Concealed Carry Considerations

[PTMCCAIN]

I've really learned a lot from all the comments that have been offered in response to the concealed carry article I wrote. I've tried to incorporate as much of the constructive criticism as I can and here is version two.

Let me know what you think.

Concealed Carry Considerations

With the boom in firearm ownership in recent years, there are a lot of new gun owners, taking advantage of their rights as citizens of the United States of America to “keep and bear arms.” But carrying a concealed firearm is an awesome responsibility. Let’s take a few minutes to consider some things you need to think through very carefully before you decide to carry a concealed weapon. There are legal, ethical, moral and competency implications.

Here are just some of the things you need to be aware of:

Legal Implications

If you carry a gun, you need to be aware of, and prepared to accept the legal consequences, whatever they may be. Are you willing to go through the trouble and expense – both financially and emotionally – of being arrested, charged and tried if you have to use your firearm? If not, leave your firearm at home. Are you ready to deal with whatever might come your way when it comes to encounters with law enforcement officials who may or may not understand and respect your state and local carry laws? Keep in mind that when you carry a firearm you are doing so for defensive purposes. The very concept of defense is to do what is necessary to stop a threat to ones own life or the life of another.

Ethical Implications

When you take on the responsibility of being an armed citizen, you also assume a greater level of ethical responsibility for every aspect of your behavior while packing. You don’t pick fights. You don’t respond to aggressive comments or gestures by going for your gun. You never go looking for trouble. You don’t – ever – drink while armed. And you never brandish it or joke around about carrying concealed. Concealed means concealed…in every possible sense. If you can’t conceal it, do not carry it. You aren’t trying to impress anyone by carrying. Your ethical posture has to be above reproach when carrying. And, don’t get dragged into a conversation about “shooting to kill.” You do not shoot to kill, you shoot to stop the thread and to defend yourself or others in a true emergency.

Moral Implications

Are you mentally prepared to defend yourself? If not, the gun should stay in your safe. If you think you are just going to pull the gun out and wave it around to scare somebody off, don’t carry. If the gun comes out of its holster, you must already have decided to stop a threat. You are using your gun defensively, that is, you are shooting to stop the threat of immanent bodily harm to you, to your loved ones, or an innocent party who is being attacked in danger of being killed. Are you prepared to do whatever it takes to stop a threat and to defend yourself? Have you thought long and hard about what that means? Are you willing to see what a bullet will do to a human body? People don’t always just fall over dead like in the movies. You have to prepare yourself for the emotional trauma of gravely wounding or killing another human being, but remember, your goal is never to kill anyone, it is to stop a threat. Drawing your weapon is the last resort in a truly life, or death, situation, where you must act to defend yourself, or others.

Competency Implications

If you are going to carry a concealed weapon, you need to be rigorous about safe, competent gun handling. Your gun is always loaded – or it better be. That means you must never ever, under any circumstance, draw it while carrying unless you’re truly in a life or death situation.

You do not pull it out to show to your buddies. You never point the weapon at anyone, which is referred to as "covering" somebody. Your finger should not be on the trigger, but "indexed" or simply lying against the firearm, ready to move to the trigger, but not on the trigger or in the trigger guard. You simply do not “play around” with your concealed firearm. It goes in the holster and never comes out, unless absolutely necessary.

And you need to be fully trained in the use of your firearm. Find a competent instructor and take a class. Better yet, take several classes. Just as if you want to get to Carnegie hall, you need to practice, practice and practice some more. You owe it to yourself to get in as much range time with your carry gun as you possibly can. If you aren’t willing to master all aspects of handling your concealed carry firearm, don’t strap it on.

These are just some of the things you will need to consider before you take on the responsibility of concealed carry. Yes, it’s your right, but you need to exercise that right legally, ethically, morally and competently or you’ll hurt the cause of those that do.

