What's the legality in carrying a roll of coins for defense?

[plaifender]

i

[Pugwash]

Wow, just ... wow. You have now shown your true feelings on guns and enthusiasts. Only someone with a warped view of gun owners would even THINK that such an occurrence would be considered "glorious". No law-abiding gun owners are looking to be martyrs, I can promise you that.

Ah, read what I said and pretend I'm smiling and giggling throughout. It'll give my post the tone intended.

I suspect my humour doesn't traverse the Atlantic well-preserved.

[narikaa]

But

all the "from my stiff dead fingers" adherents to the "Right to Keep and Bear Arms" have surely already had their rights eroded

I mean it goes hand in hand with the "Standing Militia" credo

So this present day standing militia can only have "non military" (even non military looking!!) arms...the rug has already been pulled from under you

.

[Anopsis]

Thanks Pugwash, I appreciate where you're coming from. I'm cool with it.

That's interesting to know. How are those regs enforced without breaching the Second Ammendment?

Here's how the process works. We'll start with the assumption that he's picked out a gun, etc.

Buyer fills out ATF form 4473. (PDF for review)

Dealer reviews the form for completeness and verifies the appropriate questions are answered correctly.

Dealer performs NICS (National Instant Criminal Background Check System) check by contacting the FBI system directly by phone and will do the following:

1) Call a NICS operator and confirm his identity with his FFL number and dealer-selected password.

2) Provide the operator with the name, date-of-birth, sex and race of the potential buyer and the type of transfer--handgun or long gun. A buyer with a common name may, at his option, provide his Social Security number to help speed the check.

3) The system will check the data against its database of prohibited persons. If there is no "hit," the sale will be approved. The system will assign a NICS Transaction Number (NTN) to the approval. The dealer will log the NTN on the form 4473, and the transfer will proceed.

4) Partially completed forms 4473, where a proposed sale has been denied, will be required to be retained by the FFL per BATF regulations.

5) When a "hit" occurs, the dealer will receive instruction to delay the transaction. A "delay" response indicates that the check turned up information that requires further review by an analyst, who will contact the dealer by return call.

While the law provides three business days for the FBI to respond, the FBI anticipates that virtually every delay will be handled within a day. If records require further investigation, the FBI may take up to three days to issue either a proceed or a denial. There will be an appeals process for purchasers who feel they were denied in error, and dealers will be furnished with forms for this process.

If the check is successful the personally-identifying information given to the NICS center is destroyed by the FBI within 24 hours. The completed form 4473 remains in the dealer's filing system indefinitely.

Note that no firearm(s) serial numbers were given to the NICS center, only the type was identified (hand gun or long gun). The SN is recorded on the 4473 which is retained by the dealer only.

If everything goes smoothly the entire process takes about 10 minutes and the buyer goes out the door with the firearm.

Now here's where things get interesting. There is no registry of firearms, so the only place the buyer's name and that gun's serial number are connected is on the 4473 in the dealer's records. Now let's suppose this gun (we'll say it's a Smith & Wesson) turned up at a crime scene. Here's how a firearms trace works.

• ATF contacts S&W and provides them with the SN of the firearm
  
• S&W reports that the firearm was sold to Davidson's Wholesale in Prescott, AZ (just tossing out examples here)
  
• ATF contacts Davidson's and asks for the purchaser of the S&W
  
• Davidson's reports that it was sold to The Gun Vault in Bowling Green, KY (my old store)
  
• ATF contacts The Gun Vault and requests the same information
  
• Dealer retrieves customer information from his records and provides it to the ATF.
  
• ATF contacts that person to inquire about the status of the S&W
  
• Buyer reports that he sold it to a pawn shop
  
• ATF contacts the pawn shop... etc.
  

It's an incredibly long process but it prevents the government from maintaining a database of what we, as individuals, own. The resistance to the creation of a national registry is that if unconstitutional bans are enforced the government would have a list of who has what, making it much easier for them to raid/confiscate/etc.

I hope you found this an interesting read, and please let me know if you have any questions.

