conceal/carry?

[Bobby Bass]

That's exactly why I repeat over and over and over to train, train, train. Even when you do that, the adrenaline makes you incapable of a lot of things, And leechlake, your comment "Either the cops were idiots or they know in stressful situations people recall things wrong.  Never caught him." is why I said you need to be given 48 hours to decompress, as adrenaline fueled then  situations alter time, perception, recall, etc. Lots of interesting data out there on that. Carrying that weapon is a commitment you may have to shoot  and kill someone, if you don't believe that,then stay the hell away from a CCW. Just a side note...Bobby, a lot of cops do NOT have their gun used against them, just wanted to clarify that.

 

Not a lot of cops but it does happen.  Was not the recent shooting of an unarmed male ( Jamar Clark) who was shot and killed by an officer as the male was fighting with the other officer over possession of his sidearm..

Edited December 2, 2015 by Bobby Bass
Jamar Clark name added

[RebelSS]

Yup. Pretty small percentage though,  considering the thousands of daily physical interactions.

[Bobby Bass]

I would conclude that he would probably have killed her anyway.  Angry Exes are perfectly capable of killing with their bare hands. 

On the other hand, if she is armed and prepared to use it, maybe he will back off and not gamble that he can get the gun without being shot. She still needs the restraining order and all that as legal protection, and because it might work.  And she needs training and  thought in order to be prepared when or if the situation develops.

When I was a kid one of the neighbor ladies stopped an abusive husband with a kitchen knife.

But I still believe that if the threat of physical violence to a woman in a situation like this is real, she either needs to become unfindable or be ready to protect herself.   Obviously if locking doors and calling the police works, that is far far preferable to defending herself.  Likewise, dispute resolution, counseling, all that. 

What is your suggested alternative?

I do not have an answer nor does anyone else. There is no simple solution. There are plenty of What If answers but every encounter is different. I also have a law background and I have experience answering domestic calls and they never end well. Last year in MN 11,000 DANCO orders were ordered and you can dally see violators in court.  Very hard to debate a point on how someone may be killed. You can not conclude something will happen by assuming something can happen.

 

 

Edited December 2, 2015 by Bobby Bass

[delcecchi]

That's exactly why I repeat over and over and over to train, train, train. Even when you do that, the adrenaline makes you incapable of a lot of things, And leechlake, your comment "Either the cops were idiots or they know in stressful situations people recall things wrong.  Never caught him." is why I said you need to be given 48 hours to decompress, as adrenaline fueled then  situations alter time, perception, recall, etc. Lots of interesting data out there on that. Carrying that weapon is a commitment you may have to shoot  and kill someone, if you don't believe that,then stay the hell away from a CCW. Just a side note...Bobby, a lot of cops do NOT have their gun used against them, just wanted to clarify that.

 

In the original case, much depends on making a realistic assessment of the likelihood of the ex going nuts and harming his former spouse or her family.   In my opinion the answer to that can change the whole calculation with respect to self defense.   If he has a history of abuse or mental health or substance abuse etc she needs to come up with a plan immediately.   I can't say what the plan should be, but she needs one.   Domestic violence is not like a burglar in your garage. 

And in respect of bobby and rebel, I agree with their point that a pistol or a shotgun or mace might not be the best plan for a variety of reasons. 

 

Edited December 2, 2015 by delcecchi

[RebelSS]

That's why I suggested she take it to the cops first for good advice, a TRO, or a plan. No loss in doing that. That's what they're paid for.

[delcecchi]

That's why I suggested she take it to the cops first for good advice, a TRO, or a plan. No loss in doing that. That's what they're paid for.

Do you think that would work in a big city like Minneapolis?  I can see it working in Rochester or Stewartville or places like that.   

If she is really in danger, seems like a restraining order wouldn't help much, except to give the cops a tool to try to stop things from escalating.