And finally, here is a good “creed” for a person carrying concealed to live by:

If I draw my gun from it's holster, I have decided that lethal force is imminently necessary to prevent or end the use of force, which I reasonably believe will cause grave bodily harm or death against me. The ultimate fate of my adversary is not my goal, is not even my consideration. I must cause them to cease the actions that I believe are deadly to me. Nothing more. I do not shoot to kill. I shoot to make them stop.

Take care, and stay safe!

 

[seasalt]

I think this should be REQUIRED reading for all first time CHP.

 

[PTMCCAIN]

Had a guy elsewhere tell me I obviously do not believe in the Second Ammendment or support the RKBA because the Second Amendment doesn't mention anything about needing to think through these issues.

Not kidding.

 

[NavyLCDR]

First, why the steadfast rule about not drinking and carrying (where allowed to do so by law)? If I would normally go to Applebees and have one or two beers with dinner, why should I change that just because I am carrying a gun? The gun is no different than the car keys in my pocket. You would have no problems with a guy drinking with car keys in his pocket, would you? Millions of people do that every day. So if these millions of people can drink with car keys in their pockets and be trusted not to take them out and drive the car under the influence, why is it so hard of a concept for people to grasp that many people can drink with a gun on their belt and feel no overwhelming urge to pull it out and play with it. After all, you say concealed means concealed, right?

And then there is this line, "If you can’t conceal it, do not carry it." Really? Who are you to tell me what is the best way for me to carry my gun? There are many strategic and tactical advantages to open carry, and I choose to utilize the strategic and tactical advantages of open carry to my benefit, to increase the chances that the criminal will decide it isn't worth it to attack me and to increase my ability to draw and shoot my gun with less effort, more speed, and less chance of something going wrong if I ever do have to use it.

And this whole thread needs to be moved from the Legal section because legal considerations are only a tiny part of your dissertation.

 

[smalls]

I agree 100% with Navy, as usual.

There's a big difference between going out drinking, and having a beer or two. But, I don't think that's what you meant. I assume you meant no alcohol whatsoever.

I disagree. A beer or two is not going to cloud my judgement so bad that I would accidentally shoot someone, or just whip my pistol out for no reason in the middle of a restaurant.

And, we can sit here and debate OC vs. CC till we all turn blue in the face. What I will say is that your opinion is very narrow minded, and even if OC isn't for you, at least accept it for what it is- just another way to carry a tool to protect your life. Neither way is the best, nor is it more right than the other. I don't tell you what shoes to wear, don't tell me how to wear my pistol.

 

[Kleanbore]

The OP was about concealed carry.

Why 'concealed means concealed' is classified as an ethical implication is not clear to me, however.

One thing that seems to be missing is the need to know the laws--both the use of force laws and the weapons laws.

I'm not sure that being "prepared to accept the legal consequences" belongs in it.

Also, the last sentence under legal implications should probably start with "in most jurisdictions."

Since drawing a firearm is lawful when force is lawfully justified in at least a couple of states, the 'useful creed' is another generality with exceptions.

I agree with Navy that the words about alcohol are a little strong. They match the law in some states, but having a beer is not unethical.

Not too bad for a start, but it needs some work.

 

[Texan Scott]

I don't drink at all any more, but I do have experience with drunkeness and have decided it's a bad thing for me. I don't preach or condemn. My views apply first and foremost to MY choices, not my opinion of yours. If you drink responsibly, that's you.

My feeling is, moderate consumption of alcohol leads to moderate impairment. It may not be illegal; it may not be 'irresponsible' (for YOU)... but it would put ME at an unnecessary disadvantage. If I'm carrying concealed in a public place, relaxing too much is not a good idea. I NEED a bit of an edge, to be as fully aware and capable of quick, accurate reaction as possible. Nerves and adrenaline in those situations have been enough impairment for me in the past. I'm not adding anything to it.

For what it's worth, I don't carry in public wearing flip-flops, either. If I EVER find myself in a life-and-death situation again, I'll need every advantage I can get... wearing shoes I can't flee OR fight well in is ALSO an unnecessary impairment. If someone else decides to make hard trouble, why make things harder?

