been convicted of murder after using a gun to defend themselves. British courts tend to assume that use of a gun is excessive force, unless the person defending himself is being shot at at the time. Certainly you can expect to be given a very hard time by the police and the courts if you use a gun in self defence in the UK, and serious questions will be asked about how a gun came to be accessible and loaded in the heat of the moment - or whether its accessibility constitutes premeditation.

In England and Wales, anyone can use "reasonable" force to protect themselves or others, or to carry out an arrest or to prevent crime. Householders are protected from prosecution as long as they act "honestly and instinctively" in the heat of the moment. "Fine judgements" over the level of force used are not expected, says the Crown Prosecution Service.

What this means in practice is that someone can claim they attacked in self-defence if they genuinely believed they were in peril - even if in hindsight they were clearly wrong.

Victims do not have to wait to be attacked if they are in their home and fear for themselves or others. These guidelines also apply if someone, in the spur of the moment, picks up an item to use as a weapon. The law very clearly says that a householder is not expected to weigh up the arguments for and against in the heat of the moment - but they have to show that their actions were reasonable in the moment.

...

The most recent case was that of Andy and Tracey Ferrie. They were in bed when two burglars entered their home. Mr Ferrie fired his (legally-held) shotgun at the men. The couple were arrested but then released without charge.

The judge at the intruders' trial said: "If you burgle a house in the country where the householder owns a legally held shotgun, that is the chance you take. You cannot come to court and ask for a lighter sentence because of it."

The most well-known case is Tony Martin. In 1999, the Norfolk farmer shot dead an intruder in his home. He was jailed for life for murder but the Court of Appeal then reduced that to manslaughter. He served three years in jail.

(source)

 

[Nice Squirrel]

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...ficer-involved-fatal-shooting-gets-48-n781636

Philando Castile Case: Ex-Officer Involved in Fatal Shooting Gets $48,500 Buyout

 

[LordKiran]

People don't really carry handguns around in the UK. If you own a gun in the UK it is most likely a long gun used either as a tool for hunting and pest control or for sport.

The prohibition on transport means you can't take it to the range to shoot.

And where did it say the locked-to-the-car requirement applied only to handguns?

Why would the transportation of long guns in this fashion even be problematic? What are you upset Brits can't carry their long guns into the mall or something?