I would caution that I've never heard of a CHL, LTC, LTCF, or whatever carry license or permit that confers ANY powers to the bearer, aside from -- literally -- the lawful right to carry that gun on his/her person outside their own property.
So saying that a CHL/LTC license permits you to defend someone -- even yourself -- is not correct. They merely allow you to have one specific object on your person which could be used as a defensive tool.
You may consider it splitting hairs, but read through Kansas's CCHL laws and related statutes, and you might not be able to assert the above any longer. While the Kansas Personal and Family Protection Act, in itself, doesn't spell out lawful use of force, it DOES cite the approved CCHL class requirement including Kansas use of force law review, and our REQUIRED lesson plan includes the conference of many powers, implied to ALL citizens, but explicitly required to be explained to all CCHL applicants as a part of their prerequisite training course. So the Kansas CCHL, in and of itself, doesn't confer "powers" to the bearer, the simple attribute of being a citizen of Kansas confers many, many explicit powers for personal defense, that of others, and that of properties.
Our state doesn't include these statues for use of force in the KSPFPA, simply because ALL Kansans are afforded these rights by law, not just those so licensed to carry a concealed handgun. And of course, anyone over the age of 21 who is not prohibited from possessing a firearm can carry openly or concealed without a permit, so the same rights and protections are applicable.
Much of our state statute language is around "presumption of reasonableness," which implies if your actions follow these guidelines, said actions are presumed reasonable, and the actor is protected by law from criminal and civil action. Actions NOT qualifying as presumed reasonable may still be deemed reasonable (Kansas's word for "justifiable") , and the actor still absolved AFTER legal actions are taken, but they wouldn't have the same "up front" protections which prevented pursuit of legal action.
A few statutes of interest included in the KS CCHL instructor lesson plan, as requirements to satisfy the application for a KS CCHL under the Kansas Personal & Family Protection act, pertaining to conference of lawful use of force powers to the bearer of firearms:
KSA 21-5228 Private Person Arrest:
(a) A private person who makes, or assists another private person in making a lawful arrest is justified in the use of any force which such person would be justified in using if such person were summoned or directed by a law enforcement officer to make such arrest, except that such person is justified in the use of deadly force only when such person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to such person or another.
KSA 21-5225 Use of force in defense of property other than a dwelling:
A person who is lawfully in possession of property other than a dwelling, place of work or occupied vehicle is justified in the use of force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating an unlawful interference with such property. Only such use of force as a reasonable person would deem necessary to prevent or terminate the interference may intentionally be used.
I have read of a "5225 case" in which a home owner left his dwelling to interrupt some guys who had broken into his shed, arming himself as he left the house. Because he was within his rights to use force to prevent and terminate unlawful interference of his property, and because the burglars escalated and became aggressive when he tried to rid them from his shed, he was presumed reasonable in shooting 3 of them, killing 2 on site. This was NOT a "castle doctrine" case, as the owner left the security of his dwelling to protect his property, and was not strictly a "stand your ground" or "no duty to retreat" case, as the instigation of the interaction was the choice of the homeowner. But because under 5225 he was justified to prevent the interference of his property, he was granted presumption of reasonableness in the shootings, and protected by law from civil and criminal action.
The text of KSA 2011 21-5222 is rather lengthy, but it DOES spell out the use of force in defense of another person, which is NOT required to be a relative or spouse, AND empowers the intervening citizen to use appropriate and reasonable force, effectively gauged on the perception of the intervening party that the 3rd party would be justified to use such degree of force in their own defense. (In other words, if you were in their shoes, if reasonable persons believe you would be justified to shoot in your own defense, you are then justified to shoot in THEIR defense).
21-5223 Use of force in defense of a dwelling... If memory serves, this one even extends to consider an occupied vehicle, owned by the user of force, however our state has established precedence the user of force need not own the vehicle to be presumed reasonable, as we've upheld a case where a group attacked a passenger in a vehicle, after which the passenger was granted presumption of reasonableness, even though the language suggests it needed to be HIS vehicle to be so granted...
Again, none of these are necessarily powers granted by the KS CCHL itself, but we're required by the KSPFPA to make our CCHL students aware of these "powers they already have."
