Anyone else doing this?

[erik_26]

Nightstand = $1,600 as configured (not including DROS & TAX)

Typical carry = $625 as configured (not including DROS & TAX)

They both have a specific purpose. Both are trusted. If I have to use either of them, which I hope I never have to, the cost of replacing them will be the least of my concerns.

[Germ1]

And I'm sure you "probably" know of an instance or two where that's happened.



This thread is a grey area sort of thread.



Why are you going to court in a "good" shoot.

We went through this stupidity last week with questions about how gun modifications might cause you difficulty after a good shoot. History demonstrates that just doesn't happen.



People read what they want to read, sometimes it's taken to heart, other times FUD is invented since, obviously, if I saw it on the internet it must be true.



Nope. And the retards that post this FUD regularly would rather stay in their state instead of checking history.

Doesn't matter if you think it's a good shoot. You're still going to court. You just discharged a firearm in city limits and killed a human being. You don't make the determination of it being a "good shoot", specially in California. It's considered a homicide until proven other wise in court. http://www.attorneys.com/homicide/wi...-self-defense/ Don't listen to the parroting on this site or where ever you're getting your information from.

[ElvenSoul]

So your looking for a High Point?

[CandG]

And I'm sure you "probably" know of an instance or two where that's happened.

Nope. And the retards that post this FUD regularly would rather stay in their state instead of checking history.

So if you can't find any examples of 33 year old hookers named Pam having HIV on the internet, you should be good to go if you ever run into a 33 year old hooker named Pam? Because only things that are documented on the internet actually happened? Is expecting the worst really a "retarded" plan as you so eloquently worded it? Although I do like your plan, which is to basically assume that cops will see the dead guy on your floor and immediately become best friends with you.

[-hanko]

Doesn't matter if you think it's a good shoot. You're still going to court. You just discharged a firearm in city limits and killed a human being. You don't make the determination of it being a "good shoot", specially in California. It's considered a homicide until proven other wise in court. http://www.attorneys.com/homicide/wi...-self-defense/ Don't listen to the parroting on this site or where ever you're getting your information from.

You're in court if and when the DA decides to charge you with homicide...which he won't do if the shooting was to protect you and / or others from death or great physical harm...i.e., a "good shoot". Self-defense excludes you from a charge of discharging a firearm within city limits.

PC187 may help you understand...it defines what conditions are required for a "good" shoot...no mention is made of discharging a firearm within city limits.

After some searching, I'm unable to find a case where the shooter in a good shoot was found innocent of murder, but still found guilty of shooting a weapon within city limits.

So, where'd you get your info? Any cases you'd like to share?

[-hanko]

So if you can't find any examples of 33 year old hookers named Pam having HIV on the internet, you should be good to go if you ever run into a 33 year old hooker named Pam? Because only things that are documented on the internet actually happened? Is expecting the worst really a "retarded" plan as you so eloquently worded it? Although I do like your plan, which is to basically assume that cops will see the dead guy on your floor and immediately become best friends with you.

I'd go back to post #22 and check http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...5&postcount=31

It's more a matter of assuming the worst will happen when an extensive search shows ZERO incidents of a shooter going to jail and having all his weapons taken following a valid self-defense shooting.

A bit different than hookers with HIV on the web because court transcripts and verdicts are public information.

Having zero experience with hookers, a tiny bit of logic might indicate that HIV is a major issue with hookers, regardless of name.

[CandG]

because court transcripts and verdicts are public information.

Why would the police having confiscated (or not) someone's weapons during a pre-trial investigation be published in any court papers? It's a police procedural issue, not a court issue. Anyways, I'm not wasting any more time arguing with someone who resorts to tin foil hat and facepalm emojies and namecalling, so I'm unsubbing from this thread.

[trigger945]

It is whatever has proven to be the most reliable AND what you can shoot the best, regardless of price. If it turns out to be a $500 Glock, or XD, or CZ, or an off-roster one, or ______, then so be it. Then maybe a back-up to that, which could be the exact same one, or something else that meets those criteria above.

Then, the rest of the guns are for range fun.

At least this is how I see it.

[L84CABO]

I have $3000 guns and I have $400 and $500 ones. Nobody said quality has to cost a grand and up. The gun in the nightstand and on your hip should be absolutely reliable and it should be the one you shoot best. Maybe that's your $500 M&P. Maybe it's your $3000 Wilson. But if it is your $3000 Wilson and you don't carry it because you're worried about losing it should you ever have to actually use it...Well then I think it's time to take a look at your priorities.

As always, YMMV.

[elSquid]

It's more a matter of assuming the worst will happen when an extensive search shows ZERO incidents of a shooter going to jail and having all his weapons taken following a valid self-defense shooting.

Yup. Like you wrote, the DA determines if charges are brought and it depends upon circumstances. Clean shoot, no concern. Color? May be an issue.

An example for the others reading this thread:

80 year old man pursues and executes burglar after being beaten, no charges:

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Long-Beach-Homeowner-Shoots-Kills-Intruder--268364152.html

"I come back and they see me with a gun, and they run," he said.

The man escaped, but the woman fell after being struck by Greer's gunfire in an alley behind the house.

"She says, 'Don't shoot me, I'm pregnant! I'm going to have a baby!' And I shot her anyway," Greer said.

When asked what he saw happen to the woman after he fired shots, Greer responded: "She was dead. I shot her twice, she best be dead ... (The man) had run off and left her."

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/No-Charges-Man-Shot-Woman-Who-Said-She-Was-Pregnant-Long-Beach-289852411.html

Prosecutors have declined to charge an 80-year-old California man in the killing of a burglar who falsely claimed she was pregnant.

The Los Angeles County district attorney's office said Monday it will not charge Tom Greer in the shooting of the woman who asked him not to fire.

So that's an instance that could have easily gone the other way, and resulted in charges but didn't. It depends upon the circumstances and the DA's judgement.

While California has unquestionably poor gun laws, we still all enjoy the right of self defense in the home and the legal system understands that. The best way to avoid arrest after a HD shooting is by knowing the law and clearly acting within it. Like Ron-Solo wrote in the post I linked to, the overwhelming number of HD shootings he investigated resulted in no arrest of the home owner.

The possibility of arrest comes into play if the homeowner does something stupid and/or questionable. Pursuing burglars and shooting one that poses no immediate threat falls into that category here in CA. Still, no charges for the homeowner in this instance.

-- Michael

[EspoMan]

When I first got into firearms and SD/HD I picked the best I can afford for SD/HD. $1000+ handgun for nightstand pistol and $1000+ semi auto rifle for backup. But the more I read in this forum and the more I understand about the SD/HD laws, the more I am leaning toward more economical, yet reliable (emphasis on reliable), firearms. Now my first line of defense is a $300-$400 pistol and a $300 shotgun.

I know some people will ask the question, "Is your life worth $xxxxx?" But some of the less expensive firearms had proven to be just as reliable as their more expensive counterparts.

Yeah I'm not going to lie. When I picked my wife's HD gun I wanted something cheap, yet reliable and something she could shoot well. XD9 essentials package with 2 free mags was a perfect fit.

On my nightstand at night sits my daily carry, a Shield 9mm.

[beanz2]

Guns in the nightstand or desk drawer aren't going to be as securely kept or as well maintained as sitting in your safe in a gun sock with dehumidifier. If keys, scissors and other junk are kept in the same place, eventually they will get scratched. When you are gone, thieves can get to them more easily than in a safe. So, yes, keeping cheap reliable stock Glocks as HD weapons makes more sense than your Ed Brown 1911 (or your tricked out race Salient Arms Glock)