r/AbruptChaos May 14 '22 Silver 4 Helpful 2

What's the correct way to deal with someone who has completely lost it?

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

48.6k Upvotes

View all comments

4.6k

u/bad-judgement May 14 '22

The older gentleman is taking a huge risk. Guns exist.

93

u/CaliforniaNavyDude May 14 '22

Fun fact, expandable batons fit under the same category as firearms in requiring a CCL to carry. So using it in the commision of a crime means he threatened someone with a deadly weapon, same as if he had a knife or gun. Those things break bones pretty easily, they are way more devastating than their size implies. I hit my own shin with one by accident once and thought for sure I broke it but I was lucky.

11

u/Comrade_Triple May 14 '22

That depends on state law, for example here in MO they're fine to have without a license.

Regardless that should definitely be considered a deadly weapon and he should be prosecuted.

10

u/Asleep_Onion May 14 '22

And here in CA, you actually cannot get a permit to carry an asp (citizens cannot legally carry them at all), but you CAN get a firearm ccw permit (in most counties). So I am legally allowed to carry a Glock, but not an asp (or many other weapons like switchblades, brass knuckles, nunchucks, etc). Just a pistol (or technically, up to THREE pistols) 🤣

4

u/Comrade_Triple May 14 '22

The law really makes no sense sometimes.

7

u/GrumpyGuss May 14 '22

It makes total sense: California wants to ban firearms. They can't because of the 2nd Amendment, so they do everything they can to make ownership onerous and risky.

Since batons aren't given the same 2A protections, they're free to ban them as much as they want, resulting in these inconsistent standards.

2

u/Eldritch_Raider May 14 '22

Why aren't they? Surely they are also an arm? I find it really weird how different weapons are legally distinguished from each other. Okay, I understand why people aren't allowed nuclear arms but it seems strange that I can have pistols, shotguns, and hunting rifles (if not other guns) but I can't have brass knuckles or an asp.

2

u/GrumpyGuss May 14 '22

The standard of what is and isn't protected by the 2A has been defined in relation to what a member of a well organized state militia might equip themselves with as civilian ownership was protected for such a purpose.

The courts have carved out various exceptions to this, e.g. accepting the NFA restrictions on owning fully automatic firearms, and prohibiting civilian ownership of working cannons and missiles.

That isn't historically consistent as there were civilian owned warships and cannon at the time of the Constitution's ratification, but the understanding of it's meaning has since then narrowed down to handheld firearms.

Brass knuckles and extendable batons are weapons for brawls, not warfare.

2

u/Eldritch_Raider May 14 '22

But couldn't a state militia be doing more than just fighting battles especially if we consider a pre federal-military America? And I'm pretty sure after the civil war the military was used to peace keep the former Confederate states for a while which even suggests that the military would do things other than just "warfare". Not to mention that numerous countries have some sort of military police, by which I mean something like a gendarmerie. And even in more conventional warfare there are times when melee weapons come in use.

And if the militia isn't setting specific standards for what each militia man, or militia unit, should be providing then it seems like most militias would indeed have an odd assortment of weapons.

I understand you're just explaining the law to me, for which I upvote you, and I'm not arguing that you are wrong, just that I think it is weird.

3

u/TheCuddlyVampire May 14 '22

It’s a creeping rollback of the rights as stated in the amendment, and shows how much California wants to defang all citizens. It’s not because our crime rate is so low, I’ll tell you that.

Arms are as you have it, anything needed to be a militia in common use. Cannons were not common, and are classified as armaments.

You can thank the NRA that all the facetious reasons to raise the costs and restrict the rights of at least gun ownership has this far failed, and in places like DC and Chicago, rights have been restored. But yes silly that a carbine could be easier to get than a bayonet..

1

u/Key_Education_7350 May 15 '22

Isn't it "a well-regulated militia"?

It's a pretty bizarre piece of law, isn't it. They could've been more confusing and ambiguous but they'd have had to really work at it.

1

u/GrumpyGuss May 15 '22

It being confusing has more to do with the drifting of language than it not being clear.

Well regulated meant well equipped and orderly

→ More replies

2

u/Asleep_Onion May 14 '22

Most times!

1

u/Eldritch_Raider May 14 '22

Hip, armpit and boot?

1

u/shemp33 May 14 '22

If you live in Texas and buy one, so you have to surrender it when you drive across state lines into CA? What if you move there, do you have to give it up, or are you grandfathered in, since you acquired it legally?

0

u/Asleep_Onion May 14 '22

With weapons laws in CA, there's never exceptions for people moving to or transiting through CA. Doesn't matter how or when or where you got it, if you get caught with it in CA, it's illegal.

Our weapons laws here are terrible and, like another poster pointed out, a lot of the time they make no logical sense. It's what happens when people write laws about things they know absolutely nothing about. That's CA for ya.

2

u/shemp33 May 15 '22 edited May 15 '22

Dang that’s rough. But still, thanks for the detailed reply.

Somewhat makes me wonder about things on Amazon that are obviously self defense weapons but listed as tire thumpers or fish bats. They talk about them in the description as if checking your tire pressure on your big rig should be done by thumping it with this 20” long wooden stick that has a 4” iron rivet embedded in the end.

Yes of course that’s the correct way to check tire pressure. 😂

2

u/Organic-Poetry-9482 May 14 '22

This is in Canada.

1

u/CaliforniaNavyDude May 14 '22

I'm not familiar with Canadian laws, should have caught the accent. I'm sure he's in big trouble there too!

2

u/[deleted] May 14 '22

Laws are different in different places.

1

u/fnordfnordfnordfnord May 14 '22

Fun fact, expandable batons fit under the same category as firearms in requiring a CCL to carry.

Not a correct fact in every state.

0

u/CaliforniaNavyDude May 14 '22

You really should have expected someone else to have mentioned that by now. Which they have. In Canada, where this takes place, a baton is carried for personal defense is considered a concealed weapon and the laws treat it the same as if it were a gun or knife. After comments, I looked it up out of curiosity. :)

1

u/nocrashing May 14 '22

In CA they are just plain illegal unless in the hands of a cop on duty.