Cheers!

[TeeJay]

Thanks Pugwash, I appreciate where you're coming from. I'm cool with it.

Here's how the process works. We'll start with the assumption that he's picked out a gun, etc.

Buyer fills out ATF form 4473. (PDF for review)

Dealer reviews the form for completeness and verifies the appropriate questions are answered correctly.

Dealer performs NICS (National Instant Criminal Background Check System) check by contacting the FBI system directly by phone and will do the following:

1) Call a NICS operator and confirm his identity with his FFL number and dealer-selected password.

2) Provide the operator with the name, date-of-birth, sex and race of the potential buyer and the type of transfer--handgun or long gun. A buyer with a common name may, at his option, provide his Social Security number to help speed the check.

3) The system will check the data against its database of prohibited persons. If there is no "hit," the sale will be approved. The system will assign a NICS Transaction Number (NTN) to the approval. The dealer will log the NTN on the form 4473, and the transfer will proceed.

4) Partially completed forms 4473, where a proposed sale has been denied, will be required to be retained by the FFL per BATF regulations.

5) When a "hit" occurs, the dealer will receive instruction to delay the transaction. A "delay" response indicates that the check turned up information that requires further review by an analyst, who will contact the dealer by return call.

While the law provides three business days for the FBI to respond, the FBI anticipates that virtually every delay will be handled within a day. If records require further investigation, the FBI may take up to three days to issue either a proceed or a denial. There will be an appeals process for purchasers who feel they were denied in error, and dealers will be furnished with forms for this process.

If the check is successful the personally-identifying information given to the NICS center is destroyed by the FBI within 24 hours. The completed form 4473 remains in the dealer's filing system indefinitely.

Note that no firearm(s) serial numbers were given to the NICS center, only the type was identified (hand gun or long gun). The SN is recorded on the 4473 which is retained by the dealer only.

If everything goes smoothly the entire process takes about 10 minutes and the buyer goes out the door with the firearm.

Now here's where things get interesting. There is no registry of firearms, so the only place the buyer's name and that gun's serial number are connected is on the 4473 in the dealer's records. Now let's suppose this gun (we'll say it's a Smith & Wesson) turned up at a crime scene. Here's how a firearms trace works.

• ATF contacts S&W and provides them with the SN of the firearm
  
• S&W reports that the firearm was sold to Davidson's Wholesale in Prescott, AZ (just tossing out examples here)
  
• ATF contacts Davidson's and asks for the purchaser of the S&W
  
• Davidson's reports that it was sold to The Gun Vault in Bowling Green, KY (my old store)
  
• ATF contacts The Gun Vault and requests the same information
  
• Dealer retrieves customer information from his records and provides it to the ATF.
  
• ATF contacts that person to inquire about the status of the S&W
  
• Buyer reports that he sold it to a pawn shop
  
• ATF contacts the pawn shop... etc.
  

It's an incredibly long process but it prevents the government from maintaining a database of what we, as individuals, own. The resistance to the creation of a national registry is that if unconstitutional bans are enforced the government would have a list of who has what, making it much easier for them to raid/confiscate/etc.

I hope you found this an interesting read, and please let me know if you have any questions.

Cheers!

That was a very interesting read, thanks for taking the time to explain I couldn't get the PDF to open, but that's probably for the best, as I'd've been tempted to fill it in The one thing that I'm still not 100% clear on, is if NICS say the person can't have the weapon (presumeably because of criminal background) how does that not violate the person's Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms? I only ask, as it seems a direct bureaucratic way of preventing someone from actually exercising that right (by preventing them from making the purchase)

Very interesting to know that the SNs aren't on a national register, but held at point of sale instead

[TJGladeRaider]

For the non UK residence reading this, if you have a baseball bat by the bed for self defence, that alone would put you in the wrong in a court if you had used that bad against an intruder.

That's totally nutz. The biggest proble I'd have with an intruder is deciding what to kill him with. Assault weapons, shotguns, rifles, pistols . . . Lord love our 2nd Amendment!

