Cocked and locked: The decision to carry a loaded pistol.

If you have made the decision to carry a weapon concealed then you will eventually have to decide whether or not you want to carry with a round in the chamber. Besides having the advantage of an extra round (full mag + 1 in the chamber), many people decide to chamber a round for speed and surprisingly, safety.

Unlike Hollywood, nobody runs away when they hear a round chambered. We’ve all been conditioned, thanks to movies and TV, to think that some bad guys would run or stop whatever they’re doing merely at the sound of a 12 gauge being brought into action, but it’s just not the case.

Police officers carry their handguns with a round in the chamber. Why? Because when their gun clears the holster its out for a reason; life has to be defended and someone who is trying to take a life must be stopped. But isn’t that why you’re carrying a weapon? Hopefully you’re not carrying a legally concealed weapon because you think it’s cool- it’s there to save a life if need be. If your gun ever clears leather you don’t need something else to think about.

Opponents of loaded carry often cite the safety concerns with carrying a loaded weapon. With all the safety devices that modern firearms have, you’re brain should be all the safety you need. But just in case that isn’t enough remember: (1)The gun is always loaded; and (2)Never point a gun at anything you don’t want to destroy.

Some people persist and decide to carry everyday and just work on their Israeli draw. The origin of the Israeli draw is mired in legend, but is essentially a weapon carried with a loaded magazine with an empty chamber. Upon drawing, the slide is racked and a round is chambered. This is a draw that must be practiced for speed as it is NOT intuitive. Some people do pretty well with it but again, practice and a lot of it will only help with this.

As for the Lone Ranger and his house? We carry loaded. If I ever have to draw that weapon it will be nothing like I practiced on a static gun range. There will be noise, distractions, fear, sweat, and enough adrenaline to move a train. The last thing I need is something else to think about and slow me down.

Open Carry: Something Different

For those of you who have ever read my blog, you’ll know that I’m a huge advocate of concealed carry. The ability to protect and defend your life is priceless and sometimes the ability to have that insurance hidden pays dividends.

I currently reside in a state where open carry, e.g. on the hip, unconcealed, etc. is legal. I have tried to open carry a time or two but have never really enjoyed the experience. All of that changed for me last night when I attended a local meeting where local “open carriers” met and talked about their experiences, legal rights, etc.

It was a new experience to put on a holster I typically only use to practice at the range with (as it’s a demon to conceal) and walk into a large restaurant with 30-40 other people all wearing their gun in plain sight. To my surprise, not one law enforcement agency was summoned by someone eating there, management had given us permission to come, and it was a lot of fun to exercise a 2nd amendment right out in the open! With all of us in one place, I have to say it was the safest building in the state!

So now for a little background. In conversing with people the conversation usually goes like this:

“Open carry? Like cowboys in the old west?”

“Yes, except now with modern equipment, training, responsibility, etc.”

Modern open carry got its start in the pioneer and old west days of America. Firearms were a part of daily life, a tool like a hammer for building or repairing except better suited for fending off would-be outlaws, wild animals, and Indians. While the crime rate in 19th century America was lower in general, Dr. Roger McGrath of UCLA asserts that the murder, robbery, rape, and other violent crimes of today were kept at bay due to the prevalence of firearms1.

Today, open carry continues to be a hotly debated topic amongst gun owners as some feel that concealed permits only entitle a carrier to do just that-carry concealed. A common phrase found on gun forums is, “concealed is concealed. No one needs to know about it.” People on the other side of the debate contend that open carry is not only a right, its a crime deterrent and not something to be feared.

As for the Loneranger, I’m more apt to carry open in some instances. I haven’t completely gone over to open carry as there are still plenty of institutions that can ask me to leave if they know I have a gun and it can result in a hassle with law enforcement officials who are not familiar with state laws. Open carry is coming around. People are becoming more accustomed to seeing firearms and learning to recognize the good guy from the bad but we still have a long way to go.

1. McGrath, Roger D. (1987). Guns, Highwaymen and Vigilantes: Violence in the Old West. ISBN 0-5200-6026-1.

Texas Castle Doctrine - The law: word for word.

I’ve had multiple requests for the actual text, summary, or analysis of the ‘Texas Castle Doctrine’ [SB 378] that went into effect on 9/1/2007. What results below is a summary of the bill, the analysis of the bill, and the word for word copy of the bill as it passed.

[Summary of the Bill]

Legislative Session: 80(R)

Senate Bill 378	Senate Author: Wentworth et al.
Effective: 9-1-07	House Sponsor: Driver et al.

