Some sick stuff as California man loses gun permit after defending family

I can not believe how far we have fallen down the slope of anarchy in some states of America.
So a guy is jumped by two armed individuals as he is unlocking the door to his house and he defends himself... see and hear what happens next.

youtu.be...

a reply to: 727Sky

You know who else has done this kind of thing?

Communists.

a reply to: 727Sky

This is bull#. I dont know if this the real reason but F it. Go and get another and dont register it like just like all those criminals out there. Use it if you have to and dump it just like the criminals do.

Link one of many

Its quite obvious that we have criminals in government and in law enforcement who are apparenty up to their neck in bribes.

Wealthy LA father who pulled gun on masked intruders as they tried to break into his luxury home while his baby was inside reveals he has been STRIPPED of his firearm permit 'because he yelled at cops when they arrived'

Dont be like the British in the Revolutionary war law abiding USA citizen go rogue and do as the criminals do.

a reply to: 727Sky

Not often ile defend the use of firearms.

But i don't see what the fellow did wrong.

And the fact that he had a concealed carry permit, far as i can establish, means he did not break the law of the land.

But simply tried to protect himself and his family from what clearly appears to be a home invasion.

I doff my cap to the fellow, he did a mans job by my guess.

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: 727Sky

You know who else has done this kind of thing?

Communists.

They had a good teacher !

"To conquer a nation, First disarm it's citizens."

-Adolf Hitler

a reply to: 727Sky

They would have to pry it out of my cold dead hands. There's a homeless encampment in the woods behind my job. They have already had one murder over there and these people just loiter around wandering around in a drunken, drug induced haze. We are not supposed to bring weapons into work but I've always kept my stun gun with me because a million volts will slow someone down. Since the homeless explosion, I asked our security if I can bring my Sig to work with me if I keep it concealed and have a permit. Normally would be a hard no but I'm a 5'2" very small woman. He just said "I would if I was you, but remember I know nothing about it"

a reply to: 727Sky

This is what they want to do with all of us.

a reply to: 727Sky

This is totally expected, it's not surprising at all.

For starters, look at who's running California. Gavin Newsom.
One of the most hilarious things I've ever heard was when Newsom addressed the 2022 Los Angeles train robberies. Following the robberies, Newsom did a string of his patented bizarre press conferences, which always confirm that he is uber self-unaware, and he inhabits an alternate reality.

Within hours of saying "train robberies", he changed the description to "cargo thefts". Because "robbery" is too harsh a term. Shortly afterward, he apologized for using the offensive term "gangs", and changed it to "organized groups". Then, the next day, in a news interview, he changed his descriptors again. He said "organized groups of folks", probably because "folks" sounds warmer. More caring. Even more politically correct, if that's possible.

You'd be hard pressed to find a more perfect example of "you can't make this up".


“Forgive me for saying ‘gangs’

Interesting that even the homeowner falls into the propaganda driven idea that the state "gave" him a right to carry a firearm which it promptly took away when the homeowner exercised that right.

It's actually a god given inalienable right according to Bill of rights which can't be arbitrarily taken away at the whim of a beaurecrat.

Removal of those rights are supposed to be by a jury of peers and upon conviction of a crime.

We have allowed encroachment of basic rights by buying into a false promise of safety when in fact it's really an exercise in safety of the state over ones personal security.

I have for a long time mentioned the practice of DA's and Prosecutor's pleading down serious gun related charges to lessor crimes resulting in a revolving door policy allowing those who abuse their rights to be back on the street.

Enforce what law we have on the criminals and leave legitimate firearms owners alone.

Im defending California but i am going to say he fired multiple wild shots and did not hit either one of his two targets from my understanding. The video did not address this aspect of this situation and I could imagine that this could be something that would be weighed upon someone put in this situation.

originally posted by: Brotherman
Im defending California but i am going to say he fired multiple wild shots and did not hit either one of his two targets from my understanding. The video did not address this aspect of this situation and I could imagine that this could be something that would be weighed upon someone put in this situation.

It doesn't look to me like he's shooting wildly. It looks like he's aiming fairly well given the circumstances. It's very hard to hit a running target.

a reply to: ColeYounger2

If you don't have a clean shot don't take it. The law doesn't let you off the hook because they were running, as a matter of fact the law looks at a person shooting a person running away with their back turned quite a bit differently. Again I don't like California but what the guy did isn't justified really anywhere in the USA hes lucky no one got shot that wasn't his assailants. You may not like what I am saying but it really is the truth

originally posted by: Brotherman
Im defending California but i am going to say he fired multiple wild shots and did not hit either one of his two targets from my understanding. The video did not address this aspect of this situation and I could imagine that this could be something that would be weighed upon someone put in this situation.

I wonder if he would be up on murder charges and his family facing street protests outside their home if he had shoot and killed one or both of his violent assailants. It is CA, where the lazy justice system goes after the easy targets to justify their existence.

Probably the best thing that happened to him during this ordeal is that he missed.

a reply to: Phoenix

Hopefully FPC takes up his case and runs it as far as needed.

Shall not be infringed is pretty clear and these commie States need to be smacked down.

originally posted by: Brotherman
a reply to: ColeYounger2

If you don't have a clean shot don't take it. The law doesn't let you off the hook because they were running, as a matter of fact the law looks at a person shooting a person running away with their back turned quite a bit differently. Again I don't like California but what the guy did isn't justified really anywhere in the USA hes lucky no one got shot that wasn't his assailants. You may not like what I am saying but it really is the truth

I agree that in most states, the laws discourage, or even forbid shooting at someone who isn't "posing a threat". (As in running away) I have seen a few cases where someone did exactly as the California guy did, and they won their case. The shooter (or his lawyer) argued that:
1. It was a high-stress situation, so emotion or instinct took over.
2. The shooter feared that if they didn't shoot, and continue shooting, the bad guys would keep coming.

a reply to: Brotherman

The story says they were armed and on his property.

Armed is considered lethally dangerous in most places when trespassing someone's property.

a reply to: Brotherman

Accuracy, while preferable, is not a condition for the right to self defense.

a reply to: Phoenix



All anyone has to do it watch some videos on the first amendment videos.
Yes some of them are annoying and baiting, but in 100% of the cases law enforcement doesn’t even know many of the most basic laws and rights. It is downright scary!

a reply to: 727Sky

In my country, it's even better. One guy was trying to rape a woman, she killed him and ended up accused of murder. She should have lied down and enjoyed herself. One guy was attacked, he killed the attacker and faced legal troubles. A long time again, the homeowner shot at the robbers. He didn't kill them, only wounded them. He ended up being charged while the robbers were considered victims.

I don't know if these people were actually sentenced because I didn't follow the cases. But the prosecutors here are all too willing to confuse victims with criminals.

a reply to: watchitburn

he was wrong in his shooting.