; )

Bill

[lanikai]

Stun darts that are shot as projectiles are legal in some states.. 10,000 volts from stun devices.. it's nice to know at times that the women can carry these.. but given the reaction time to pull these devices out.. how effective they are is another story.. but for the men it's nice to know that your wife can carry these legally..

just don't put it in the hands of a women who's got PMS..

myself.. It's a freedom not to have to worry and pack any weapons anymore..

One firearm in the house is sufficient .. some friends have enough to equip a Militia.

[Dani]

If i ever felt the need to defend myself i would just buy a gun and have it on me..No laws made by people will set me into a box where i cant defend myself or my family..

I em no Bruce Lee so a coin roll would not be good for me, i do know have to fight but against people whit viscous intend a coin role will do more harm then good in most cases..

Sames goes for telescope batons if you don't now have to use it and pull it up, it can make it very bad for you if the person attacking you gets a hold of it..

Best for use easy self defense is pepper spray, it sucks so bad to get that stuff in your eyes and face.. or CS that sucks as bad..

I have been sprayed whit cs,pepper and been slapped whit a big police baton in the face/head, sprays are the most effective..

[Pugwash]

For the non UK residence reading this, if you have a baseball bat by the bed for self defence, that alone would put you in the wrong in a court if you had used that bad against an intruder.

Ok, I let this slide earlier, but now it's being taken at its word and used as an example of how ridiculous UK law is, I'm going to have to ask you to back this statement up. To the best of my knowledge, you are allowed to keep anything legal anywhere in your house.

[TeeJay]

Ok, I let this slide earlier, but now it's being taken at its word and used as an example of how ridiculous UK law is, I'm going to have to ask you to back this statement up. To the best of my knowledge, you are allowed to keep anything legal anywhere in your house.

But the impression given, for example, is that while it is legal to keep a cricket bat in the house, keeping a cricket bat in the bedroom as an equalizer, could land the owner in hot water if the crim squeals that they got smacked about with a bat. Keeping a cricket bat is entirely legal. Keeping a cricket bat in the bedroom, might indeed not be. According to posts earlier, this whole 'self-defense' issue appears to be the one aspect of English law where someone has to prove their innocence, not disprove their guilt. How can someone who doesn't play cricket justify keeping a cricket bat under their bed? I may well be wrong here, but I believe that this is the area of the law where people may fall foul (especially if they get in a good hit and happen to kill the burglar) This was why I mentioned the steel dildos earlier... They can at least be explained as 'bedroom accessories' if someone had to justify their presence. Trying to claim the same for a cricket bat, might not sit so easily with the law...

[Pugwash]

But the impression given, for example, is that while it is legal to keep a cricket bat in the house, keeping a cricket bat in the bedroom as an equalizer, could land the owner in hot water if the crim squeals that they got smacked about with a bat.

That's what I'd like sources for. I'm not sure you'd get in trouble for having a bat next to your bed. I think there's nothing in the law to suggest you could be charged with anything, even if you hit an intruder with it.

So, please confirm it's actually the law before quoting it as if it is.

"Anyone can use reasonable force to protect themselves or others, or to carry out an arrest or to prevent crime. You are not expected to make fine judgements over the level of force you use in the heat of the moment. So long as you only do what you honestly and instinctively believe is necessary in the heat of the moment, that would be the strongest evidence of you acting lawfully and in selfdefence. This is still the case if you use something to hand as a weapon." - http://www.cps.gov.uk/Publications/prosecution/householders.html

[TeeJay]

That's what I'd like sources for. I'm not sure you'd get in trouble for having a bat next to your bed. I think there's nothing in the law to suggest you could be charged with anything, even if you hit an intruder with it.

So, please confirm it's actually the law before quoting it as if it is.