Senate Bill 378 amends provisions of the Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure relating to the use of force or deadly force in defense of a person. The bill creates a presumption of reasonableness for the belief of a person who takes such action that the use of force or deadly force to protect the actor was immediately necessary and provides that the presumption would be reasonable if the actor:

1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force or deadly force was used unlawfully and with force entered, or attempted to enter, the actor’s home, vehicle, or place of business or employment; unlawfully and with force removed, or attempted to remove, the actor from the home, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or was committing or attempting to commit certain serious crimes;

2) did not provoke the person against whom the force or deadly force was used; and

3) was not otherwise engaged in certain criminal activity at the time the force or deadly force was used.

The bill provides that an actor who has a right to be present at the location where the force or deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at that time is not required to retreat before using force or deadly force.

Senate Bill 378 also provides immunity from civil liability for a personal injury or death resulting from the use of force or deadly force to a defendant who was justified under the law in using such force or deadly force.

[BILL ANALYSIS]

Senate Research Center S.B. 378

By: Wentworth et al.

Jurisprudence

6/25/2007

Enrolled

AUTHOR’S / SPONSOR’S STATEMENT OF INTENT

In 1973, the 63rd Texas Legislature imposed a duty to retreat in the face of a criminal attack, permitting the use of deadly force only if a reasonable person in the situation would not have retreated. This, in effect, placed the burden on the victim to retreat in the face of an impending lethal attack and reversed what had been the longstanding practice of recognizing the right of a person to stand his or her ground in the face of an attack. In 1995, the 74th Texas Legislature created an exception to the duty to retreat before using deadly force in response to an unlawful entry into the habitation of the actor, but the duty still applied in any other location where a lethal attack might occur.

Under Chapter 9 (Justification Excluding Criminal Responsibility), Penal Code, a person is justified in using force and, in some instances, deadly force to repel an aggressor. In deadly force situations, the person must reasonably believe that the force is immediately necessary to protect his or her person from the exercise of unlawful deadly force by the aggressor or to prevent the imminent commission of an aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery. Current law provides an affirmative defense to a civil action brought by an attacker for damages for personal injury or death resulting from the use of force or deadly force, but only in cases involving home invasions. As a result, a person who justifiably uses force or deadly force outside of the home and is not guilty of any crime may still be open to a civil action filed by the criminal or the criminal’s family.

In addition, the Texas Penal Code contains no presumption of reasonableness in defending a home, vehicle, place of business, or place of employment against unlawful intruders. Instead, Texas juries must decide after the fact whether a victim’s actions to protect the victim and his or her family were reasonable or necessary under the circumstances.

S.B. 378 explicitly states in law that a person has no duty to retreat if the person is attacked in a place where he or she has a right to be present, if he or she has not provoked the attacker, and if the person using force is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used. In addition, the jury is instructed to presume that the victim’s actions were reasonable if the victim brings forth evidence that he or she is entitled to the presumption, unless the state can prove otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt. Finally, the bill expands the existing affirmative defense to a civil action brought by an injured criminal attacker or his family to apply to any force or deadly force conduct authorized by Subchapter C (Protection of Persons), Chapter 9, Penal Code.

RULEMAKING AUTHORITY

This bill does not expressly grant any additional rulemaking authority to a state officer, institution, or agency.

SECTION BY SECTION ANALYSIS

SECTION 1. Amends Section 9.01, Penal Code, by adding Subdivisions (4) and (5), to define “habitation” and “vehicle.”

SECTION 2. Amends Section 9.31, Penal Code, by amending Subsection (a) and adding Subsections (e) and (f), as follows:

(a) Provides that an actor’s belief that the use of force was immediately necessary is considered reasonable if the actor did not provoke the person against whom the force was used, was not engaged in certain criminal activity, and knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used unlawfully and with force was committing or attempting to commit certain acts, did not provoke the person against whom force was used and was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than certain Class C misdemeanors. Makes nonsubstantive changes.

(e) Provides that a person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used is not required to retreat before using force, provided that the person has not provoked the person against whom the force is used and is not engaged in criminal activity.

(f) Prohibits a finder of fact from considering whether the actor failed to retreat when determining whether an actor reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, for purposes of Subsection (a).

SECTION 3. Amends Section 9.32, Penal Code, as follows:

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. Deletes existing text relating to whether a reasonable person in the actor’s situation would have not retreated in determining justified use of deadly force. Makes conforming and nonsubstantive changes.

SECTION 4. Amends Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, as follows:

Sec. 83.001. New heading: CIVIL IMMUNITY. Provides that a person who uses force or deadly force justified under Chapter 9 (Justification Excluding Criminal Responsibility), Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant’s use of force or deadly force, as applicable. Deletes existing text relating to an affirmative defense to civil action arising from the use of justifiable deadly force.

