Three Laws of Concealed Carry

Image from: freedomoutpost.com

There, arguably, may be more than three laws, or absolute requirements for legally carrying a concealed weapon, but if so, I argue that these are the top three.

One: Always carry where legally possible.
Two: You are responsible for where all bullets stop that you fire from your weapon.
Three: Know for certain when you must not shoot.

Number One is more often not practiced than it is. There are many reasons people give themselves for not carrying. You can think of some, like, too uncomfortable, I'm just going down the block to the store, I will be in church, we live in a safe town/neighborhood/area, and many more. We've all had those thoughts. If you live in a low crime, small town, rural area there is not much likelihood of suffering a sudden home invasion. You have to decide whether not much likelihood is acceptable when you think about home carry. Is that the only possibility of being threatened with deadly force at home? Maybe. Maybe not. The simple fact is, that if you need to resort to your gun (more on this in number three, below) and you don't have it, or have quick enough access to it, that option disappears.

Number Two is true both morally and legally. Guns are dangerous. That is their purpose, but like any dangerous tool, consider chain saws if you will, it is incumbent on their owners to know this and be practiced and trained in their safe use. But with guns, a more important requirement is imposed on the owner and user, that of the absolute responsibility to not injure or kill an innocent person through neglect, inappropriate use, ignorance, lack of sufficient training, and so forth. It's a long list. Simply put, you are responsible for what happens when you pull the trigger, so you better be sure you know how to shoot safely and to be able to reliably hit only what you intend. This includes the responsibility, for example, of using the appropriate gun and ammunition. If you carry a .357 magnum with full metal jacket bullets and you shoot a bad guy, your bullet goes through him, through a wall and hits an innocent person, you are responsible, just as if you had shot and missed your target. If you had used, say, a regular .38 special, or perhaps a .380 self defense round, the chances of this happening are reduced. Something to think about. And, for the big caliber boys who love their .45s and .40s and other high-powered handguns, I would caution that you especially are at risk of a similar unfortunate occurrence.

Not every man has to have a big gun to be effective. Women don't have this problem.

Number Three is, in my view, the most important of the three 'laws' for the legal concealed carry person. I have had, and read through, many discussions and arguments on this point. I have a prior post here describing what I learned in a class about the Legal Aftermath of a Self Defense shooting. You should read it if you haven't, and if you have, you should probably read it again. It is vitally important to understand how this may affect you.

There is a school of thought on this that when a properly trained, and I mean by that trained in the use and safety of your gun, and also in your legal rights and responsibilities, a person is less likely to get involved in situation which might escalate to violence. Such a person is also more likely to have developed a heightened awareness of his or her surroundings and situations, thereby begin able to defuse, or avoid those that might escalate. Good in theory, but I find that in practice, this does not always work out as planned. For men. I suspect women will have a completely different, and likely more sane and appropriate response. For men, often the opposite but subtle influence of concealed carry on their psyches is the opposite.

Men are by nature more competitive than women. Doesn't mean we are better, but we have the tendency to be in competition with other men. If a man is in a situation in which the signals and signs are such that it is likely, or becoming likely, that a confrontation may develop, then for a man to bow out, apologize, perhaps take a load of crap from a loud-mouth jerk, is going against most men's belief in 'manhood'. You are taught to be brave, stand up for yourself, don't let a jerk push you around. Maybe this was good when you were a teenager or working on becoming one, but as an adult this will most usually lead to trouble. And if you happened to be carrying a gun, it can lead to the most serious of trouble.

Even though the knowledge is there, or ought to be there, in your consciousness that you are legally carrying a potentially deadly weapon and getting involved in an situation that may, or is, escalating toward physical violence, it may get lost in the male adrenaline rush. It's hard to back down and lose face, especially when this happens in the presence of friends, or perhaps your family. However that may be, the responsible and moral person who is carrying a gun must avoid, defuse or abandon such situations whenever and however possible. Slink away. Take the abuse. Be a pussy. Say, "I'm sorry." Say, "Please forgive me, it won't happen again." Say, "You're right. I'm wrong. So sorry."

Difficult? Damn right. Correct response? Damn right. What is the alternative? Escalate to the point where a fight starts, the guy knocks you down and starts to stomp your face and you get your pistol and shoot him dead. Or shoot someone else standing around? That's only one example of many, many possible bad outcomes for you and other people.

So your pride has been hurt. Your kids think you are a weenie, a coward. Better than seeing you hurt, dead, in jail and filled with remorse for the rest of your life.

Having a concealed firearm on your belt should be a constant reminder of the awesome moral and legal responsibilities you have accepted in so doing. Your legal requirements are clearly listed in your state's statutes. Find them. Read them. A number of times. Memorize them. They will state under what circumstances you are entitled to resort to your gun for self defense or the defense of others. They vary state by state. Don't seek out gun websites to tell you about this. And, never resort to gun forums. There is too much self-interest, ignorance and political crap out there as it is. Would you trust your future to some idiot with a screen name like 45acp to advise you on moral and legal responsibilities? I hope not.

