Constitutional Carry or Stand your Ground Law ?

Choid

Apparently, the town retard.
Supporter
PX Member
Minuteman
Feb 13, 2017
2,399
1,689
I would say it’s a damn important difference.

I would say you’re 100% correct if the jury is made up of bear pit members

But, what about a scenario of a clear forcible entry but it’s unclear whether the intruder even notices the homeowner. In that scenario, it’s hard to say whether there’s a reasonable belief of a forcible felony the way Montana defines that term.

What it does is it takes away the arguments of he was just stealing the tv to pay for college argument and he’s not violent and would never hurt anyone. It’s a bright line rule that justifies self defense for any unlawful forcible entry
OK, dude. Reasonable belief doesn't require any insight into the state of mind of the perpetrator, or any understanding of what he has or will actually do. All that it requires is that a reasonable person would fear that a forcible felony was likely. You do realize that hot prowls are forcible felonies, correct? The only difference is that it may be OK in OK to shoot somebody as he is leaving with your TV, and not in MT.
 

thestoicmarcusaurelius

The Real Tiger King
Supporter
PX Member
Minuteman
Jun 15, 2020
766
1,067
Alabama Slammer
OK, dude. Reasonable belief doesn't require any insight into the state of mind of the perpetrator, or any understanding of what he has or will actually do. All that it requires is that a reasonable person would fear that a forcible felony was likely. You do realize that hot prowls are forcible felonies, correct? The only difference is that it may be OK in OK to shoot somebody as he is leaving with your TV, and not in MT.
Here’s how Montana defines a “forcible felony”:


"Forcible felony" means any felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.”

So, the logical take away in Montana is that the defending home owner must still believe that the intruder is going to commit or threaten actual violence against the homeowner defending himself.

Big difference between that and any unlawful forcible entry imo.
 

Maggot

Better to die on your feet than live on your knees
Supporter
PX Member
Minuteman
  • Jul 27, 2007
    14,263
    11,224
    Virginia
    fyi at least in some states, stand your ground and/or castle doctrine aren't actual laws, but derived from case law.

    but back to the OP, let's not choose between the two, we should have both the ability to keep and bear arms, and to use them in defense of life and liberty.

    if you can't have guns but have syg/castle, then that is worthless. and if you can have guns but can't defend yourself (legally) then that is useless also.
    Seems to me they are somewhat apples and oranges.

    -Constitutional carry pertains to firearms.

    -SYG pertains to protecting yourself. If someone begins to assault you and you pick up a tire arm and bash his brains out when you could have run away you could still be liable. Or not.

    Id go with CC. The hell with needing to us a tire iron.
     

    Choid

    Apparently, the town retard.
    Supporter
    PX Member
    Minuteman
    Feb 13, 2017
    2,399
    1,689
    Here’s how Montana defines a “forcible felony”:


    "Forcible felony" means any felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.”

    So, the logical take away in Montana is that the defending home owner must still believe that the intruder is going to commit or threaten actual violence against the homeowner defending himself.

    Big difference between that and any unlawful forcible entry imo.
    Again, no. You fail to understand the reasonable belief test, and are trying to understand forcible felony in a narrower way than precedent and tradition do. But you do you. It doesn't really matter other than your two cent textualism keeps being wrong over and over.
     

    thestoicmarcusaurelius

    The Real Tiger King
    Supporter
    PX Member
    Minuteman
    Jun 15, 2020
    766
    1,067
    Alabama Slammer
    Again, no. You fail to understand the reasonable belief test, and are trying to understand forcible felony in a narrower way than precedent and tradition do. But you do you. It doesn't really matter other than your two cent textualism keeps being wrong over and over.

    So, your position is that a defending home owner would be justified legally in Montana if the defending home owner indicated he had no belief that violence would be used against him or that there was a threat of violence?

    That’s what it boils down to. One state has a bright line rule, the other state requires a reasonable belief that violence will be committed or that it was threatened.
     

    thestoicmarcusaurelius

    The Real Tiger King
    Supporter
    PX Member
    Minuteman
    Jun 15, 2020
    766
    1,067
    Alabama Slammer
    Again, no. You fail to understand the reasonable belief test, and are trying to understand forcible felony in a narrower way than precedent and tradition do. But you do you. It doesn't really matter other than your two cent textualism keeps being wrong over and over.
    I would say you’re mis interpreting reasonable belief. It’s not the same as reasonable suspicion for a Leo, which it seems to me you may be getting this confused with using the terms higher bar and lower bar like people do sometimes to say reasonable suspicion is a lower bar than probable cause.