SECTION 5. Makes application of this Act prospective.

SECTION 6. Effective date: September 1, 2007.

S.B. No. 378 [Word for word as it passed - Underlines indicate text that was struck or reworded in the bill]

AN ACT

relating to the use of force or deadly force in defense of a person.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:

SECTION 1. Section 9.01, Penal Code, is amended by adding Subdivisions (4) and (5) to read as follows:

(4) “Habitation” has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.

(5) “Vehicle” has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.

SECTION 2. Section 9.31, Penal Code, is amended by amending Subsection (a) and adding Subsections (e) and (f) to read as follows:

(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor [himself] against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor’s belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.

(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

SECTION 3. Section 9.32, Penal Code, is amended to read as follows:

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor [he] would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

(2) [if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated; and

[(3)] when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect the actor [himself] against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

(B) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

(b) The actor’s belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used [requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not apply to an actor who uses force against a person who is at the time of the use of force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the actor].

(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.

(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

SECTION 4. Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is amended to read as follows:

Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY [AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE]. A [It is an affirmative defense to a civil action for damages for personal injury or death that the] defendant who uses force or[, at the time the cause of action arose, was justified in using] deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9 [Section 9.32], Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant’s [against a person who at the time of the] use of force or deadly force, as applicable [was committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the defendant].

SECTION 5. (a) Sections 9.31 and 9.32, Penal Code, as amended by this Act, apply only to an offense committed on or after the effective date of this Act. An offense committed before the effective date of this Act is covered by the law in effect when the offense was committed, and the former law is continued in effect for this purpose. For the purposes of this subsection, an offense is committed before the effective date of this Act if any element of the offense occurs before the effective date.

(b) Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, as amended by this Act, applies only to a cause of action that accrues on or after the effective date of this Act. An action that accrued before the effective date of this Act is governed by the law in effect at the time the action accrued, and that law is continued in effect for that purpose.

SECTION 6. This Act takes effect September 1, 2007.

______________________________ ______________________________
President of the Senate Speaker of the House

I hereby certify that S.B. No. 378 passed the Senate on March 13, 2007, by the following vote: Yeas 30, Nays 0.

______________________________
Secretary of the Senate

I hereby certify that S.B. No. 378 passed the House on March 20, 2007, by the following vote: Yeas 133, Nays 13, one present not voting.

______________________________
Chief Clerk of the House

Approved:

______________________________
Date

______________________________
Governor

All of the above text is courtesy of the Texas Legislature Online. The exact articles can be found here.

When lightning strikes: Carrying a concealed weapon 24/7

I recently viewed a training DVD for employees and students entitled, “Shots Fired: When lightning strikes.” The 20 minute video helps trainees learn to recognize an active shooter situation and take action. The DVD explains that while no one wants to think about a shooting where they work or attend school it is an unfortunate possibility. The DVD goes on to explain that the odds of an active shooter scenario occurring in your work place are equivalent to your odds of getting struck by lightning, hence the title.

I took something else away from the comparison: if you have made the decision to obtain a concealed weapon permit then you need to carry the weapon 24/7. Unlike weather forecasters who can track and predict weather patterns with some degree of success, you and I can’t know when we will need to defend ourselves or our loved ones. No one can predict the day lightning will strike them, the day they will get in a car accident, or the day they may actually need their concealed weapon and so we live right, buckle up, and strap up every day.

I hope that none of us ever has to shoot someone, but if someone does something to threaten my life or the life of my loved ones I will meet that threat with all of the force necessary to eliminate it. I saw a video clip of a commercial airline pilot talking about training in the post-9/11 world. He recounted how someone asked him when things in airports and airplanes are going to return to “normal”. His answer? “There’s a new normal.”

You and I can’t pick the date on the calendar when bad things will happen so train hard, stay safe, and pack everyday.

New Ruger SP101 - Courtesy of Uncle Sam

Like many of you, we received our stimulus check and promptly put it back into the economy. My wife and I had been wanting a gun that she could enjoy shooting but something also worth defending the home with while I’m at work.

Enter the Ruger SP101 chambered in .357 magnum: Strong enough for him, balanced just right for her. We looked at many revolvers and had initially settled in the S&W 642 in .38. After doing some homework on the internet, I didn’t want her to have to deal with trying to tame such a light gun. So after several trips to local gun shops we found the Ruger to be just right. Many of you are aware that you can fire .38’s from a .357 which makes it great for her and if I choose, I can throw in some .357 and knock down a bear or two.