You and I have the right to self defense for ourselves and our loved ones, and in most instances, those of innocent people who are in similar danger. Those rights are spelled out in the state law where you live, and where you are if such a situation develops. Learn them and remember them. They exist for your protection and the protection of other citizens who do not choose to exercise their Second Amendment guarantees.

The Bond Arms Snake Slayer

After more thought and research into Bond Arms, I decided to purchase a Snake Slayer and give it a thorough testing as my primary carry gun.

Now, being that I also own and carry 9 mm and .380 semi-automatic pistols, why would I look to make a change to a two shot, single action derringer? Some explanation of my reasoning is in order.

First, I think there are two main theories, or schools of thought, regarding how an average citizen can approach how, what and when to carry a concealed weapon. The how and the when questions are easily answered:

How

• a method that is comfortable, so the pistol will be readily accessible given the fact that the gun will be under some kind of covering garment, 
• secure so there is no danger of the gun becoming accidentally dislodged from the holster and is secure from an unexpected grab or discovery,
• safe, so that the trigger is always covered to protect against negligent discharge,
• keep it concealed. 

When

• at all times where legally permissible. This requires that you know the law in the state where you are carrying. For example, I live about an hour's drive from another state, which I visit frequently. My carry permit is valid in both states, but the laws are somewhat different. In one, for example, I must be aware of which restaurants are compliant with the carry laws - in essence, an establishment must derive the majority of their income from food, not liquor. I wouldn't carry in a bar. Period. In one state, if the merchant posts a "No Guns" sign, the only force of law is regarding trespass. If an employee or manager knows you are carrying he or she can ask you to leave. That's it. If you don't, you could be charged with trespass.

What

This is usually where the controversy comes in, where gallons of ink (virtual and real) get spilled, tempers sometimes rise and some members have been banned from internet gun forums for letting their passion overrule their reason. As my old Company Commander in boot camp said, "Opinions are like ****, everyone has one."

In brief (and I'm not trying to cover all of the arguments, just a few of the main ones) the arguments run like this: 

Carry as big a gun as you can handle. 

This seems to be based on the old "stopping power" idea, being that one needs a large caliber, big bullet traveling at a high velocity to "stop" a man-sized, meth-crazed, 250 lb. biker assailant. Good luck with that. I don't know about you, but I have never even seen a meth-crazed, 250 lb biker and if I were attacked by one, I doubt that pistol "stopping power" would do much immediate good.

This notion of "stopping power" probably derived from tales coming out of WWI in the Pacific. While it is true that a 1911 .45 semi auto might drop a 100 pound, weak, starving, disease riddled Japanese soldier with one shot, a .22 would probably have worked about as well. The stories I heard while in the service in the 1960s about the "crazed" (insert an Asian enemy here) being shot six times with a .38 then slicing off the shooter's head with a samurai sword/machete/bayonet before collapsing is mostly b.s. Sounded good at the time though.

Modern ballistic studies, as well as studies based on actual law enforcement shootings, disprove this idea. Many assailants have been shot with many bullets of various calibers, including large ones beginning with a "4", and remained active and dangerous for some time.

One major problem with a big caliber gun firing large bullets at high velocities is their tendency to punch through a human torso, arm, leg, hand, neck, etc. and slam into something else. Like, through a sheet rock wall or door, or two. A car door, window, building. An innocent person who just happened to be in the vicinity. Missing your target with one of these big guns is bad. Who knows where those stray .44/.45/.357 rounds are going to end up when you miss?

The other problem with the "big as you can handle" gun is just carrying it. From my reading, and the people I know who have big pistols, most of them don't carry those guns regularly. They are too big and too heavy to strap on and carry all day, everywhere. And, if you have a carry permit and don't carry, what's the point? I've had people say to me, "I only carry when I'm going to need it." "I didn't know you could see into the future," I say. 

An average loaded model, 1911 .45 weighs about 45 oz. or 2.8 pounds. Think about carrying around half of a five pound sack of sugar attached to your belt. Make that three pounds with the holster, and a little more with a spare loaded magazine. Even so, you still get comments on the gun forums like, "The 1911 does weigh a little more, but it is a better gun in every other way. No one would ever or has ever disputed that." Not.

Even a more "modern" pistol, like a Glock 21 weighs 40 oz. loaded. That's 2.5 pounds. No big savings over a 1911.

I often wonder, really, how many of those Glock owners actually carry those guns regularly.

(There must be a reason why small, compact, lightweight guns like the Ruger LCP are so wildly popular...)

Shot placement

This old saw pops up with alarming regularity on the gun forums. (Again, a word of caution about gun forums. They are like men's gossip groups. There is a disproportionately large population of self-styled gun experts who post regularly in some forums but are basically opinionated jerks with little practical or actual knowledge of the subjects they pontificate on. Don't rely on gun forums to provide accurate, real and unbiased information. While there are knowledgeable, helpful people out there, it's very difficult to tell the phonies from the real ones, especially for those new to guns and self defense carry.)

