Open Carry in Wilderness Areas

[mep1811]

I recommend for anyone who carries a firearm for self defence is to get liability insurance. There are a few out there but I prefer US Law Shield.

The coverage is for any self defence with or without a firearm . This covers your arrest after being involved in a self defence situation . A lawyer is provided until he case is adjudicated. The goes for any subsequent civil lawsuit since you ventilated a loved one who was the breadwinner who depended on criminal acts to get money.
The program attorney here has mentioned to hire him to defend against a self defence case would be a 25K retainer to start.

There are also continuing education classes to keep up with the laws as well as first aid classes. Just a FYI.

Legal Defense for Self Defense - USLawShield

Protect yourself with concealed carry insurance. Stay on the right side of the law. Be a responsible CCW gun owner.

www.uslawshield.com

 

[crazysccrmd]

I never, and encourage others to never carry a firearm for 'self defense'. That implies anticipation of firing upon a person or creature.
I carry firearms for legal hunting or simply the legal right to do so.

That is the entire reason to carry a firearm. It’s not jewelry to wear around looking good, it’s a tool meant to defend yourself against that which means you harm or to use to kill your dinner.

 

[Mike W.]

I never, and encourage others to never carry a firearm for 'self defense'. That implies anticipation of firing upon a person or creature.
I carry firearms for legal hunting or simply the legal right to do so.

Seems pretty backwards. I carry a firearm for personal safety. If I wasn't properly trained and skilled I would carry a whistle or something..

 

[waveslider]

I don't mind people telling me and others they SHOULD have training for safe firearms handling. And I would agree.

I don't mind people telling me and others they SHOULD understand the ramifications of a deadly encounter where you are forced to use your weapon to defend yourself or others. And I would agree.

I don't even mind people telling me and others they SHOULD have insurance, to help you in cases when you need to get legal input and representation. And I might even begrudgingly agree.

But the very instant you begin to advocate for rules and laws that would aim to legally mandate those things or anything else that serves to chill my right to defend myself and my family in the manner I see fit you become the enemy. You become someone to pillory for using the sharp stick of regulation to carry out your opinion or worse, your brand of morality......and you certainly lose all credibility if you attempt to argue from the side of "protecting 2A rights".

 

[waveslider]

Why did you quote my post? Was that a mistake?

 

[Matt.H]

I spent over 30 years making sure 2A rights of my citizens were protected

No. You didn't. Unless you live in a different country with subjects you have no citizens.

Also, I did respond with a link to a well known orator, proponent, instructor and lawyer on what to do before, so that you will be prepared after, a confrontation and/or shooting. BTW he now resides in your neighborhood.

Law of Self Defense Principles Hardcover – Law of Self Defense

lawofselfdefense.com

Blog – Law of Self Defense

lawofselfdefense.com

Law of Self Defense

lawofselfdefense.com

Sometimes it is how we write things and the way them come across. As I am sure this post is coming across kind of snooty it isn't meant to be.

Matt

 

[waveslider]

No. You commented on my post and I responded. Is there another misunderstanding?

What exactly led you to believe that I commented on your post? DId I quote you unintentionally? I don't see it but anything is possible?

 

[Matt.H]

Maybe if you served, you'd understand the relationship versus nitpicking and it would be helpful and not misleading if you posting the entire quote for context.

You blame members for assuming then do the same. I served in military and volunteered with the local SAR and Emergency Services.

You do realize that the there is no duty to protect on behalf of the police? There are more than one case references. The relationship stands as the citizens hiring other citizens to do a job. Not 'your' citizens.

Warren v. District of Columbia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone (Published 2005)

Supreme Court rules that police do not have constitutional duty to protect person from harm, even woman who obtained court-issued protective order against violent husband which made arrest mandatory for violation; decision overturns ruling by federal appeals court in Colorado; it had permitted...

www.nytimes.com

June 28, 2005

• WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

 

[AbleGuy]

Here we go again.....please re-read my entire comment(s) before you get so offended. My responses provided things to consider when involved in a shooting, based on the "armed predator" question, not the creation of "rules and laws" or "regulations" against your 2A rights.