"Anyone can use reasonable force to protect themselves or others, or to carry out an arrest or to prevent crime. You are not expected to make fine judgements over the level of force you use in the heat of the moment. So long as you only do what you honestly and instinctively believe is necessary in the heat of the moment, that would be the strongest evidence of you acting lawfully and in selfdefence. This is still the case if you use something to hand as a weapon." - http://www.cps.gov.uk/Publications/prosecution/householders.html

Looking back through the thread, it was Narikaa who pointed out that it was the only example of where a person had to prove their innocence, and, looking at other quoted legislation, the law does appear to allow people to not only use force to defend themselves, but also to use a weapon to do so, including a pre-emptive strike.

But.

How does 'intent' come into all this? Someone gets jumped in the street, they grab a piece of fence-post and whack their attacker... Clear case of someone using violence and weapon to defend themselves, but, the weapon was clearly improvised on the spot, not carried with the intent to be used (offensively or defensively) However. Someone carrying a telescopic baton in their jacket, gets attacked and whacks the attacker, does not have the same defense that the baton was 'improvised on the spot', even if they were only carrying it for defensive means, and they'd probably get done for carrying an offensive weapon if subject to a stop and search... This leads back to the original topic of the roll of coins: Even if they are carried with absolutely no hostile intent at all, how would someone prove to a frustrated police officer that they are not carrying them with the intent to use as a weapon? This would be the issue with the cricket bat in the bedroom (of someone who does not play cricket) It would be obvious that the bat is stored by the bed as an equalizer, so would that then be construed as 'intent' should a burglar get a pasting? Of course, I think I'd rather take a hit from a bat than a steel dildo, but I know that the dildo would be much easier to 'explain away' as an equalizer if stored in the bedroom than the cricket bat would be. Should the need arise... Of course, that same person carrying a steel dildo in the street, would have a very hard time explaining to the police why they were carrying it outside of the house

[narikaa]

Inside the house in the UK is a little bit sacrosanct - yes you can have much there that would instantly have you in irons outside the house vis:

Any of the plethora of illegal 'martial arts' weapons

Switchblades

Brass Knuckles

All manner of edged weapons

all bludgeoning weapons

in fact just about anything that isnt an illegal firearm (which curiously in Nannyland includes pepper sprays and stun guns)

But lets not get too gung ho in any confusion about legality of possession in the home vs use it is put to....despite the rantings of the tabloid press and the ever tightening constraints of the UK legal system you could have say a whole ladder rack of samurai swords next to your bed (just in case) - all fine and dandy, all tickety boo so far. But should you on the occasion of finding a young heroin addict illegally in your kitchen one dark night tucking into your fridge contents execute a skilful Kesa Giri to separate the offending arm and shoulder from its owner. You will find that youve stepped over the line of 'reasonableness' to find your actions wholly illegal. A blas

[Pugwash]

This would be the issue with the cricket bat in the bedroom (of someone who does not play cricket) It would be obvious that the bat is stored by the bed as an equalizer, so would that then be construed as 'intent' should a burglar get a pasting?

You're allowed 'equalisers' at home. You're just not allowed to walk the street with them.

But should you on the occasion of finding a young heroin addict illegally in your kitchen one dark night tucking into your fridge contents execute a skilful Kesa Giri to separate the offending arm and shoulder from its owner. You will find that youve stepped over the line of 'reasonableness' to find your actions wholly illegal. A blasé example perhaps but you see the point (no pun intended)

Absolutely. It's about the amount of force you respond with, not what you respond with. If some ned breaks into my house and I pull a sword on him, if he wets himself and runs, I can't kill him on the way out. If I don't feel threatened, I certainly won't respond out of spite.

[TeeJay]

You're allowed 'equalisers' at home. You're just not allowed to walk the street with them.

And that, raises two points:

1. Allowed to have equalizers at home, and allowed to use an equalizer on an intruder, might well be two different things in the eyes of the law (especially if said equalizer is not an 'everyday object' being utilized as a weapon...

2. Goes back to the quote with which I opened this discussion: Being disarmed by the law, makes it easier for criminals to prey on their victims. A person should be allowed to carry a weapon for protection if they feel it necessary. Carrying and using a weapon are two different things, as are offensive and defensive uses of a weapon. If someone lives in an area which is known to be unsafe, then statistically, they are 'in danger' anytime they leave the home, and accordingly, should be able to equip themselves to counter that potential threat without fear of the law doing them for carrying an 'offensive weapon'.