The idea behind shot placement is that any caliber is effective when one shoots accurately and at a vital "stopping" area. There are more than a few things wrong with this notion. First, for 98% of the people who shoot hand guns, shooting with repeatable accuracy is not possible. Even then, the accurate and consistently good shots do their shooting on a range, at a target using techniques that have no bearing in a charged, adrenaline-fueled, self-defense shooting episode. Good sight picture. Steady trigger squeeze. Breath control. Steady hands. All of this goes out the window when someone threatens to take your life. Thinking that the average person who carries for self defense, who seldom gets to the shooting range and even more rarely practices rudimentary self defense shooting drills will be able to put his or her shots accurately on a vital target area when fighting for their lives is ludicrous. Remember that the next time your read or hear some fool promoting shot placement. 

The other fallacy behind shot placement is the idea that there are "vital stopping areas" that will drop an assailant dead in their tracks. Works pretty good on TV shows like "Justified", but in the real world, leaving aside the question of actually hitting one of those areas, who knows where and what they may be, or where to aim to get to them? Theoretically, maybe, but practically? There are documented cases of bad guys being shot in the head (surely, common gun wisdom knows this is a vital stopping area) who don't go down, but keep on shooting.

A caveat regarding laser sights
I have to note that the acceptance and use of laser sights on handguns has a direct, and positive bearing on the notion of shot placement. Many respected authorities on handguns and self defense, such as Jeff Quinn of Gunblast.com, recognize the usefulness of laser sights for the average shooter. In short, lasers make one a better shooter. Not just at night or in places of diminished light, but across the board. While it is true that an accomplished and practiced marksman or markswoman can shoot as well, perhaps better, than you or I using a laser sight, you and I will never be shooting at that level. Not unless we have the time, money and inclination to train hard enough to be a master. Most of us don't. So, it can only help with most guns like the semi-autos and revolvers being carried for self defense to buy and use a laser to improve one's marksmanship. It is also a safer thing to do for the general public. We need all of the help we can get to be sure to hit only our intended target. I have reviewed a number of lasers in this blog. I like the LaserMax variety. If you are interested, read my reviews, and others', and decide for yourself.

Carry plenty of rounds

Most modern semi-autos carry more than enough rounds for self protection. Many carry more than necessary. I have a Ruger SR9c with a seventeen round magazine. With one in the chamber, that's eighteen shots. Now, I can imagine a scenario in which I might need eighteen shots, but the odds of that actually happening are remote, to say the least. Yes, people will cite instances in which a self defense shooter needed a large number of rounds, but the odds of that happening are very slim. 

The unstated assumption behind carry plenty of rounds is that one could easily be in a situation where there are a number of assailants or it takes multiple (like four, five, six, or more) shots to stop the threat. But, if one does enough digging through reported self defense incidents that involve the person being threatened resorting to a gun you'll find that a very large number of these incidents never involve a shot being fired. The potential assailants flee at the sight of their intended victim drawing a gun. Of those in which the potential victim does fire, it usually involves only one or two rounds before the threat is stopped. The bad guys run away, sometimes uninjured, sometimes ending up at a hospital where they are usually arrested. Sometimes they are killed.

Often when multiple shots are fired, only a few find their target. The rest find unintended targets, thankfully most of them in an inert object. But not always.

The question becomes, how many rounds are enough? This is, of course, an unanswerable question. As I leaned in project management school, the real answer is "it depends."

And so we come to what I think are the real questions. Why do I legally carry a gun for self defense? And, what does that actually mean, and what am I willing to do, and not do, because of that? And, given the answers to those, what, when and how should I carry?

I carry because bad people also carry guns (and knives, and clubs, and chains, and some are much bigger, younger, and meaner than me) and until they don't, I refuse to be a victim who can't fight back.

I carry because I feel a responsibility to my family and my fellow citizens. I'm no cop, but I am a citizen and believe it is my responsibility to protect the lives of innocent people when there is no other choice.

Carrying a gun for self defense means that I am capable of using it effectively, and I will use it without hesitation if forced to do so in defense of my life or that of others. This also means I am prepared to be injured or killed in so doing.

I am not willing to risk the lives of, or injury to innocent people by firing my weapon in a manner that may do so. I must have a clear shot, even if it means exposing myself in order to shoot safely in a violent, self-defense situation.

I will choose and use a weapon that is, as much as possible, consistent with the above. 

It seems to me that many people choose their handguns with the idea that they are good shots, can hit their targets regardless of circumstance, that they require a larger and more powerful weapon that will carry enough ammunition to stand off an assault by a crowd of assailants.

I don't subscribe to those ideas. My thinking has changed to this. I want a small, reliable gun that I can carry comfortably, all the time; that is powerful enough to quickly stop an attacker, but not so much that it is a danger to others nearby; that I can shoot accurately enough at close range but its effectiveness (lethality) falls off quickly beyond that distance. At this point, my thinking is that a small, hand-held shotgun is one answer to these requirements.

Those are my reasons for choosing a Bond Arms derringer as my primary carry weapon. Firing a .410 shot shell with large diameter shot, such as 000 or 00 buckshot, or perhaps the self defense rounds that use a combination of three or four disks and BB pellets, the little gun should be very effective at short range, even with not-so-good shot placement, and will be less of a danger to others.

Two shots should be enough for the vast majority of situations I might encounter. If not, I will have the option to reload, or to resort to a small backup gun.

