Utah Gunman

[incommin]

Originally Posted by Team Sergeant

If one lacks the appropriate level of SA they should not be carrying a CCW.

Cops arrive, drop weapon, drop to knees, back to cops, hands on head fingers interlocked. Pray cops don't give you a "tune up."

TS

Cops arrive, place weapon on ground, back up three or four steps, drop to knees, hold up hands so cops can see them and wait for instructions......


Jim

[82ndtrooper]

Unfortunatley the carry of concealed deadly weapons is not honored as a right in or on many establishments property. Current law states that any establishment that desires to have a "No Gun" zone on their premisis requires them to post a sing according to their state and or local laws regarding the carry of concealed deadly weapons.

For instance, Texas requires what is referred to as the "30_06" signage in a plainly visible location on the premisis, preferrably as you walk in the door. Many establishments simply alter this law by expressing that it is company policy, and yet without a lawful sign to the contrary. Many CCW holders find this out the hard way when they are approached by the manager of the establishment and law enforcement called to the scene in the preverbial "Man with a gun" call. Generally if the concealed permit holder is valid, and has not demonstrated any behavior that is considered "negligent" or "Wanton Endangerment" they are free to disarm themselves and return to their dinner or shopping, but most are ask to leave and not return in the future with a firearm. If the only place that a permit holder can carry is in his or her home, it's not of any use to arm themselves in public. This is being addressed by grass roots iniatives on a state by state basis to challenge those locations that have not provided their policy by complying with state law for the use of such signage. Personally I deep conceal, and my weapon is my business, not anyone elses. Unfortunatley some dont seem to be able to conceal their weapon or are fanatical about their civil liberties and the 2nd Amendment and right bear arms in public. Open carry is most often seen as a challenge to the law enforcement officers to strip them of their civil liberties for later challenges in a court of law. Depending on your location, open carry can alienate you from your friends and neighbors or instill yet another right that if not used, it is lost.

In this instance with the Utah gunman, it was my undestanding the mall was a "NO GUN" zone. Was this stated after the incident or where there signs that were in compliance with state law ? After all, the gun man didn't seem to have any problem with the unlawful carry of a firearm, so why should we think that company policy or a sign would deter any criminal from carrying ? Only those of us that are law abiding would have disarmed ourselves and left the weapon in the locked glove box of our car or truck. Not much use to us in the car when the criminal is willing and determined to break the law. Personally I'd rather carry and answer to any questions of legality after I am safe and my family is in the clear of this gunman. It's a legal conundrum, but if life and death are at stake, then I'd rather stand in front of a judge than lie on the embalming table at the coroners lab.

CCW/CHL courses are minimal training at best, but case law in several areas of concealed weapons are covered. "In defense of another" "Lesser of two evils" "Deadly force justification" "legal pitfalls" and many more are the majority of the morning and afternoon for a typical CCW/CHL course. In my opinion much is left to be desired from such courses, but how much is necessary ? If I fear for my life or anothers, it generally falls into the "deadly threat" and "deadly force" grey zone, but justification of deadly force alone can be seen somtimes only in the eye of the beholder. In jumps the prosecutor who is looking to advance his or her career and many pitfalls to your "scared to death" argument are going to need further examination. Was deadly force justified ? Each scenario has it's own tweaks and bends, only you know if your life was in fact threatened according to "deadly threat" standards. Those standards are often challenged, but only the person who has acted knows if his or her use of "deadly force" was justified.

[Team Sergeant]

Originally Posted by 82ndtrooper

CCW/CHL courses are minimal training at best, but case law in several areas of concealed weapons are covered. "In defense of another" "Lesser of two evils" "Deadly force justification" "legal pitfalls" and many more are the majority of the morning and afternoon for a typical CCW/CHL course. In my opinion much is left to be desired from such courses, but how much is necessary ? If I fear for my life or anothers, it generally falls into the "deadly threat" and "deadly force" grey zone, but justification of deadly force alone can be seen somtimes only in the eye of the beholder. In jumps the prosecutor who is looking to advance his or her career and many pitfalls to your "scared to death" argument are going to need further examination. Was deadly force justified ? Each scenario has it's own tweaks and bends, only you know if your life was in fact threatened according to "deadly threat" standards. Those standards are often challenged, but only the person who has acted knows if his or her use of "deadly force" was justified.