Absolutely. It's about the amount of force you respond with, not what you respond with. If some ned breaks into my house and I pull a sword on him, if he wets himself and runs, I can't kill him on the way out. If I don't feel threatened, I certainly won't respond out of spite.

I have to admit, in that kind of situation, I'd use a bokken rather than a blade... There might not be limbs flying, but the crackhead would still get taught a lesson in manners

[FxrAndy]

I thought minimum force means starting with 22 and working your way up if they don't stop moving

[TeeJay]

I thought minimum force means starting with 22 and working your way up if they don't stop moving

[Pugwash]

Goes back to the quote with which I opened this discussion: Being disarmed by the law, makes it easier for criminals to prey on their victims. A person should be allowed to carry a weapon for protection if they feel it necessary. Carrying and using a weapon are two different things, as are offensive and defensive uses of a weapon. If someone lives in an area which is known to be unsafe, then statistically, they are 'in danger' anytime they leave the home, and accordingly, should be able to equip themselves to counter that potential threat without fear of the law doing them for carrying an 'offensive weapon'.

There is no evidence that shows we're any less safe because we're not allowed to wander the streets tooled up. Would you consider the streets of inner city London safer than the mean streets of LA? Would you feel safer walking through gangland with a gun, knowing everyone else, including that group of angry-looking men on the corner, might be equally armed?

I'd rather live in a country that makes it very, very difficult for a junkie with no fear of death to get a gun.

[narikaa]

I have to admit, in that kind of situation, I'd use a bokken rather than a blade... There might not be limbs flying, but the crackhead would still get taught a lesson in manners

Indeed and doubtless an edifying lesson to give, you could doubtless reflect on the fun to help while away your time in jail for doing so.

I'd rather live in a country that makes it very, very difficult for a junkie with no fear of death to get a gun.

And what country would that be? ...certainly not the UK (and most definitely not the land o' the 'sweaty sock') where junkies and other criminals have very free and easy access to illegal firearms, its only 'very very' difficult for the law abiding tax paying sheeple.

.

[TeeJay]

There is no evidence that shows we're any less safe because we're not allowed to wander the streets tooled up.

The evidence has shown that someone is more than twice as likely to get knifed in the UK, than shot in the US. Regardless of what 'evidence' there may or not be, the fact remains, that the quote I have referred to several times in this discussion, is absolutely spot-on accurate. Criminalizing weapons only serves to disarm the law-abiding, meaning it is easier for criminals to assault them, ergo, it is less safe for the law-abiding to not be allowed to wander the streets tooled up.

Would you consider the streets of inner city London safer than the mean streets of LA?

I would not like to say, without comparing hard statistics. What I would offer as an alternative, is that I felt safer, staggering around the streets in Tokyo, past midnight, completely wankered, not really knowing where I was, than I have felt sober, walking home from town of an evening, in several years.

Would you feel safer walking through gangland with a gun, knowing everyone else, including that group of angry-looking men on the corner, might be equally armed?

As I have said before, 'yes'. Wether I would actually be safer, would be another matter, but, I would certainly feel safer knowing that 'Mr .9mm was protecting my righteous ass in the valley of darkness'...

I'd rather live in a country that makes it very, very difficult for a junkie with no fear of death to get a gun.

Well sadly, you don't. As I mentioned previously, it is, and likely always has been, easier for a criminal to illegally acquire a gun, than it is (or has been) for a shooting enthusiast to acquire one legally. If some smackhead wants or needs to get their hands on a piece, they will find a way to make it happen, and probably with little effort.

I would rather live in a country that allowed me to carry a firearm, or allowed my wife to carry a gun/taser/can of mace, for protection, should he need arise, but sadly, I don't.

[TeeJay]

Indeed and doubtless an edifying lesson to give, you could doubtless reflect on the fun to help while away your time in jail for doing so.

Precisely what worries me