The Bond Arms derringer should be very reliable. It is a single action pistol with little to go wrong. No springs, slides, or revolving parts. It is designed with built in safeties using both the single action cocking and rebounding hammer.

It is small enough to carry, but large enough to do what it is meant to do.

So.... I have a Bond Arms Snake Slayer on order. Perhaps it will arrive this week. I'm putting my money where my opinion is so I can test out my theories and this innovative firearm. I will be looking at how it shoots, how it conceals, how it carries from day to day. I will be testing its reliability and use factor - how easy is it to draw from concealment, cock and fire? What kind of ammunition and shot patterns work best in self defense situations. How is the best way to carry spare rounds and reload quickly. And, anything else that occurs I think you'd want to know about.

I will report back here after I get my Snake Slayer and begin to apply some reality testing to it.

More Guns Means More "Gun Deaths"

I saw that someone posted this little bit of relatively useless information on facebook. Now, naturally, many folks will interpret this to mean that anyone having a gun is likely to use it to kill someone else. But, let's look a little deeper into this bit of folk 'wisdom'.

Firstly, I would note that if in fact there are more 'gun deaths' and also an increase in the number of guns, it is logical that an increasing number of people killed by the gun were shot by a legal gun owner defending his or her life and or property. That is a good thing.

It is also logical to think that many of the possessors of "more guns" are bad guys, criminals and crooks who are busy doing each other in. This is also a good thing.

A good argument can also be made that with an increase in the number of citizens owning and legally carrying guns for self defense, the number of citizen (read: good people) deaths have decreased since criminals are less likely to rob, assault and try to kill someone whom they suspect is armed. This fits nicely with the notion that the bad guys are doing themselves in more frequently.

On the other side, let's say that there were far fewer guns, that citizens were prohibited from owning or carrying guns. Then, I'd agree that the number of "gun deaths" might decrease overall, but would definitely increase for the poor, defenseless public.

Making bald, unsupported and ambiguous statements like "more guns equal more gun deaths" is like saying "more cars equal more car deaths". Maybe, but getting to what that really means, if it is true at all, requires honesty, research and an unbiased desire to get at the truth.


Like Mark Twain said, there are "Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics".

Here are a few facts, not biased in one way or the other, just facts that can be checked for accuracy. From "Gun Control Facts." By James D. Agresti and Reid K. Smith. Just Facts, September 13, 2010. Revised 12/28/12.

A note about the research by Agresti and Smith:

This research is based upon the most recent available data in 2010. Facts from earlier years are cited based upon availability and relevance, not to slant results by singling out specific years that are different from others. Likewise, data associated with the effects of gun control laws in various geographical areas represent random, demographically diverse places in which such data is available.

Many aspects of the gun control issue are best measured and sometimes can only be measured through surveys, but the accuracy of such surveys depends upon respondents providing truthful answers to questions that are sometimes controversial and potentially incriminating. Thus, Just Facts uses such data critically, citing the best-designed surveys we find, detailing their inner workings in our footnotes, and using the most cautious plausible interpretations of the results.

Particularly, when statistics are involved, the determination of what constitutes a credible fact (and what does not) can contain elements of personal subjectivity. It is our mission to minimize subjective information and to provide highly factual content. Therefore, we are taking the additional step of providing readers with four examples to illustrate the type of material that was excluded because it did not meet Just Facts' Standards of Credibility.

See the link below for the source of the facts to follow and to see more for yourself:
 http://justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp:


In 2011 the US had a murder rate of 4.7 per 100,000. Chicago alone (known for their strict gun laws, even banning handguns) had a murder rate of 15.9. The last time our murder rate was below 4.7 was in 1963. State of Vermont allows anybody who can legally own a firearm to be able to carry it without a permit. Their murder rate is .4 per 100,000

According toBureau of Justice Statistics numbers, each year between 1987 and 1992 about 62,200 victims of violent crimes used guns to defend themselves, while another 20,000 annually used guns to protect property. According to the National Self-Defense Survey conducted by criminology professor Gary Kleck of Florida State University in 1993, Americans used guns 2.3 million times a year to defend themselves between 1988 and 1993.

A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:[21]

• 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"
• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"
• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"[22]

A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[19]

A Defensive Shooting - What Happens to You After?

Legally carrying a gun, training how and when to use it, understanding of your legal and social responsibilities are all prerequisites for the responsible citizen. Knowing what may happen after one must use a gun in self defense, understanding your legal rights and what you should, and should NOT do, are just as important. The best way to get this vital information is to take a quality class taught by someone with experience, knowledge and your interests at heart. I took such a class offered by Colorado Handgun Safety and wrote about it on this blog:

http://sdcarry.blogspot.com/2012/03/legal-aftermath-of-defensive-shooting.html

This class is being offered again and I urge all of my Colorado readers to attend. Read my blog entry to see why.

This is important!

The Legal Aftermath of Defensive Shooting: Taught by an attorney - A great follow-up for concealed carry permit holders.