ETA: If you carry wearing flip-flops, that's a personal decision, and I AM NOT JUDGING YOU... unless you wear them with socks.

 

[Kleanbore]

I posted the following on another board about three years ago....Perhaps th OP can make use of some of this.

Know and understand your state and local laws and those of any jurisdictions in which you will be carrying a gun. In general, the laws permit the use of deadly force only when it is immediately necessary to counter an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm.

Always remember that using--even showing--a gun entails significant potential criminal and civil liability.

Do not fall into the trap of believing, even subconsciously, that the granting of a gun permit confers police powers.

Consider your gun to be a last resort.

Realize that in general, laws governing the use of deadly force apply on your own property as well as elsewhere.

Always do your utmost to avoid getting into any kind of confrontation.

Know how to use your firearm safely and effectively. Practice. Avail yourself of all of the training you can afford.

Stay out of harm's way to the extent possible; do not venture from a place of safety to investigate anything--do so only to ensure the safety of your family.

Remember, when a threat ceases to be a threat, so does the justification to use deadly force--do not shoot at anyone who is fleeing or who for any other reason no longer constitutes an immediate threat.

Understand that the aftermath of a shooting can be extremely stressful and costly, if not otherwise devastating, to you and your family. If you must shoot, however, know what to do and whom to call afterwards.

Forget everything you've seen on television about drawing and pointing guns, "clearing" a house, apprehending people, etc.--life is not like television.

Don't be without your gun when you need it--and on the flip side, if there is some place you might not want to go without it, don't go there unless you have to.

Stay alert and observant wherever you are.​

 

[bergmen]

On the subject of alcohol -

What occurs in our area (Northern California) if one gets in a car accident and blows a percentage (it can be any percentage, even well below the legal limit) the person is considered to be alcohol impaired. It doesn't matter if alcohol played no part in the accident, the fact that a percentage was measured moves the incident into a completely different category, one in which there is no defense.

I agree 100% with the OP that one should not have been drinking anything if one carries. In my case I have no choice, stated right on the license: "NOT VALID UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL OR DRUGS". No one contests this in our jurisdiction.

Dan

 

[Lost Sheep]

Had a guy elsewhere tell me I obviously do not believe in the Second Ammendment or support the RKBA because the Second Amendment doesn't mention anything about needing to think through these issues.

Not kidding.

Obviously your critic believes the same thing about the First Amendment.

Thanks for composing and posting your thoughts. Shows you believe in both amendments, AND their implications.

Lost Sheep

 

[Frank Ettin]

With regard to alcohol consumption, one should first be aware of state law. In some States, Arizona for example, someone with a permit may legally carry concealed into a bar or a restaurant that serves alcohol (as long as the establishment isn't properly posted), but he may not consume alcohol.

Second, even though modest alcohol consumption may be legal when carrying a gun, if you need to use your gun alcohol use, indeed the use of any drug that might have affected your judgment or perception, can become a factor in the post DGU investigation. It might not hurt, but it certainly won't help.

And I do agree that this belongs in ST&T, so I'll move it.

 

[Snag]

I think it's a good post. Little harsh in some spots. Like the no drinking. I don't drink, anymore, so it's a non issue for me but I have no problem with a responsible individual having a couple while carrying if the law allows.

Also what's with the never draw it unless your in a life or death situation. I'm assuming you mean in an area with people around you don't know or something similar? I'm aware which of my buddies are competent with a firearm and if they want to see what I'm packing I'll show them.

 

[Byrd666]

"I do not shoot to kill. I shoot to make them stop."

This is a point I have some criticism to.

