Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.8
Site Design by Sekimori

« Charges of unlicensed practice of law over Supreme Court brief | Main | Thank you, Dick Heller! »

Michigan ruling on "use" of deadly force

Posted by David Hardy · 23 August 2019 11:57 AM

Story here. Defendant drew but did not fire a gun in response to a threat to attack with ordinary force. The trial court instructed the jury that the defendant had used deadly force, which could only be justified by imminent danger from deadly force.

The court of appeals said, no, drawing a gun without shooting isn't "use" of deadly force, and thus can be justified by a threatened attack using ordinary force; drawing a gun to ward off non-deadly physical attack can be justified.

Here in AZ we have a statute to the effect.

3 Comments | Leave a comment

FWB | August 23, 2019 2:24 PM | Reply

Even the wild animals have the right to self-preservation. Why the hell do we humans need statutes to allow us the same? Typical, give the government an inch and they take a mile.

It just like the requirement for a permit to carry concealed. Contrary to s2pid judges, not a single word in the 2nd conveys anything about limitations on Arms. That said, any which way a person wants if acceptable so long as that way does not place others in harm's way. The BS about no concealed granted is totally crap. The 2nd doesn't grant anything and it certainly doesn't limit anything.

So what are we to do? Sit back and wait for our masters to allow us to exercise soveriegn rights that were endowed by the Creator.

Michael Murray | August 24, 2019 5:51 PM | Reply

I question exactly what "ordinary force" is defined as. A vehicle? 696 people were a victim of homicide in 2017 with fists and feet. Is that "ordinary"?
What about disparity of force for a pregnant woman?
My other major take-away is what I taught as an Instructor. If you are armed, don't get in that position. Get your kid, go in the house, lock the doors, and call the PD.

Jay Dee | August 25, 2019 6:07 PM | Reply

So please explain just how was I supposed to to answer a 3am knock on the door out in the country? I answered clad in my underwear with my friend, Dan (of the Wesson family), in hand. The caller stammered out a story about looking for his coon dog (irrespective of the fact that it wasn't coon season) then left without leaving a phone number. You believe him. Don't you?

Leave a comment