This class is three and one-half hour presentation of Colorado concealed carry and firearms law, taught by a practicing attorney. This class will include a review of Colorado use of force case studies both justified and unjustified, legal definitions, and the "Make My Day Law" as well as question and answer opportunities with the attorney. If you wondered, "What is Next?" after your concealed handgun class, this is it. The Legal Aftermath of Defensive Shooting class will detail how there are only two outcomes to a defensive shooting: Complete Justification or the loss of your freedom.Your concealed handgun class gave you a basic overview of concealed carry law. The Legal Aftermath class provides you the opportunity to ask an attorney all of the "What-IFs" you have wondered about. Presented by Colorado Handgun Safety Inc. and our Attorney, The Legal Aftermath class is designed to give you a greater understanding and peace of mind about your abilities and responsibilities when carry a concealed firearm and defending yourself or your home.
This class is designed for gun owners who have their concealed handgun permit or have attended a concealed handgun permit class.

View Class Schedule and  Reserve your class now

Visit     http://www.coloradohandgunsafety.com for more information.

Ignorance - for people who carry concealed, it can be tragic

People who like guns and have a concealed carry permit most often focus on guns, caliber, holsters, concealment and other every day topics that keep us entertained and up to date. However, today, I saw and responded to a disturbing thread on a gun forum that dealt with none of these things.

The poster related an incident that could happen to anyone, but his attitude toward it and his responsibility as a gun owner - it's not a situation that is confined to concealed carry - was ill informed, based more on folklore than fact, and perhaps too common. In brief, the situation was this, and I'm paraphrasing and leaving out any identifying details.

The gun owner and his friends were sitting on his property enjoying their conversation when an adult male, riding a bicycle appeared and began riding around on the gun owner's property, and making stupid remarks. The bicycle guy was asked to leave repeatedly and finally rode off uttering generally threatening remarks and bad language. Then the bicycle guy returned. The gun owner sent his guests into the house and confronted Mr Bicycle Man, who at one point moved his hand toward his hoodie pocket at which time the gun owner drew his pistol so the bicycle man could see it, but didn't point it at him. Bicycle man rode away, mouthing threats.

Well, there are probably a few things the gun owner did wrong, or on the edge of wrong, but the most disturbing thing was the follow up posts. These were from the gun owner and a few other forum members, the essence of which is that the gun owner stated that he was within his legal rights to shoot someone who is trespassing on his property and refuses to "follow orders" to leave.

This is undoubtedly wrong, regardless of the state in which Mr. Gun Owner resides. It is wrong, both legally and ethically. I certainly am not familiar with every state statute on defensive shooting, but I will say that I believe there is a requirement on the part of the shooter to know, without a reasonable doubt, that he, or some innocent person at the scene, is threatened with severe bodily harm or death and the person threatening this has demonstrated the means to do so.

Carrying or having access to a firearm should make one more responsible and less willing to engage in confrontations for that very reason. If I have a legally sanctioned carry gun and some bozo wants to argue, insult and question my manhood, well, fine. I don't have to bite. I know that I have the means to defend myself if I am significantly threatened and frankly, I don't really care what other people on the scene may think. I know I am armed. The others don't. And I intend to keep it that way.

So, once again, people who have guns, especially those who carry legally, have a serious and constant burden to know the law and to know when deadly force, or the threat of it, is appropriate, legally and morally.

The scenario I proposed to Mr. Gun Owner who posted on the forum was this: suppose a twenty-something male, dirty, oddly dressed and mostly incoherent appeared on his property. Mr. Gun Owner argues with the man and orders him to leave his property. The man doesn't comply but continues to wander around raving incoherently, maybe walking toward the Gun Owner's house. The Gun Owner decides the other guy is freaking him out, doesn't know what he might do and besides, has not followed orders to leave the property, so he shoots the raving man. Afterward, Mr. Gun Owner is informed by the police that the raving man was an honorably discharged veteran who was undergoing treatment for PTSD, tended to get confused and babble when off his meds and had wandered away from home where he was being cared for by his elderly parents and was confused and looking for help.

The responsible gun owner cannot resort to deadly force unless there is no other viable alternative present at the time. Period.

I'm not a lawyer, or am I offering this as legal advice. I'm saying, know your legal and moral requirements if you carry or own a gun. From what I have seen on various gun forums, many people do not.

Know the Law

On the gun forums I use, and the one I moderate, there are continually postings that show the person making statements, or asking questions, is not familiar with the law that governs concealed carry and use of a weapon in their state. Unfortunately, states vary in their requirements for gun owners - perhaps someday this will become uniform, but I 'm not holding my breath. One one forum recently a poster stated that if a person who was in a self-defense situation and had to shoot someone, killed them and had to aim to do so, would be liable for a murder charge.

Seriously.

This, of course, engendered a bunch of back and forth on the forum, much of it heated and most of it uninformed, although not as bad as the original poster's bad information. Such incidents are best judged upon their merits, or lack thereof, and speculations about such a vague notion are merely that - speculations. However, there is a lesson here.

Know the laws of the states in which you will be carrying. Don't depend on internet chatter or advice. Every state now has its statutes online so getting to the real thing and reading them is no big trick. It is best to be informed and know your responsibilities beforehand so that you can stand a better chance of making a good decision if you have to.