Now, speaking of credibility. Technically, you and the other have lost credibility for failing to read and comprehend the point(s) of my comments and instead of asking a question to understand or establish credibility, you've jumped to your own "assumption" based on your preconceived beliefs that everyone is out to take away your 2A. You are wrong. Let me repeat that so you can understand. You are wrong. I could go into the countless number of LEO, Tactical Officers, S/F soldiers, civilians (teachers, preachers and everyone in between) this uI've trained as an NRA/LEO/Tactical/Covert/firearms instructor and POST certified in 10 weapons/LL/Armor systems or my decades of narcotics/violent crime/homicide investigations involving guns or my Use of Force/OIS Technical analysis roles involving weapons, or POST lessons plans I created for handling a terrorist event response/mass shooting response/blue on blue shooting response/2A citizen on citizen shooting response or as a Deputy, Sergeant, Captain, Commander, Chief I spent over 30 years making sure 2A rights of my citizens were protected by not giving into political/community pressure to make lists of permit holders, create a searchable computer file of permit holders or simply educating a complaintant on the rights of the guy/gal that is carrying their gun or shooting on their own property.....oh, and there is my shootings and the reality afterwards (keep in mind, LEO's are authorized to carry and use a firearm by the constitution, federal law, state law, county ordinance, agency Attorneys, insurance company, head of agency, policy/procedure/training/certification, federal case law, state case law, civil case law, etc....) but, instead of recognizing that there is reality after a shooting ( Repeat, nothing to do with your 2A rights) you go on an uninformed, emotional rage. Be safe.

Gosh, a detailed response based on extensive personal experience and years of training and education, and also a depth of first hand knowledge.?

Sorry, but that’s just not allowed in this thread. ?

 

[Matt.H]

Maybe you should go back to internet school on law enforcement. Do some research on agency policy, procedure, agency mission statement and general orders as it applies to employment responsibilities versus civil liability. Your over symplifing the real world of law enforcement.

We need to get back to basics. Citizens are not the property or the subject of agencies. Your employment responsibilities and liabilities should be to serve the general public and not an agency.

When SCOTUS affirms there is no duty to protect, and then 'agencies' begin to tell us how the 2ndA applies it can rattle a few windows. We need to stop selling "to serve and protect".

 

[waveslider]

We need to stop selling "to serve and protect".

Well, in all honesty no one has been buying that for some time now despite the sales tactics.

 

[Matt.H]

What is also insulting is your broadbrushing of all the brave men and women of law enforcement who have given everything to serve their communities and citizens as some form oppressive entity.

Yet it isn't meant to be any more insulting than you stating 'my citizens'. I am sure both you and I could use either term in most situations and it would be understood based on who we, you and I, are. When used on the internet not so much. Just as much as I won't take offense to this:

"Maybe you should go back to internet school on law enforcement."

Let's go back to the reason for this thread. Open carry in the wilderness is, and should be, a personal choice.

 

[IdaSHO]

Such a surprise...

Paul just deleted all of his posts in this thread.

Carry on.

 

[Mike W.]

My thoughts on the entire thread. If a animal attacks my family, friends or myself I'm going to kill it..with a gun if possible. I don't care if it's a Bear, Cat, Dog or a Crackhead. If it's in the woods, the Walmart parking lot or my backyard. Once my family, friends are safe I will worry about ramifications. The safety of those I care for or the innocent who by no fault of their own comes first..

I would rather be alive and fighting then 6ft under..

 

[09Busaman]

In the open wilderness, miles from anyone, I carry on my person. Now in a campground, with lots of other people around I may not, but it may be in the truck. I feel safer when camping in the middle of a camp ground with other people around, but out by ourselves where no one can help, no one can hear, I am condition one and ready at all times. You never know who/what you will run in to and I am simply not willing to take the chance. Dont get me wrong, I dont have an itchy finger, the bear spray comes out first, but if that doesnt work you know the rest.