TexasCHLforum.com

I watched this video on youtube about a guy and his experiences carrying. He was an older gentleman, whom had been carrying for many years.

he did start by saying that anything said in his video was his own personal thoughts, but it got me thinking.

He said in the court of law, he believes that the state attorney may come at you for carrying a large caliber (.44mg? I don't think anyone is concealing a 500S&w) with the attack of you being "aggressive", even though it was self defense, and that it may be better to carry a smaller one, like a .380.

This confused me. Has anyone ever heard of such action taken by a court?
I mean I don't plan on taking a Desert Eagle and shoving down my pant leg, but it's the process that counts. It's perfectly legal.

In my opinion, carrying anything with as much power or more than a 44 magnum for personal (human) defense is highly irresponsible as it has a tendency to go through the intended target with the potential to injure innocent bystanders. Leave those calibers for non-humans or rural carry.

As for the courts, I highly doubt they would consider a gun "too deadly" if it was used as a proper and justifiable defense tool. But nothing surprised me anymore.


As for me, I stick with 380, 9mm or 45 in jacketed hollow point form only, and I try to find it in +P.

XGC Radioactive wrote:I watched this video on youtube about a guy and his experiences carrying. He was an older gentleman, whom had been carrying for many years.

he did start by saying that anything said in his video was his own personal thoughts, but it got me thinking.

He said in the court of law, he believes that the state attorney may come at you for carrying a large caliber (.44mg? I don't think anyone is concealing a 500S&w) with the attack of you being "aggressive", even though it was self defense, and that it may be better to carry a smaller one, like a .380.

This confused me. Has anyone ever heard of such action taken by a court?
I mean I don't plan on taking a Desert Eagle and shoving down my pant leg, but it's the process that counts. It's perfectly legal.

Nonsense.
No case law or references I have seen, searched and found.
IMHO, any self-defense shooting that used a standard caliber commonly available off the shelf the type, brand, caliber of ammo is not going to be a question… I would think the prosecution knows the defense can mount days, weeks, or more of medical cases, autopsy reports, subject matter experts to testify that .22lr, .380, 9mm rounds have killed, maimed, wounded many people, and that same defense will find reports from the FBI, DEA, ect where perps were shot with .45 and continued the attack, survived, walked in to the hospital on their own, ect ect.

McKnife wrote:In my opinion, carrying anything with as much power or more than a 44 magnum is highly irresponsible as it has a tendency to go through the intended target with the potential to injure innocent bystanders. Leave those cabinets for bears and whatnot.

As for the courts, I highly doubt they would consider a gun "too deadly" if it was used as a proper and justifiable defense tool. But nothing surprised me anymore.


As for me, I stick with 380, 9mm or 45 in jacketed hollow point form only, and I try to find it in +P.

I run either .357SIG or .40 CD JHP. I don't see much of a need for +P. I understand it is a hotter load, but does that really do that much more?

E.Marquez wrote:
Nonsense.
No case law or references I have seen, searched and found.
IMHO, any self-defense shooting that used a standard caliber commonly available off the shelf the type, brand, caliber of ammo is not going to be a question… I would think the prosecution knows the defense can mount days, weeks, or more of medical cases, autopsy reports, subject matter experts to testify that .22lr, .380, 9mm rounds have killed, maimed, wounded many people, and that same defense will find reports from the FBI, DEA, ect where perps were shot with .45 and continued the attack, survived, walked in to the hospital on their own, ect ect.

I didn't think so. I mean if somebody is trying to kill me, I have all right to defend myself. Even if that means taking my truck and slamming on the gas because he's in front of me with a gun.

I don't think it would happen in Texas, but there was a person convicted in Arizona of carrying 'more gun than needed' who shot and killed an attacker while hiking in 2004. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison prison in 2006. http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG7kvb ... fense.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It was later overturned and went back to trial and he was released in 2009 http://www.paysonroundup.com/news/2009/ ... ut_prison/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. He died last September.