One example. You are leaving your local supermarket with groceries when, in the parking lot two rows away, a nutcase starts shooting at people at random. You have an excellent opportunity to duck into your car and leave the scene. You are not in immediate danger of lethal harm. But, other people who are manifestly innocent (ordinary women, men, children) are. If you take care of yourself and leave you have not gotten involved hence are not legally liable, but, on the other hand, if you are legally armed for self defense, are you morally and ethically liable to come to the defense of innocent people? And, if you do so, what kind of legal liabilities and protections do you have?

I think it is best to know about, and consider such possibilities beforehand. In instances where these kinds of factors may come into play, there is no time for consideration of potential legal and moral questions. There is only time to act. It's best to know what you should do before you have to do it.

There are classes that discuss these kinds of issues and questions. I highly recommend them to you. You'll find my report on one such class in this blog - aftermath of defensive shootings. See what is available in your area. Considering the consequences, it will be both inexpensive and vital if you carry a handgun for self defense.

Back from the road trip

We recently returned from an almost two week road trip from Colorado to Iowa. Fortunately, all of the states we traveled to and through have reciprocal concealed carry agreements with Colorado. That was good, but unraveling the different carry restrictions for each state was not quite so easy. There is a site I like about US Hangun laws that helped tremendously: www.handgunlaw.us

All of the relevant factors are listed by state, including which states have reciprocity agreements with others. Passage of the national reciprocity act would make that point moot, like drivers' licenses. They are ALL recognized by ALL states. No questions asked. Why not the same for concealed carry permits you might ask? Well, the fact that most non-gun owners are uneducated in gun ownership, civil rights and the fact that regardless of the desire on many people's part that guns just disappear or be banned outright, criminals and bad people will get, carry and use guns. Like it is somehow morally superior to be found dead - shot, strangled, stabbed, bludgeoned, etc. - rather than to have to explain to the police how that person who attacked you got those bullet holes in his chest.

So, with that in mind, I put my road carry package together, suitable for many hours in the car, and for many hours in the company of hundreds, and in some cases, thousands of people who mostly do not carry guns, mostly don't like or understand guns, and who would likely freak out if they saw or suspected that someone amongst them were actually carrying a gun. Sort of like normal life, but on an amplified scale for a couple of weeks.

Being a person who understands risk analyis and is often a fan of redundant systems, I elected to take two Rugers: an LCP and an LC9. This would provide me another weapon should one become unuseable for any reason, like a malfunction of me leaving it behind somewhere (not very likely, but, hey, I've done stupid things before...) This would also permit me to balance firepower with conditions, like around the hotel room it's more comfortable to carry the little LCP than the bigger, heavier nine. With Hornady Critical Defense ammo, the LCP would be effective, especially within the confines of a hotel room, and worse case, would possibly buy me some time to get to the nine of things really went to hell in a hurry. At least that was the theory.

For holsters, I took two Versacarry rigs. Either would fit either gun and provide varying levels of deep carry. I also took a standard Remora for the LCP and two Remoras for the LC9, one tuckable, the other not.  Lastly, I took the Uncle George back pocket holster for the LCP.

I used a combination of them all at one time or another. Except for the Uncle George, most of my carry positions were either appendix or cross-draw. When in situations where one is sitting, moving about, sitting, etc. throughout the day, I favor the cross-draw position. Good concealment and easy to get to, even when wearing a seat belt. You have to get a suitable holster though, since the end of the grip may tend to protrude under your shirt. I found that the Remora or the Versacarry worked fine in this position too.

When all was over and we were back home, I got an unintended compliment from my wife. She looked at me (I was carrying the LC9 in a Remora at the time) and asked, "Did you carry your gun while we were at the reunion?"
"What do you think?" I said.
"I don't know," she said, "did you?"

I haven't answered that question yet.

Need for Knowledge

As some of you know, I am one of the moderators on a large gun forum with over ten thousand members. ( elsiepeaforum.com ) Most of the members do not post, which is pretty much the norm for internet forums in my experience. But, from the ones who do post it is possible to discern some trends in people's attitudes and knowledge about carrying handguns for self defense - legally, of course.

The main thing I am seeing is that there are many more people getting their concealed carry permits, buying guns, strapping them on and carrying without enough basic knowledge about guns in general, gun safety and correct and safe use of their weapons in particular. I would feel better if those who were carrying legally were well versed in the law and their responsibilities, and solid in their knowledge of how and when to resort to their weapons.

For me this breaks down into two main areas: the legal and moral responsibilities one has accepted in order to carry a gun, and the minimum level of training in safety and shooting skills needed. As I have noted in a prior post here about the "Aftermath" class, the former can be acquired by attending a good class, reading many of the excellent books on that subject and engaging experienced members of a good gun forum in questions and discussions. The second is more complicated.

While books and videos can teach basic gun safety, they are only the starting point. Safety involves you and those around you, especially if you have children in the house, or likely to visit. Think grandparents, for example. The first impulse is to lock everything up in the safe when kids are around. This is obviously a good idea, but beyond that, what can you teach youngsters about gun safety when you are not around? Like, they are playing at Jane's or Jimmy's house and Jane or Jimmy comes up with dad's gun. This happens more often that we would like to think.

