Laws in CanadaEssay Preview: Laws in CanadaReport this essayIt should be a basic right to defend yourself with a deadly weapon from death or assault because most attacks, robberies and rapes occur outside of your house. They are used to deter or stop an attacker with a weapon as a knife or gun. Not with the intention to kill an attacker, but to stop them with as few shots fired.
A hand gun is the most effective self defense tool in the world. Many people who have little or no hope of defending themselves with their hands are able to do so with a gun. Canadians should be responsible enough to use defensive force in a reasonable and legal fashion.
It is legal under Section 34 and 35 of the Criminal Code for Canadians to use necessary force to protect their life, up to and including the use of deadly force. The Firearms Act and Regulations spells out who else in Canada can legally carry handguns. Under the Criminal Code, handguns are classified as either restricted firearms or prohibited firearms, which require an “authorization to carry”. Under the Criminal Code, hand guns require an “authorization to carry” permit.
There have been many situations in both Canada and the United States where private citizens have taken it upon themselves to save others. An example of this is in 2002, a shooter on a rampage at the Appalachian School of Law in Virginia was stopped after not one, but two students in different locations heard his shots and retrieved their weapons from their cars, returned, and placed him under arrest until the police arrived. Private Citizens should be trusted to carry arms without any resulting chaos. If someone in the Engineering classroom at Montreals Polytechnique had been armed when Mark Lepine went on his murderous rampage there was a good chance that he could have been stopped before he killed the 14 young women.
It should also be noted that in a number of states, individual people have the right to use deadly force when encountering law enforcement officers or other persons in distress, the threat of which is sufficiently severe to warrant an arrest and probable cause to conduct a trial.
In Washington state, law enforcement agencies may need to use deadly force when entering the presence of the offender. As cited in Pennsylvania State University, when an armed suspect is within 5 feet of a law enforcement officer or law enforcement, the suspect should be restrained. In Wisconsin, law enforcement agencies have the authority and constitutional right to use “reasonable force” when doing their job, and under the circumstances of the law-enforcement officer(s) or law-enforcement agency, that authority may not be limited by the use of extreme force. To avoid a lawsuit or civil action in which an individual in the presence of law enforcement becomes a victim, the use of force may be reasonably necessary, that person should be arrested, charged, or otherwise put into custody, and the risk of a wrongful imprisonment, including the reasonable apprehension of an imminent emergency.
>
In Arizona, a person is under arrest if, at a law enforcement action, that person willfully or recklessly carries a concealed weapon.
In Delaware, a law enforcement officer may lawfully use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that the person has committed, committed, committed a crime with a firearm and that an officer would reasonably believe could not reasonably detain the offender within the 5-foot radius of a law enforcement officer. In this case, if an officer, at that officer’s discretion, reasonably believed that the law enforcement officer would reasonably believe the offender held a gun to his or her head, or that the conduct of the officer was likely to cause a physical injury to, or an immediate danger to, the safety of others, to the public or to a specific person, the officer may use deadly force. For any law enforcement action, the officer has the legal duty to keep the person of the person for the purpose of the law enforcement action. For the purposes of this rule, all actions in which a law enforcement officer intends to do one or more things that would reasonably necessitate an arrest, including the use of force, are action in the officer’s discretion.
In Rhode Island, a law enforcement officer must use reasonable force if he or she reasonably believes that the law enforcement officer would reasonably believe the offender was committing, committing, committing, or threatening criminal action with or without force or threat of violence, either with or without a firearm.
In Washington state, law enforcement agencies may use lethal force when entering the presence of a person whose safety is threatened by an active criminal group. The use of deadly force at a law enforcement action may include the following:
In Washington state, police may use reasonable force when entering an area where a group of people are fleeing or threatening a law enforcement officer.
[more]
>
In Wisconsin, law enforcement agencies may use reasonable force when approaching a peace officer in a traffic stop where the officer believes that the officer is trying to prevent a violent crime or a threat of violence, between them.
In Wisconsin state, where an armed individual is an active criminal gang member and in who state the police are dealing traffic stops the law enforcement officer has the legal obligation to use such force in self defense.
In Virginia, if a law enforcement officer reasonably believes that the persons involved in the traffic stop may unlawfully have access to stolen property while they are engaged in a serious criminal activity, the law enforcement officer’s lawful use of force or the use of reckless disregard will be justified, and there is no reasonable need to keep the persons in custody.
In Oregon, if a law enforcement officer is pursuing criminal charges in a motor vehicle, when the officer’s suspicion is proven to be reasonable by a preponderance of the evidence, he or she may use reasonable force in order to obtain their release.
In Texas, when there is a risk that a law enforcement officer may cause serious and immediate personal injury or the injury of others. If you consider law enforcement actions to be reasonable as opposed to criminal, consider law enforcement action when law enforcement officers encounter a person with serious criminal or civil problems in your area by law enforcement on a routine basis.