Boy you sure talk alot bout weapons for a financial type.......

I'll have you know I "was" a CCW instructor, you want to call my training "minimal"?

Have you asked yourself why CCW training given by most minimal? Let me give you a clue, it's a "privlige" to drive a car, it's an American's "right" to own a firearm. You have a right (unless you live in a few of the anti-gun states) to defend yourself, not a privilege.

People get what they pay for, you want lessons from Paul Howe, you're going to pay. You want instruction from a guy that he himself has never had any real formal training but passed the NRA Pistol instructor course, go for it. There are thousands of firearm instructors out there, finding a good one is tough for the novice.

Personally I think all that carry better know the law better than they know how to use their weapons.

TS

[82ndtrooper]

Originally Posted by Team Sergeant

Boy you sure talk alot bout weapons for a financial type.......

I'll have you know I "was" a CCW instructor, you want to call my training "minimal"?

Have you asked yourself why CCW training given by most minimal? Let me give you a clue, it's a "privlige" to drive a car, it's an American's "right" to own a firearm. You have a right (unless you live in a few of the anti-gun states) to defend yourself, not a privilege.

People get what they pay for, you want lessons from Paul Howe, you're going to pay. You want instruction from a guy that he himself has never had any real formal training but passed the NRA Pistol instructor course, go for it. There are thousands of firearm instructors out there, finding a good one is tough for the novice.

Personally I think all that carry better know the law better than they know how to use their weapons.

TS

Actually we agree on everything mentioned above. In a perfect world, or at least the United States, one wouldn't even have to complete a CCW/CHL related course to carry a firearm or other deadly weapon. That right is protected under the 2nd Amendment, and the inalienable right to self preservation. However, the right to carry is now considered a "privelige" not necessarily protected by simpling holding a copy of the Constitution in your or my hands.

Minimal training ? Yes, I have asked myself that question, and the answer is fairly obvious....it's a right, not a privilege, at least in some states and jusrisdictions. I'd be interested in your curiculum for the courses that you taught. I'd rather have taken it from someone like yourself, than just another person with his or her NRA certificate. Here in Kentucky, at least in this county, there are only a few options to choose from for the CCW/CHL permit course. It's the quickest easiest way to obtain a certificate that is honored by the state and the county for completion of the necessary course of instuction. My course was from 0800 to 1500 on a single Saturday with completion of firing your weapon 21 times into a B-27 target at 7 yards, with 11 of the 21 shots fired required into the 7-10 ring. Certainly not a Paul Howe or Larry Vickers tactical course, none the less the state keeps it to a minimal just for the reasons mentioned above. It's a right not necessarily a privilege. Although having to take any course at all puts it into the "privilege" category. As you mentioned, like driving a car is a "privilege"

Tactical courses from the likes of Paul Howe and Larry Vickers, or yourself are costly, and I have personally attended Larry Vickers Tactical Pistol course and Blackwaters tactical pistol I and II. I believe both are now being honored by the state of Kentucky for completion of the CCW requirements. Both courses were geared towards tactical employment of the handgun, not as much about case law and deadly threat justification. Never the less, great instruction.

Your are correct, understanding the law and the use of deadly force is more important than dialing the individual up to be a "surgical shot king" Although, marksmenship and CCW related training in the employment of the pistol is not to be taken lightly. This where we, the civillians, have to take this responsiblity to the next level and seek out the instruction from the likes of someone like yourself, or Paul Howe. I'd rather spend my money on training from you or Paul Howe than a new gadget to put on my weapon. What good are night sights and lasers if the individual can not even disasemble his weapon and clean it without having an accidental discharge ?