Keith B wrote:I don't think it would happen in Texas, but there was a person convicted in Arizona of carrying 'more gun than needed' who shot and killed an attacker while hiking in 2004. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison prison in 2006. http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG7kvb ... fense.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It was later overturned and went back to trial and he was released in 2009 http://www.paysonroundup.com/news/2009/ ... ut_prison/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. He died last September.

This makes me sick.

XGC Radioactive wrote:

Keith B wrote:I don't think it would happen in Texas, but there was a person convicted in Arizona of carrying 'more gun than needed' who shot and killed an attacker while hiking in 2004. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison prison in 2006. http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG7kvb ... fense.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It was later overturned and went back to trial and he was released in 2009 http://www.paysonroundup.com/news/2009/ ... ut_prison/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. He died last September.

This makes me sick.

I remember reading about that mess. Sad to hear Mr. Fish passed, but glad he was a free man.

If I am at home and the closest firearm is my S&W 500 then that is what I will use. Believe it or not, but I could conceal carry it if I wanted. I have too many other options so I would never carry it but overpenetration would be my biggest concern with it.

mrvmax wrote:If I am at home and the closest firearm is my S&W 500 then that is what I will use. Believe it or not, but I could conceal carry it if I wanted. I have too many other options so I would never carry it but overpenetration would be my biggest concern with it.

Don't carry it into Oklahoma.

So depending on where you live, and how "gun friendly" you are, this may be an issue for you?

mrvmax wrote:If I am at home and the closest firearm is my S&W 500 then that is what I will use. Believe it or not, but I could conceal carry it if I wanted. I have too many other options so I would never carry it but overpenetration would be my biggest concern with it.

I've been doing work on my SKS, it's laying on my bedroom floor.

But i was really just talking about CC

XGC Radioactive wrote:So depending on where you live, and how "gun friendly" you are, this may be an issue for you?

Unless Oklahoma has changed its laws, you are caliber limited to .45 for concealed carry. You can own and shoot a .500 S&W (or .50 AE or a .475 Linebaugh, etc.). You just can't carry it concealed. And, I suspect that the same would be true for Oklahoma's relatively new Open Carry law, but I have no direct knowledge of that.

E.Marquez wrote:

XGC Radioactive wrote:I watched this video on youtube about a guy and his experiences carrying. He was an older gentleman, whom had been carrying for many years.

he did start by saying that anything said in his video was his own personal thoughts, but it got me thinking.

He said in the court of law, he believes that the state attorney may come at you for carrying a large caliber (.44mg? I don't think anyone is concealing a 500S&w) with the attack of you being "aggressive", even though it was self defense, and that it may be better to carry a smaller one, like a .380.

This confused me. Has anyone ever heard of such action taken by a court?
I mean I don't plan on taking a Desert Eagle and shoving down my pant leg, but it's the process that counts. It's perfectly legal.

Nonsense.
No case law or references I have seen, searched and found.
IMHO, any self-defense shooting that used a standard caliber commonly available off the shelf the type, brand, caliber of ammo is not going to be a question… I would think the prosecution knows the defense can mount days, weeks, or more of medical cases, autopsy reports, subject matter experts to testify that .22lr, .380, 9mm rounds have killed, maimed, wounded many people, and that same defense will find reports from the FBI, DEA, ect where perps were shot with .45 and continued the attack, survived, walked in to the hospital on their own, ect ect.

I'm sure type of gun has been used by the prosecution somewhere but so what? They have used gun names, that a gun was expensive, that it was cheap, the ammo, I mean if you can think it then they can argue it. So what? That they argue it doesn't mean it's effective and in any case would be one of 10 different thing that they would try and argue to show whatever point they are trying to make. Heck get in a shooting with the "raging bull" revolver and if you end up in court you dang well know that name will be repeated as many times as they possible can do so. Does that relatively small concern mean enough to effect your gun selection? I think that's a personal decision but it isn't a real issue for me.

If you end up in the hot seat with a DA coming for you, ala Mr. Zimmerman, of course they'll make it a big deal. It'll be the responsibility of your defense team to ask every officer who testifies what caliber they carry and what calibers they own at home as a reference point for the jury.

They'll use anything and everything they can to make you look like a monster, cowboy, or some sort of cowboy monster.

They can't do any of the above if you don't survive the attack.