    States can differ but in general reasonable belief would be used to add in some type of objective component. Like, under the circumstances would a person of ordinary intelligence believe violence is likely to occur.
     

    Choid

    Apparently, the town retard.
    Supporter
    PX Member
    Minuteman
    Feb 13, 2017
    2,399
    1,689
    I would say you’re mis interpreting reasonable belief. It’s not the same as reasonable suspicion for a Leo, which it seems to me you may be getting this confused with using the terms higher bar and lower bar like people do sometimes to say reasonable suspicion is a lower bar than probable cause.

    States can differ but in general reasonable belief would be used to add in some type of objective component. Like, under the circumstances would a person of ordinary intelligence believe violence is likely to occur.
    Reasonable suspicion and reasonable belief are two completely different things. I’m not confused. Your description of reasonable belief is completely incorrect fwiw. The reasonable belief standard is more akin to not unreasonable to believe.
     
    Last edited:

    thestoicmarcusaurelius

    The Real Tiger King
    Supporter
    PX Member
    Minuteman
    Jun 15, 2020
    766
    1,067
    Alabama Slammer
    Reasonable suspicion and reasonable belief are two completely different things. I’m not confused. Your description of reasonable belief is completely incorrect fwiw. The reasonable belief standard is more akin to not unreasonable to believe.

    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.
     

    thestoicmarcusaurelius

    The Real Tiger King
    Supporter
    PX Member
    Minuteman
    Jun 15, 2020
    766
    1,067
    Alabama Slammer
    your two cent textualism

    maybe talk to Montana's Supreme Court about it as well since their principles of statutory interpretation are to look at the plain meaning of the words in the statute and if the plain meaning of the words in the statute are non-ambiguous and clear, then the words in the statute speak for themselves and the Court should go no further than that in interpreting the Statute
     

    thestoicmarcusaurelius

    The Real Tiger King
    Supporter
    PX Member
    Minuteman
    Jun 15, 2020
    766
    1,067
    Alabama Slammer
    The reasonable belief standard is more akin to not unreasonable to believe.

    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.
     

    Choid

    Apparently, the town retard.
    Supporter
    PX Member
    Minuteman
    Feb 13, 2017
    2,399
    1,689
    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?
     

    thestoicmarcusaurelius

    The Real Tiger King
    Supporter
    PX Member
    Minuteman
    Jun 15, 2020
    766
    1,067
    Alabama Slammer
    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?


    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.
     
    Last edited:

    thestoicmarcusaurelius

    The Real Tiger King
    Supporter
    PX Member
    Minuteman
    Jun 15, 2020
    766
    1,067
    Alabama Slammer
    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.

    009F45AB-5466-4A6D-965E-EBC258444AA9.png
    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.


    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?
    37EB6F02-7B4C-44B3-9452-A0E19722997D.png
     
    Last edited:

    TurboTrout

    Gunny Sergeant
    PX Member
    Minuteman
    Oct 30, 2020
    880
    680
    East Coast
    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

    Gunny Sergeant
    PX Member
    Minuteman
    Nov 22, 2019
    510
    295
    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.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: demolitionman

    Choid

    Apparently, the town retard.
    Supporter
    PX Member
    Minuteman
    Feb 13, 2017
    2,399
    1,689
    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?
     

    thestoicmarcusaurelius

    The Real Tiger King
    Supporter
    PX Member
    Minuteman
    Jun 15, 2020
    766
    1,067
    Alabama Slammer
    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.
     
    Last edited:

    Choid

    Apparently, the town retard.
    Supporter
    PX Member
    Minuteman
    Feb 13, 2017
    2,399
    1,689
    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.
     

    thestoicmarcusaurelius

    The Real Tiger King
    Supporter
    PX Member
    Minuteman
    Jun 15, 2020
    766
    1,067
    Alabama Slammer
    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.
    Lol, you’re twisting yourself into Knots on this one. There was clearly a burglar, the burglar got shot. The defending homeowner is spending 70 years in jail.
     

