CA is now SHALL ISSUE!!!

[Gun Grape]

If you like the feel of the 1911, you might want to try a Browning high Power. Or one of its clones

[Doktor]

+1 The person who spends the time and effort to become a point shooter who can put multiple rounds into a pie plate sized target quickly from a variety of stances, ranges and lighting conditions will have an edge in a gun fight over the guy who needs to use his sights. Its a pistol not a long gun- speed plus pie plate accuracy is the winning combo.

Night sight for a pistol? The most I have seen on pistols around here are phosphorus dots on the sights. There are some fellas who "install" capsules with tritium, but I see no point in that, either. I will jump on the wagon with guys who think extras on a pistol/revolver are waste of time, money and space.

If I have extra space around, the only accessories would be filled magazines.

[zraver]

Night sight for a pistol? The most I have seen on pistols around here are phosphorus dots on the sights. There are some fellas who "install" capsules with tritium, but I see no point in that, either. I will jump on the wagon with guys who think extras on a pistol/revolver are waste of time, money and space.

If I have extra space around, the only accessories would be filled magazines.

if you try and line up your tritium dots and the other guy is a good point shooter, you get shot. Most gun fights are very close range and only last a few seconds. The point shooter who can reliably hit a pie plate sized target under a variety of conditions including the dark and low light or off hand, prone, on his back etc has the edge over a guy with a tricked out gun who has to fire through his sights.

[Officer of Engineers]

If I have extra space around, the only accessories would be filled magazines.

Personally, I preferred grenades over extra mags ... but the lawyers don't like it.

[gunnut]

Personally, I preferred grenades over extra mags ... but the lawyers don't like it.

[citanon]

So I've been doing more research on California self-defense laws as a part of my decision process regarding that concealed carry permit, and I stumbled on some surprising articles:

5 Things To Know About ‘Stand Your Ground’ In California | KQED News Fix

California Self-Defense Laws

SoCal Law Blog: Is California a "Stand Your Ground" State?

Self-Defense and the Law : A Roundtable Interview : Sam Harris

So, what I get out of this is that:

1. Surprisingly (to me), in California we have de facto Stand Your Ground.
2. In theory not only is there not an obligation to flight, but you can even pursue until the person is no longer a threat.
3. In reality the actual success of self-defense claims is highly dependent on the DA and the Jury.
4. If the DA decides circumstances warrant prosecution, the outcome is very iffy.
5. There is also a 25 year automatic extension for use of a gun in a homicide, drastically increasing the cost of a failed self-defense claim.
6. Without a concealed carry permit, possession of a gun in any public place places one in serious trouble even in the event of a self-defense situation.

My conclusion here is that possession of a concealed carry permit is helpful in most circumstances since it justifies presence of the weapon on your person. The law in California also seems clear that you can defend yourself with lethal force in case of robbery or an obvious immediate attempt on your life. Short of those two situations it is extremely murky and by far your best option is to avoid or deescalate the situation.

Question if anyone knows: the CCP in California seems to be a two year issue. What's the renewal procedure?

PS - after looking at my choices I will probably go with a 9mm M&P Shield.

[Monash]

Patience. If you havn' t been taught how to shoot a pistol join a club and learn. This will give you the opportunity to try different pistols and get a feel for a combination of make and caliber that you are comfortable with - by which I mean one that 'feels' right in your hand and which helps you shoot tight groupings consistently at close/long range. Don't worry about all the high tech add-ons until you can shoot accurately to begin with.

In any event many add-ons like laser sights/torches etc are impediments if your prime concern is a concealed carry. All the tools your talking about usually require a tactical holster which is contra-indicated for concealment. (I am aware there are exceptions but generally it remains the case and it is one of the reasons plain clothes officers don't normally carry all that gear attached to their pistols.)

[Monash]

2. In theory not only is there not an obligation to flight, but you can even pursue until the person is no longer a threat.