I believe it is imperative to teach young people about guns from the safety perspective. What they are, how they operate. That they are inherently dangerous and should be respected but not feared. And, most importantly, all guns are to be considered loaded. For my kids, I taught that and the basic rule, not to be trifled with, that if one of their friends comes up with a gun, to ask them firmly to put it down, and then leave immediately, encouraging any other child present to leave also, and report this to the nearest adult. If no adults are around, get out of the house and call 911.

Adults who carry with minimal knowledge and with preconceived ideas garnered by conversations, movies, the internet, etc. are potentially dangerous to themselves and to others. One example that comes up frequently in the forums are people who buy steel clips to attach to their carry guns so that they can be clipped to the waistband of their garment. No holster. Trigger not covered. This, as we always point out is a very bad idea and can get them and innocent bystanders shot. Even after a significant number of experienced forum members have pointed out the serious safety flaw in this type of carry, there are still those who think they know better and blow off any warnings.

We also see people who are basically afraid of their guns. Some will buy a readily concealable pistol like Ruger's LCP .380 and when they finally get around to firing it, the noise and recoil shocks them. Some learn to use it properly. Some shoot a few rounds and then stick it into their carry holster and go on about their daily business. Some sell it and get something bigger that doesn't have the perceived recoil. They don't shoot that one much either, but still rely on it as a carry weapon.

I could go on with other types of stories but the essential thing is that in order to carry effectively and safely, one must learn basic gun safety, preferably from an instructor who knows what she is doing and, better, is certified by the NRA or other recognized organization to be a firearms instructor. Then, one should practice regularly - not just shooting, but gun handling, loading and unloading properly, holstering and storing the weapon away safely. And, frequent cleaning and inspection, looking for anything out of the ordinary that might impede the safe operation of the gun. Often impending problems can be spotted and recified early if you practice regular inspections of your firearms.

All this makes sense, but can it be required of concealed permit holders? Probably not. There is little uniformity in state law that regulates how proficient a person has to be with shooting and gun safety before a permit can be acquired. In Colorado, you merely have to take a concealed handgun permit class, and present proof of that along with some other minor documentation in order to obtain your permit. You do not have to demonstrate you could hit a wall if you were shooting inside your house.

This is likely not going to change in the near future. Or distant future for that matter. One good reason is that, constitutionally, nothing of this sort is required as part of our right to keep and bear arms. I am sure that when that was written, most children were intimately acquainted with guns from an early age, learning from their parents and relatives how to use them and not act like a damn fool. I was taught very early on by my father and grandfather, and later by the US Navy and Marine Corps. All-in-all, excellent and unforgiving teachers. I thank them for it.

While the idea of mandatory firearms training in safety and shooting skills as prerequisties for a conceal carry license is, at first, an attractive idea, I don't like the idea of a bureaucratic mandate, controlled by government officials. That, to me, strikes at the foundation of a free people with second amendment rights. I think it is up to us to encourage and help those who need it in this area, not another government body.

If you are not as familiar as you should be with gun safety and your shooting skills, not target shooting, but self-defense shooting, please work on getting the necessary skills and knowledge. Take some classes. Find some good firearms instructors who can teach you these basic skills and practice and train with them so they are second nature. We all make mistakes, but it is good to make little mistakes, not big ones when people's safety or freedom are at stake.

 

The Legal Aftermath of Defensive Shooting

Last night I drove for two hours to attend a class held by Colorado Handgun Safety entitled, "The Legal Aftermath of Defensive Shooting" taught by a defense attorney, concealed handgun permit holder and former attorney with the US Army. Those of you who follow the Elsie Pea Forum (elsiepeaforum.com) will have already seen some of what follows.

First, if similar classes are available to you, by all means take one. Consider this as follow on training to accompany your concealed carry permit. Consider this to be another form of self defense. I obviously can't recap a three hour class but I can say a few things here. It was so good that although it was scheduled for two hours, we went for three. Conversation. Question and answer. Amplifications. Excellent. Some points made in the class:

Know the Law in Your State

In a defensive shooting situation, every bullet you fire has a lawyer attached to it. This, from the mouth of a lawyer that knows what he is talking about.

This means that you should strive to absolutely understand the statutes in your state that pertain to what one might be charged with after a defensive shooting. Charged with does not mean convicted of, or that charges cannot be dropped or defended against, but be aware that serious charges can be brought, regardless of their outcome before or in court.

For example, If your state has a "castle doctrine" or "make my day" law, be CERTAIN you understand under what condition that law applies. One example: if "unlawful entry" is part of that statute, know, for certain, what "unlawful" and what "entry" mean. If you gave someone a key in the distant past to your dwelling (you have to know what "dwelling" means in your state), even though you kicked them out and told them never to come back, and they enter with the old key they still have, the court might not consider that "unlawful". You should have changed the locks. If a potential home invader screams he is gonna rob and kill you, runs on your porch waving a shotgun and you shoot him as he opens the door, did he actually "enter" your dwelling? There is a court case that says, in similar circumstance, no. Self defense? Most definitely. Castle doctrine? Probably not.