[RebelSS]

WTH does it matter where they are?! I Police are to protect and assist, wherever they are. Rochester is too busy to help in a situation like that anyway, because this stupid town has the cops running ragged, because there aren't nearly enough, and as my buddies still on the force say, "priorities in action come first". I've already stated a TRO usually  doesn't help, IMO, what I AM trying to say, with all this CONJECTURE on this situation, presenting it to the Police as a STARTING point for ADVICE is a good beginning. She apparently needs advice, and she isn't getting it from any stated source. We can stretch this sucker out and beat it to death, but she stills needs some intelligent ADVICE to start with.

 

[Lip_Ripper Guy]

She couldn't have been armed because she didn't drive and they had been at a restaurant that didn't allow firearms inside so she couldn't have brought one with her.

So long as she is in MN, restaurants do not have the authority to not allow firearms.

[leechlake]

ok ok...maybe she went to a bar after

 

[RebelSS]

So long as she is in MN, restaurants do not have the authority to not allow firearms.

Like hell they can't. Any private property OR corporate can ban guns on premises. Target does. Buffalo Wild Wings does. All the food spots and everywhere inside the Mayo Clinic complexes bans guns....and that's just a few in my town.

Current Excerpt:

Are there any restaurants that currently ban guns?

Currently, there are restaurants in cities and towns of all sizes banning guests from carrying weapons on their premises. Among the most well-known is Buffalo Wild Wings, a nationwide chain of casual eateries based in Minneapolis, Minnesota. According to a report by CBS Philadelphia, the chain issued an official statement earlier this year letting it be known they have decided to exercise their right to ban guns at all company-owned locations.

 

Edited December 2, 2015 by RebelSS

[delcecchi]

WTH does it matter where they are?! I Police are to protect and assist, wherever they are. Rochester is too busy to help in a situation like that anyway, because this stupid town has the cops running ragged, because there aren't nearly enough, and as my buddies still on the force say, "priorities in action come first". I've already stated a TRO usually  doesn't help, IMO, what I AM trying to say, with all this CONJECTURE on this situation, presenting it to the Police as a STARTING point for ADVICE is a good beginning. She apparently needs advice, and she isn't getting it from any stated source. We can stretch this sucker out and beat it to death, but she stills needs some intelligent ADVICE to start with.

 

OK.  whatever.  What are the police going to tell her?    Care to take a guess? 

[RebelSS]

I really have no idea, Del. I hate conjecture. Probably tell her to watch her a$$, and if she gets assaulted, call them.

[Lip_Ripper Guy]

Like hell they can't. Any private property OR corporate can ban guns on premises. Target does. Buffalo Wild Wings does. All the food spots and everywhere inside the Mayo Clinic complexes bans guns....and that's just a few in my town.

Sure...they can put a sign on the entrances, but they do not have any legal force, and mean virtually NOTHING.  They are a feel good request.  So to be extra clear, if a persons jacket rides up at BWW and someone sees a legally carried handgun and calls 911, and an officer responds, the carrier will have committed no crime whatsoever.  None. Zip. Zilch.  Feel free to search around for sources of your own, but here are a few for you to start with:

Department of Public Safety, Handgunlaw dot US, USA Carry dot com   

[RebelSS]

And if you are asked to leave at that point, for that reason, you MUST. It's considered private property, and they have the right to do it. An oral statement is considered legal too, for your info. Petty misdemeanor at that point, and trespass usually issued also. Is that worth it to you? Spent my career here enforcing it as a LEO. I need read no further. I think you certainly need to, though. Might save you some embarrassing issues. Lotsa curbstone lawyers out there. Just trying to save you from some future problems.

 

http://thompsonhall.com/minnesota-gun-laws-banning-weapons-at-private-establishments/

Edited December 3, 2015 by RebelSS

[delcecchi]

To get back to the original topic sort of, is there any kind of device that could be carried to call 911 and inform them of a problem immediately without having to dial 911 and talk to dispatch?  Sort of a panic button?  