    Rthur

    Philomath
    PX Member
    Minuteman
  • Apr 16, 2010
    12,260
    17,097
    52
    Not Chicago, Illinios
    By the disagreement here one would think the law was purposely written to be confusing.
    I wonder why they would do that?...

    R
     

    Howland

    Nimrod
    PX Member
    Minuteman
    Sep 30, 2017
    743
    673
    Upstate South Carolina
    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.
     

    thestoicmarcusaurelius

    The Real Tiger King
    Supporter
    PX Member
    Minuteman
    Jun 15, 2020
    766
    1,067
    Alabama Slammer
    if your position is correct then the Missoula purse burglar would be the easiest appeal in the history of appeals. If there is a bright line rule that lethal use of force in self defense is justified for any burglary. The prosecution indicated that is not how they read the statute a reasonable belief of fear of violence or the threat of violence was still needed for self defense involving lethal force in MT.

    maybe, since you know you’re correct about this, you should go get the purse burglar shooter out of prison
     

    thestoicmarcusaurelius

    The Real Tiger King
    Supporter
    PX Member
    Minuteman
    Jun 15, 2020
    766
    1,067
    Alabama Slammer
    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?

    Here is an actual jury instruction given in an actual homicide case in montana.


    "'Given Instruction No. 17:

    'You are instructed that forcible felony means any felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual, and includes the crimes of kidnaping, assault, unlawful restraint and intimidation."

    Guess what, the conviction was appealed and the conviction was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Montana.

    Maybe you should appeal that case too.
     

    Choid

    Apparently, the town retard.
    Supporter
    PX Member
    Minuteman
    Feb 13, 2017
    2,399
    1,689
    You are getting pretty stalker-ish dude.
     

    thestoicmarcusaurelius

    The Real Tiger King
    Supporter
    PX Member
    Minuteman
    Jun 15, 2020
    766
    1,067
    Alabama Slammer
    LOL

    Well, while we are at it, here is what the MT Supreme Court stated the facts of what we were calling the purse burglar case earlier were:

    "In the early morning hours of April 27, 2014, Kaarma and Pflager were at home. Pflager left the garage door partially open to air out after smoking a cigarette. While inside the home, Kaarma and Pflager saw on the security camera an intruder enter their attached garage. The intruder was well into the garage and "jiggling" the car handles. Kaarma took his shotgun, walked out the front door of the home, turned and stood in front of the partially open garage door. Kaarma testified that he shouted into the garage and a voice or "metal on metal" sound came from inside the garage. He testified he thought he was "going to die," then "aimed high," fumbled with the shotgun, and discharged four shots into his garage in a sweeping motion from right to left. Shotgun pellets sprayed the inside garage wall, and several penetrated the home causing damage. The intruder was shot twice, once in the arm and once in the head. The intruder, later identified as Diren Dede, died as a result of his injuries."

    So, this is a clear burglary. It is an attached garage to the home and the homeowner observes via a security camera the burglar attempting to break into the home owners vehicles.

    Somehow, the homeowner was still convicted even though all he did was leave his garage door partially open.

    The prosecution focused on whether it was reasonable that there was fear for his actual physical safety at the time of the shooting.

    Still convicted. Appealed unsuccessfully. Seems to be in conflict with your position that there is a bright line rule that in mt there is always justification to defend a home with lethal force during the commission of a burglary.


    ETA: And, after reading the facts of this case more, this further illustrates why I think clear and unambiguous laws are so important. I do think lethal force should be justified when someone is burglarizing someone's home.
     
    Last edited:

    Choid

    Apparently, the town retard.
    Supporter
    PX Member
    Minuteman
    Feb 13, 2017
    2,399
    1,689
    Again, stalkerish and weird, but also arrogating to me arguments I've never presented and positions I've never taken. Slither away, weirdo.
     

    Choid

    Apparently, the town retard.
    Supporter
    PX Member
    Minuteman
    Feb 13, 2017
    2,399
    1,689
    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

    Gunny Sergeant
    PX Member
    Minuteman
    Oct 30, 2020
    880
    680
    East Coast
    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]