Why is that important? Castle doctrine, or similar statute, might protect you from consequences more than self defense will.

Know What Not to Do Afterwards

This is important. If you are involved in a self-defense shooting, the ONLY thing you should say to the police, a prosecutor, an EMT - anyone at the scene or later - is:

"My name is (insert name here). I am a victim. I will fully cooperate once I have spoken with my attorney."

Did I say this is important? Yes. Why?

Because you may say something that will FOREVER REMOVE your right to using self defense in court. At the scene, these scenarios may play out:

Police: "That's ok. I know you are upset and you didn't mean to shoot him."

You: "Yeah, I don't know what happened, I didn't mean to kill the guy."

Adios your right to self defense. You didn't mean to kill/shoot the guy? If you didn't mean to shoot him in self defense, then why did you shoot him?

Police: "You've been through a stressful experience. I know it was an accident and you didn't want to hurt anyone."

You: "I'm freaked out, man. Yeah, it was an accident."

Slam! That sound was your right to argue self defense leaving the building.

Unless you are an experienced defense lawyer, you don't know the law, especially the finer points like maintaining your ability to exercise your right of self defense in court, so repeat after me: "My name is (insert name here). I am a victim. I will fully cooperate once I have spoken with my attorney." Then, shut up. Period. Don't talk to anyone else, regardless of how sympathetic or helpful they are. Don't blab to yourself in the back of the police car - every police car these days has a tape recorder going. Shut up. Get a lawyer and listen to what he or she tells you.

Ask for your attorney, right up front. The questions should stop. If they don't tell them you want your attorney.

Our instructor also said that the first document that your attorney should file with the court is that your defense in your case is based on self defense. If you don't it may be gone forever.

Win The Race

Win the race to call 911. The order in which calls are logged determines, initially, who is the victim and who is the aggressor. Sad, but true.

After an incident - and it doesn't have to be a shooting, maybe you foiled a carjacking and the carjacker fled when you put your 9 mm in his face. Call right away. You don't want him calling and complaining of meancing, or someone else calling who only saw you point your gun at a young man who then ran away.

Once you call, state your name, location, your description (so the responding officers will be able to tell you are the caller not the perp), say you are the victim of the crime, maybe you have the assailant at gunpoint (if true) and you need help. Then PUT THE PHONE DOWN. Don't hang up and don't engage the sympathetic dispatcher in conversation. The 911 dispatchers are trained to keep you on the line and talking. Guess what? It's recorded and anything you say can be used against you.

Do Not Be Negligent With Your Gun

Society has certain common expectations of reasonable care. If you have a driver's license, society expects you to know the rules and how to safely operate your car so that it is not a danger to you or to others. The same expectations apply to concealed handgun permit holders, and even more so. Why more so? A handgun is an inherently deadly weapon. Where a car or a bottle or a baseball bat may be used as a deadly weapon, they are not, in themselves deadly weapons. A gun is. Without question. Therefore, you have a more exact standard of care. To use a gun otherwise is negligent, and usually criminally negligent.

To not be negligent you have to, among other things, hit what you shoot at. This is not as easy as it may seem. Not only must you practice to enable you to hit your target reliably every time, but you must practice in the manner you will most be likely to use in a self-defense shooting situation. This is quick, sometimes instinctive point-and-shoot at close ranges. It is also shooting under extreme stress and while your body and mind is raging in the "fight or flight" mode and all of your senses have been radically altered when your body goes into survival mode. This is not standing at the range popping paper targets. Studies show that even professional and expert gun handlers will miss often under these stressful conditions. You are likely not a professional or expert gun handler, so you must practice even harder to be proficient in self defense scenarios.

Practice like this is not convenient, easy or cheap. However, having made the decision to carry you must have accepted the awesome responsibility that goes along with that. Find a way to practice. Find a way to make the cost acceptable. One way is to buy a smaller caliber handgun, like a .22 caliber that approximates the one or ones you will be carrying and put a lot of lead downrange with the cheaper .22 ammo to build up your proficiency. Dry firing will help with things like grip and trigger control, but it does not give that BANG! and induce the small adrenaline rush that can cause you to flinch and miss.

You have to shoot safely so as to not endanger others. This obviously entails being accurate under stress, but it also means you have to be aware of your surroundings (not easy when cranked with fear) so that you don't endanger others. You also must consider the type and caliber of your carry gun, and the ammunition you choose for it. This is a complex issue, especially among gun people who always have their favorites. Simply put though, I think as far as hardware goes, the most important consideration is the type of ammunition you will be shooting. I favor somewhat lower velocity ammo firing jacketed hollow point type bullets that have a smaller chance of punching through something and hitting an unintended object or person.

There have been books written about all of this and more. However, in addition to reading, I highly recommend a class about these topics taught by a professional and an attorney that knows, from experience, what he or she is talking about. It is too important to leave to internet gossip or hearsay.

Take a class on what can happen, and what you should and should not do after being involved in a defensive shooting. Read books by Ayoob and others. And remember:

"My name is (insert name here). I am a victim. I will fully cooperate once I have spoken with my attorney."