Sarcasm is wasted on some folks.
1 Like
Kalifornia legislature passed some 770 new laws last year. There are in excess of 20,000 gun control laws in the country. How can anyone know all the laws in any given jurisdiction?
No gun control law has been shown to reduce crime or violence. Time to end them all.
4 Likes
You would have to reference subsection .304, as referenced in this su section, to get your answer.
Alces_Americanus, might you please provide the name and date of the publication and the page number of the article?
It was in Concealed Carry magazine:
1 Like
What month and year is that?
It’s the current issue, January 2022.
I see. I’ll have to check my mailbox!
I could see that as a possible tactic to fool the attacker and buy some time for a successful defense, but I’m jaded enough to doubt that’s the intent.
1 Like
Sounds like a good reason to me to skip a trip to the Islands.
4 Likes
Really… Heaven help us all… That’s just dumb…
2 Likes
It’s Hawaii after all.
It does.
I’ve gone twice. It is very cool and somber to visit Pearl, the Arizona memorial, etc. And the Nā Pali Coast from helicopter and boat alike feels like being on a prehistoric movie set.
I even brought a pistol with me the second time, so I get to say I checked a handgun in Lihue. I wouldn’t actually recommend doing this, however. And my experience was not recent.
But I don’t intend to ever go back
3 Likes
How about the 3rd party defender encourage the attacker to comply or risk a new diet supplement of lead? That’s ridiculous.
3 Likes
You can also read it online by logging on your “Dashboard”. Scroll down to:
and click on “Read the Latest Issue”
1 Like
Oh, I am aware. 
At the time of that post it did not yet show up, though.
Interestingly, the Hawaii statement does not seem to reference Hawaii law, but rather, a publication by Andrew Branca, which appears to be a paid-access-only thing…or you can give them a bunch of info for a ‘free’ book
I was hoping to easily look up the reference/citation for that Hawaii phrase but that does not seem overly simple
1 Like
legal comment on the section:
The Code also specifically requires surrendering possession of a thing when the attacker asserts a claim of right thereto. Where a person offers deadly force unless another surrenders property to him, and claims a right to the property, it is certainly sound policy to save life and litigate the disputed ownership in court. Naturally, however, this rule does not apply in cases of robbery, where the assailant can make no claim of right, and it is the purpose of the Code to permit deadly resistance to robbery if the conditions of subsection (2) are met. Finally, deadly force is impermissible if the actor can avoid using it by complying with a demand that he refrain from any action which he has no duty to take. Again, the policy of saving life seems more insistent than the right of the individual to complete freedom of action.
1 Like
You must have inadvertently cutoff that last sentence. should read “Why, even this bystander urged her to do so just before he shot him.”
1 Like
May depend on the actions of the robber. Was he still a threat or had he desented?
I am not sure what you are trying to state here. My point being that one cannot know what is in someone else’s mind. Depending on actions, we might be able to discern what we believe to be their intent, but that does not mean we know their intent. Was the person still a threat? Until that perp acted on their actual intent, we will never know. Would you give the perp with a firearm the time to decide to kill you or act to prevent your being shot to death? I would favor that latter to the former. You judge me, I will not have the opportunity to judge you, other than in deciding that you should have shot the perp. Oh, well. One less Darwin recipient.
1 Like