[RebelSS]

Sure. If you want free, put 911 on phone "speed dial" button. Older phones, which you can scarf up, usually have this feature. I have one bopping around in the glovebox of my boat. Other than that, lots of the Medic Alert devices will alert 911 directly....

[Lip_Ripper Guy]

And if you are asked to leave at that point, for that reason, you MUST. It's considered private property, and they have the right to do it. An oral statement is considered legal too, for your info. Petty misdemeanor at that point, and trespass usually issued also. Is that worth it to you? Spent my career here enforcing it as a LEO. I need read no further. I think you certainly need to, though. Might save you some embarrassing issues. Lotsa curbstone lawyers out there. Just trying to save you from some future problems.

 

http://thompsonhall.com/minnesota-gun-laws-banning-weapons-at-private-establishments/

No, I have a perfectly clear understanding of the law, and it is exactly as I said in my last post.  Just because there is a sign doesn't make it illegal to possess a gun on the premises (no ticket can be issued solely for the possession of that firearm on signed premises).  I suspect that part you will agree with?

Now, taking it a step further your post is also correct, in that a ticket can be issued if you are in possession of a firearm, are asked to leave, and refuse.  But you MUST refuse to leave the premises in order for there to be a petty misdemeanor ticket issued.  Still in agreement?  

I'll even take it a step further and say that if someone is in possession of a firearm and are asked to leave, and they refuse, they are a few pennies short of a dollar and deserve a ticket.  But that part is just my opinion.    

[RebelSS]

You can interpret it however you want. I don't get involved in senseless arguments that prove little or nothing. Spent my career enforcing the law, and I refuse to quibble over moot points now. Try to follow it as best as you can. Good luck.

[Lip_Ripper Guy]

That is fine, but you posted information that was not fully correct "like hell they can't", and I was doing my best to clarify.  I'm not looking to get into an internet quibble, but rather get good (correct) information out there.  As a former enforcer of the law, I'm sure you can see the value in good information and understanding of the law.  

[NoWiser]

Private establishments that ban guns on their premises are where I feel the need to carry the most.  I fully understand that if I happen to be carrying and someone notices I will be asked to leave.  I am fine with that.

If someone is going to plan a shooting, are they going to go the place that bans legal carrying of guns, or are they going to go to the place that welcomes it?

My advice to the original poster is that, in the short term, your sister in law needs to find alternative methods of protection, many of which were already mentioned.  In the long term, if carrying a concealed weapon is something she wants to do and she is willing to put in the time to become comfortable with a firearm, I would encourage it.  I think you should take the time to educate her and even introduce her to shooting.  She'll quickly realize that, until she is proficient with a weapon, it's not going to be a very good means of self defense.

[Tom7227]

The can of wasp spray will do the job.   No one dies.  If the intruder gets ahold of your can of wasp spray then it can be used against  you, but you're not dead.  $2, you're ready to go.  There is simply no way IMO that a total novice can pick up a gun and learn how it works and when to use it, plus develop the mindset to do so, in less than 3-6 months of very intensive effort.

[jparrucci]

I would encourage them to get their permit, and train, train, and train some more.  I am still shocked by the amount of anti-2nd amendment people we have here. I've carried daily for over 10 years. My wife is trained and carries frequently.   The right to self defense is a natural right, and affirmed in the Bill of Rights.   While it is important to understand the legalities of carrying,  I'll stick with the mantra that it is better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.  

Signs banning guns carry no legality in MN and are rightfully ignored.  Until you are asked to leave, and refuse,  you have not comitted a crime. I tend to avoid these places and vote with my dollar.

They should get a gun, and keep it in the house until they have proper training to carry daily.   It does not take long to become proficient with a firearm.  Plenty of armchair experts will tell you it takes years,  this is not fact.  People are different.  Some pick up on it faster than others, some handle stress better than others.   There are plenty of police who are not properly trained and do not know how to use their firearms, this is played out daily across the country.