Are you sure that is specifically the case? In theory the moment you start pursuing a potential assailant the roles have reversed. He or she is now running away from you and no longer presents an (immediate) threat of death or serious injury - to you. If the matter is later disputed for whatever reason in court it could be argued that you then represented a threat of death or serious injury to other party. Very thin legal ice to be skating on there. At the end of the day its kind of hard to justify shooting someone whose running away from you, there may be really extreme or rare occasions where it can be justified but they would be just that - rare or extreme circumstances.

[citanon]

Monash,

I've done a fair bit of pistol shooting before but stopped during the last few years. I intend to train regularly with my ccw.

Since it will be a ccw the only other thing I intend to have is a small compact tactical flash light carried separately from the gun. I want to avoid brandishing the weapon unless circumstances are dire.

For pursuing, that's exactly why I said on theory. In reality it really would have to be an exceptional set of circumstances. I do not envision myself pursuing anybody.

[zraver]

Are you sure that is specifically the case? In theory the moment you start pursuing a potential assailant the roles have reversed. He or she is now running away from you and no longer presents an (immediate) threat of death or serious injury - to you. If the matter is later disputed for whatever reason in court it could be argued that you then represented a threat of death or serious injury to other party. Very thin legal ice to be skating on there. At the end of the day its kind of hard to justify shooting someone whose running away from you, there may be really extreme or rare occasions where it can be justified but they would be just that - rare or extreme circumstances.

It depends on why you are pursuing them. 1. Citizens are generally allowed to use force to stop a violent felony in progress or a violent felon in flight who may pose a danger to others. It depends on the crime they just committed. A guy running out of a bank after only displaying a note- probably not. They guy bolting out of the five and dime after popping one in the head of the night clerk- likely OK. 2. They are running towards an area that poses a serious danger to others regardless of their crime. Ie, you awake to a burglar (non-violent) and are chasing them and they turn down the hall towards the kids room. Or (not gun related) the guy who rammed his pickup into a person fleeing from the police.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcLDgKeptlA

[Monash]

Just by way of a counterpoint:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...icle-1.1877415

Just saying - thin ice.

[zraver]

Just by way of a counterpoint:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...icle-1.1877415

Just saying - thin ice.

Ya banging on the door, let alone the screen door, doesn't rise to the level of reasonable fear the way say kicking in a door would. He murdered that girl and deserves to be tried for it.

But counter-counter point.

This is an 86-year-old law-abiding individual who comes across a forcible felony in progress … and helped others avoid being victims,” said Kirk.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...728-story.html

[Monash]

Yup, different ends of the 'threat' spectrum. And therein is the concern, you can teach someone the basics of firearm handling prior to issuing them with a license to carry in public but to what extent do different States require shoot/don't shoot decision making as part of the license requirements?

[zraver]

Yup, different ends of the 'threat' spectrum. And therein is the concern, you can teach someone the basics of firearm handling prior to issuing them with a license to carry in public but to what extent do different States require shoot/don't shoot decision making as part of the license requirements?

That is a question best researched and answered at the personal local level before anyone carries. When I left Washington State in the late 90's, they had a reasonable man doctrine. You had no duty to retreat but no duty to pursue either. If you shot someone from behind you'd better be able to prove that they were posing an immediate and credible threat of either 1. endangering someone else, committing a violent felony, fleeing a violent felony. Heading out the window with my most prized possession- no shoot. creeping down the hallway headed towards the kids- dead man

[tuna]

I've always used this general rule of thumb for shoot/don't shoot. Imagine yourself sitting in jail for the next 5 - 10 years, and ask yourself, "was it worth it?"

If you can answer "yes" - it was probabalby a good shoot and won't land you in jail. Examples of "yes" to me sitting behind a computer and with no adrenaline rushing through me: protect my wife / children / another child. Examples of "no" to me are: protecting property / looking like a hero / defending a politician.

I try to keep this though in the back of my mind - it also helps to keep me out of trouble (crossing the street to avoid "having" to deal with punks - not worth the jail time).