question about CC/SHTF

[delcosheriffsucks]

lets say for instance i am driving a car and i have a LTCF. my brother is riding shotgun and does not have a LTCF. say 4 or 5 people start attacking my car trying to pull us out with bats and knives and such(far fetched i know, but stay with me) our lives are in danger, i have my carry piece and a backup piece, can i hand my brother the backup piece so we are both armed?

[sjl127]

Tough to answer. I think this may be a case law issue.

[jrbib24]

In a situation like that, I would say that you have to do whatever it takes to save your life and the lives of your passengers. If your vehicle is being attacked, and more than one person in the car fights back (regardless if everyone has a LTCF), I have to believe that you would be okay in the spirit of self defense.

[buster]

Can't drive? Two guns are better than one. SCREW THE LAW!!!

[OnlineErie.com]

IMO, if you ended up in court and could articulate the complete story...it would be ruled self-defense.

Dave Martin
Pa. DOC

[TRB]

lets say for instance i am driving a car and i have a LTCF. my brother is riding shotgun and does not have a LTCF. say 4 or 5 people start attacking my car trying to pull us out with bats and knives and such(far fetched i know, but stay with me) our lives are in danger, i have my carry piece and a backup piece, can i hand my brother the backup piece so we are both armed?

Assuming that the weapon you are driving cannot be moved out of the attack zone:

1. Your windows should be up.
2. If they break the windows and start to pull you out of the car it is clear cut self defense.
3. If he uses this tool and survives the encounter, the weapons charge is the least of your collective problems.
4. If you don't give him the gun, what are you going to tell your parents?

I have no idea what the law is other than the law of self preservation. That law dictates your genes are more important to the pool than those of the predators.

[GunLawyer001]

PA statutes allow a defense of necessity or justification, where you violate a minor law to prevent greater harm. It never applies to killing an innocent person (if someone kidnaps your wife and will kill her unless you kill the mayor, you can't do it.) It does apply to self-defense, it also applies even to prohibited persons, so that handing a firearm to a prohibited person who is currently being attacked, can't flee, didn't cause the attack himself, and is at risk of death or permanent injury, might be excused.

In the odd hypothetical, statutory law would apply, and a finder of fact would likely find that the statutes being violated (arguably, an unlawful transfer plus his unlicensed carry) resulted in less harm than the harm sought to be avoided. This assumes that you were unable to flee, and that you all were in immediate jeopardy, and that arming the brother significantly increased the overall defensive capabilities.

It's an affirmative defense, so the burden of proof is on the defendant.

[TRB]

PA statutes allow a defense of necessity or justification, where you violate a minor law to prevent greater harm. It never applies to killing an innocent person (if someone kidnaps your wife and will kill her unless you kill the mayor, you can't do it.) It does apply to self-defense, it also applies even to prohibited persons, so that handing a firearm to a prohibited person who is currently being attacked, can't flee, didn't cause the attack himself, and is at risk of death or permanent injury, might be excused.

In the odd hypothetical, statutory law would apply, and a finder of fact would likely find that the statutes being violated (arguably, an unlawful transfer plus his unlicensed carry) resulted in less harm than the harm sought to be avoided. This assumes that you were unable to flee, and that you all were in immediate jeopardy, and that arming the brother significantly increased the overall defensive capabilities.

It's an affirmative defense, so the burden of proof is on the defendant.

Thank you for the clarification.

If I read this right, is still problematical. The action could still result in a conviction on a weapons charge depending on the DA, the jury, local community prejudices and mind set, and the skill of the defense attorney.

But the bottom line is alive, even if illogically punished, is still better than the alternative.

[GunLawyer001]

Thank you for the clarification.

If I read this right, is still problematical. The action could still result in a conviction on a weapons charge depending on the DA, the jury, local community prejudices and mind set, and the skill of the defense attorney.

But the bottom line is alive, even if illogically punished, is still better than the alternative.

Exactly right, you NEVER have permission to use lethal force or transfer a gun to an unlicensed person, but sometimes you will be forgiven. Never commit a crime unless you are willing to pay a steep price for it, because sometimes you will indeed have to pay the price.

Use lethal force when you are unwilling to accept the cost of NOT using it. I'd rather do prison time than watch my wife be murdered or raped. I'd rather do prison time than allow myself to be killed. But I'd rather let my car be stolen than do prison time.

Court is always a crapshoot. Assume that your actions may be found to be unjustified by the police, the DA, and a jury. If they agree with you, then fine, but every shooting carries the possibility of being judged unlawful and unjustified. Don't pull the trigger unless it's worth paying the maximum price.

Sort of like bidding on eBay, if the bidding is at $1, don't bid $1,000, because you might have to pay the full $1,000. Sometimes you'll win for $2, but the possibility is there that you'll pay it all.

[ReefBlue]

Gas pedal > gun.


I can drive faster with a smashed in windshield and 4 flat tires than a bunch of people can run after me.