If it is, in my opinion deemed necessary for me to pull, aim, and fire my weapon, it is to the point that no other alternative is available. And as such I will, to the best of my ability, hit the object, "bad guy", at the point of center mass. In doing so, I know I am aiming at, and or, hitting some of the human bodies' most vital organs. Thus at this point I am not trying to "stop" them. I am in defense of my life, or others lives that are in need of protection, and am now willing to kill my perceived threat. This is a major point that really oughtta be discussed more before before people arm themselves with a firearm.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...If it is, in my opinion deemed necessary for me to pull, aim, and fire my weapon, it is to the point that no other alternative is available. And as such I will to the best of my ability, hit the object, "bad guy", at the point of center mass. In doing so, I know I am aiming at, and or, hitting some of the human bodies' most vital organs. Thus at this point I am not trying to "stop" them,..

[1] I hope you understand that legally once the threat has ended, if for example the assailant backs off and discontinues his attack, your legal justification for using lethal force as also ended. f you intentionally hurt or kill another human under circumstances in which your act of violence does not satisfy the requirements to be legally justified, you're no longer the "good guy." You have committed a criminal act.

[2] One shoots for the center of mass not with the intent to kill, but with the intent to stop. And the reason one shoots for center of mass is (1) because that is generally the most available and largest target; and (2) because of the realities of what it can take to reliably stop the threat.

There are four ways in which shooting someone stops him:

1. psychological -- "I'm shot, it hurts, I don't want to get shot any more."
2. massive blood loss depriving the muscles and brain of oxygen and thus significantly impairing their ability to function
3. breaking major skeletal support structures
4. damaging the central nervous system.

Depending on someone just giving up because he's been shot is iffy. Probably most fights are stopped that way, but some aren't; and there are no guarantees.

Breaking major skeletal structures can quickly impair mobility. But if the assailant has a gun, he can still shoot. And it will take a reasonably powerful round to reliably penetrate and break a large bone, like the pelvis.

Hits to the central nervous system are sure and quick, but the CNS presents a small and uncertain target. And sometimes significant penetration will be needed to reach it.

The most common and sure physiological way in which shooting someone stops him is blood loss -- depriving the brain and muscles of oxygen and nutrients, thus impairing the ability of the brain and muscles to function. Blood loss is facilitated by (1) large holes causing tissue damage; (2) getting the holes in the right places to damage major blood vessels or blood bearing organs; and (3) adequate penetration to get those holes into the blood vessels and organs which are fairly deep in the body. The problem is that blood loss takes time. People have continued to fight effectively when gravely, even mortally, wounded. So things that can speed up blood loss, more holes, bigger holes, better placed holes, etc., help.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...I am in defense of my life, or others lives that are in need of protection, and am now willing to kill my perceived threat...

But that is still different from shooting with the intent to kill.

True, I accept that the death of the assailant is a possible consequence of my use of lethal force to stop him. But there is still a fundamental difference between shooting with the intent to stop and shooting with the intent to kill. If I'm forced to shoot someone to protect my life of the life of an innocent, my purpose is served if the assailant stops.

The assailant's death may be a natural result of my use of lethal force to stop him, and I must accept that; but his death is not my intended result. If it were, I would continue shooting even after he stopped. But ask how well that worked out for Jerome Ersland.

 

[MachIVshooter]

"I do not shoot to kill. I shoot to make them stop."

This is a point I have some criticism to.

If it is, in my opinion deemed necessary for me to pull, aim, and fire my weapon, it is to the point that no other alternative is available. And as such I will, to the best of my ability, hit the object, "bad guy", at the point of center mass. In doing so, I know I am aiming at, and or, hitting some of the human bodies' most vital organs. Thus at this point I am not trying to "stop" them. I am in defense of my life, or others lives that are in need of protection, and am now willing to kill my perceived threat. This is a major point that really oughtta be discussed more before before people arm themselves with a firearm.

I see what it is you're trying to say, but I don't believe it's a good way to say it (especially if you ever end up using this affirmative defense).

There are two components to consider on this point:

1) You are trying to stop the threat

2) you are attempting to stop the threat with deadly force

I believe the correct way to say what you're trying to say is that you are employing deadly force to stop the threat with the understanding that this level of force will likely result in the death of the attacker.

You are not shooting to kill, but death is the likely outcome, since it generally takes more trauma to stop someone than to kill them.