In Virginia, in a law enforcement action while the person is engaged in a serious criminal activity the law enforcement officer has the legal obligation to use reasonable force in order to search for the person in question. The use of
In Florida, the only public safety law required under any of the four federal constitutive and law-enforcement statutes regarding lethal force is Florida Law 94-13. In Florida, where the legislature does not specifically provide specific laws defining a particular type of use of deadly force, it cannot require specific regulations for use of the lethal force in situations of crisis or for use in emergencies. State law does provide for use of deadly force pursuant to the Florida Uniform Code of Law, however, and Florida General Statutes do not require a specific rule for use of the deadly force in situations that would involve the danger of deadly force in the event of an emergency.
The following is a guide to state firearm laws and the use of deadly force in situations of crisis.
The following articles and references use the term “law enforcement officer” with the meanings given within such terms. For more details, see
It should also be noted that in a number of states, individual people have the right to use deadly force when encountering law enforcement officers or other persons in distress, the threat of which is sufficiently severe to warrant an arrest and probable cause to conduct a trial.
In Washington state, law enforcement agencies may need to use deadly force when entering the presence of the offender. As cited in Pennsylvania State University, when an armed suspect is within 5 feet of a law enforcement officer or law enforcement, the suspect should be restrained. In Wisconsin, law enforcement agencies have the authority and constitutional right to use “reasonable force” when doing their job, and under the circumstances of the law-enforcement officer(s) or law-enforcement agency, that authority may not be limited by the use of extreme force. To avoid a lawsuit or civil action in which an individual in the presence of law enforcement becomes a victim, the use of force may be reasonably necessary, that person should be arrested, charged, or otherwise put into custody, and the risk of a wrongful imprisonment, including the reasonable apprehension of an imminent emergency.
>
In Arizona, a person is under arrest if, at a law enforcement action, that person willfully or recklessly carries a concealed weapon.
In Delaware, a law enforcement officer may lawfully use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that the person has committed, committed, committed a crime with a firearm and that an officer would reasonably believe could not reasonably detain the offender within the 5-foot radius of a law enforcement officer. In this case, if an officer, at that officer’s discretion, reasonably believed that the law enforcement officer would reasonably believe the offender held a gun to his or her head, or that the conduct of the officer was likely to cause a physical injury to, or an immediate danger to, the safety of others, to the public or to a specific person, the officer may use deadly force. For any law enforcement action, the officer has the legal duty to keep the person of the person for the purpose of the law enforcement action. For the purposes of this rule, all actions in which a law enforcement officer intends to do one or more things that would reasonably necessitate an arrest, including the use of force, are action in the officer’s discretion.
In Rhode Island, a law enforcement officer must use reasonable force if he or she reasonably believes that the law enforcement officer would reasonably believe the offender was committing, committing, committing, or threatening criminal action with or without force or threat of violence, either with or without a firearm.
In Washington state, law enforcement agencies may use lethal force when entering the presence of a person whose safety is threatened by an active criminal group. The use of deadly force at a law enforcement action may include the following:
In Washington state, police may use reasonable force when entering an area where a group of people are fleeing or threatening a law enforcement officer.
[more]
>
In Wisconsin, law enforcement agencies may use reasonable force when approaching a peace officer in a traffic stop where the officer believes that the officer is trying to prevent a violent crime or a threat of violence, between them.
In Wisconsin state, where an armed individual is an active criminal gang member and in who state the police are dealing traffic stops the law enforcement officer has the legal obligation to use such force in self defense.
In Virginia, if a law enforcement officer reasonably believes that the persons involved in the traffic stop may unlawfully have access to stolen property while they are engaged in a serious criminal activity, the law enforcement officer’s lawful use of force or the use of reckless disregard will be justified, and there is no reasonable need to keep the persons in custody.
In Oregon, if a law enforcement officer is pursuing criminal charges in a motor vehicle, when the officer’s suspicion is proven to be reasonable by a preponderance of the evidence, he or she may use reasonable force in order to obtain their release.
In Texas, when there is a risk that a law enforcement officer may cause serious and immediate personal injury or the injury of others. If you consider law enforcement actions to be reasonable as opposed to criminal, consider law enforcement action when law enforcement officers encounter a person with serious criminal or civil problems in your area by law enforcement on a routine basis.
In Virginia, in a law enforcement action while the person is engaged in a serious criminal activity the law enforcement officer has the legal obligation to use reasonable force in order to search for the person in question. The use of
In Florida, the only public safety law required under any of the four federal constitutive and law-enforcement statutes regarding lethal force is Florida Law 94-13. In Florida, where the legislature does not specifically provide specific laws defining a particular type of use of deadly force, it cannot require specific regulations for use of the lethal force in situations of crisis or for use in emergencies. State law does provide for use of deadly force pursuant to the Florida Uniform Code of Law, however, and Florida General Statutes do not require a specific rule for use of the deadly force in situations that would involve the danger of deadly force in the event of an emergency.
The following is a guide to state firearm laws and the use of deadly force in situations of crisis.
The following articles and references use the term “law enforcement officer” with the meanings given within such terms. For more details, see
Guns can have negative and tragic effect, but the benefits of firearms far outweigh the harm caused by them. The right to bear arms is not just to defend your home. It is also to defend yourself. Many of the individuals supporting gun control do not want to see more deaths occur because of firearms. No one likes death, but this is not the way to approach this situation. To assist in lowering the crimes involving guns, better background checks looking for a history of criminal activity and mental health issues should be made. In life-and-death situations, seconds can make a huge difference. A