 

[Hunter125]

Did this article get posted on TTAG recently? If not, it is very close.

I have to agree with the OP on the alcohol issue. If you CCW, you have just put yourself in a group that HAS to be above reproach in every way. At least more so than the average citizen. Like others have said, if you are involved in a DGU with any amount of drugs or alcohol in your system, it doesn't matter what you think you can handle or even what you can actually handle, some prosecutor is going to have your tail for breakfast and call every judgment you made into question.

Why you would want to lower your mental capacity, reaction time, alertness, etc. even by the smallest amount while CCW'ing is beyond me.

 

[PTMCCAIN]

Byrd666: I completely agree with you, but as I learned through conversations about this article, for legal reasons you must always think in terms of "stopping the threat." If you say your intention is to kill somebody, or that you knowingly killed somebody, you have moved over into an area that has great potential for getting you in legal hot water. Simply thinking, saying and acting in SELF-DEFENSE is the key and to defend yourself, you must simply stop the threat. The death of the threat you are stopping is NOT your goal, but may result.

It's an important distinction to be kept in mind.

We are defending ourselves, not out to kill people.

 

[Kleanbore]

You are not shooting to kill, but death is the likely outcome, since it generally takes more trauma to stop someone than to kill them.

Since this is about concealed carry it is primarily about handguns, and the majority of persons shot by handguns do not die as a result.

 

[PTMCCAIN]

Bingo.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Did this article get posted on TTAG recently? If not, it is very close.

I have to agree with the OP on the alcohol issue. If you CCW, you have just put yourself in a group that HAS to be above reproach in every way. At least more so than the average citizen. Like others have said, if you are involved in a DGU with any amount of drugs or alcohol in your system, it doesn't matter what you think you can handle or even what you can actually handle, some prosecutor is going to have your tail for breakfast and call every judgment you made into question.

Why you would want to lower your mental capacity, reaction time, alertness, etc. even by the smallest amount while CCW'ing is beyond me.

Have you/do you drink alcohol with car keys in your pocket? Do you have a problem with people who do drink alcohol with car keys in their pockets? More people die every year from alcohol related car crashed than alcohol related gun incidents. So why the double standard because the object on the belt is a gun rather than car keys?

Would you as staunchly tell everyone that no one should ever drink with car keys in their pocket?

How about:
Why you would want to lower your mental capacity, reaction time, alertness, etc. even by the smallest amount while possessing the ability to get into a car and kill someone with it is beyond me. If you are going to choose to carry car keys than do drink - ever!

There is a HUGE distinction between carrying an object and using an object. Cars kill millions of people per year more than guns do - so why don't we regulate the mere POSSESSION of a vehicle/car keys the way we want to regulate the mere POSSESSION of a firearm?

 

[Old Fuff]

Had a guy elsewhere tell me I obviously do not believe in the Second Ammendment or support the RKBA because the Second Amendment doesn't mention anything about needing to think through these issues.

Absolutely true.

But the 2nd. Amendment will not protect him from the consequences (legal and otherwise) if he or anyone else ignores what you wrote. Rights also entail responsibilities,

 

[beatledog7]

And, don’t get dragged into a conversation about “shooting to kill.” You do not shoot to kill, you shoot to stop the thread and to defend yourself or others in a true emergency.

It's good to see you've adopted this position.

 

[PTMCCAIN]

Unlike some people on gun forums, I am willing to learn.

 

[MachIVshooter]

Since this is about concealed carry it is primarily about handguns, and the majority of persons shot by handguns do not die as a result.

I'm willing to bet the percentage is significantly higher if you only look at cases in which the person shot was an aggressor who was effectively repelled by his would-be victim using deadly force.

That whole 87% (or whatever figure you happen to find) includes such cases as people Glocking themselves in the hand or shooting their toes off playing quick draw, which obviously are not fatal wounds, systemic infection notwithstanding.

My point remains that the amount of trauma needed to physically incapacitate a person using a firearm is generally going to be in excess of what is necessary to kill them.