Last night we took the gun out to the lake with some friends and set up a series of targets using 9″ styrofoam plates and colored 3″ x 5″ cards. I hadn’t fired a .38 in years but was happy to find it has very mild recoil and is actually a lot of fun to shoot. My wife loved shooting it (which is the most important part) and was a pretty good shot! The best part about this gun is that it just disappeared with an IWB holster under a light button-up shirt!

I changed out the stock grips for a nice set of Hogue grips which dampen the recoil even further and allow the shooter a full hand of control. The gun felt every bit as strudy as I had read about while not being too much. The gun still fits it a pocket but carries enough weight with it’s short barrel to be more accurate than a snubbie might otherwise be. All in all it’s a great gun that knows how to work but also likes to play.

Weapon Retention and Disarming

I recently took a course on weapon retention and disarming. Not only was the class an eye opener, but I spent the better part of four hours taking a beating. I highly recommend that anyone who carries a firearm for work or for personal self defense enroll in one of these classes.

People may ask, why do I need to take a class like this? If you carry a firearm and you are in a confrontation, the suspect will have access to at least one gun, YOURS! Professional criminals and terrorists TRAIN HARD and long to be able to disarm armed personnel like us. You must be able to defeat them.

Many people will say “I would just shoot him!” Since most confrontations occur at arms reach, there will not be time to draw and present your weapon. You will have to be able to defend your weapon, retain control, disengage and shoot as needed.

I have attached some pictures from a recent event in California which illustrates the point. The subject was acting suspiciously on a state highway. A Highway patrolman approached him to ask what he was doing. He immediately ATTACKED the officer. A violent struggle ensued with the trooper, a deputy, and an EMT trying to prevent the officer from being DISARMED. Note the magazine on the ground from the troopers Smith & Wesson 4006. His weapon is now non-functional with the magazine out. The trooper employs classic retention techniques and is able to maintain control of his weapon.

Cops get shot all the time with their own guns. They wear retention type holsters. Most of us who carry concealed do NOT. Our retention skills must be excellent since we are out in public and anyone who can spot our gun, can try and take it.

The class I took was comprehensive and as mentioned before-very physical. I learned how to defend my weapon in the holster from the front, back, sides, and on the ground as well as how to defend my gun when it is grabbed from the front, back, and sides. Probably the funnest part of the course was learning how to disarm someone who has a gun-or worse yet-your gun but is within reach. I came home with bruises that I wore for a week but also lessons I’ll not soon forget.

Oh, and that guy who tried to get the California Highway Patrolman’s gun?

Busted.

The Sheep Parable

Author unknown.

Not so long ago and in a pasture too uncomfortably close to here, a flock of
sheep lived and grazed. They were protected by a dog, who answered to the
master, but despite his best efforts from time to time a nearby pack of
wolves would prey upon the flock.

One day a group of sheep, bolder than the rest, met to discuss their
dilemma. ‘Our dog is good, and vigilant, but he is one and the wolves are
many. The wolves he catches are not always killed, and the master judges and
releases many to prey again upon us, for no reason we can understand.
What can we do? We are sheep, but we do not wish to be food, too!’

One sheep spoke up, saying ‘It is his teeth and claws that make the wolf so
terrible to us. It is his nature to prey, and he would find any way to do it,
but it is the tools he wields that make it possible. If we had such teeth, we
could fight back, and stop this savagery.’ The other sheep clamored in
agreement, and they went together to the old bones of the dead wolves heaped
in the corner of the pasture, and gathered fang and claw and made them
into weapons.

That night, when the wolves came, the newly armed sheep sprang up with their
weapons and struck at them, crying, “Be Gone!” We are not food!’ and drove
off the wolves, who were astonished. When did sheep become so bold and so
dangerous to wolves? When did sheep grow teeth?

It was unthinkable!

The next day, flush with victory and waving their weapons, they approached
the flock to pronounce their discovery. But as they drew nigh, the flock
huddled together and cried out, ‘Baaaaaaaadddd! Baaaaaddd things!

You have bad things! We are afraid! You are not sheep!’

The brave sheep stopped, amazed. ‘But we are your brethren!’ they cried. ‘We
are still sheep, but we do not wish to be food. See, our new teeth and claws
protect us and have saved us from slaughter. They do not make us into wolves,
they make us equal to the wolves, and safe from their viciousness!’

‘Baaaaaaad!’ cried the flock, ‘the things are bad and will pervert you, and
we fear them. You cannot bring them into the flock!’ So the armed sheep
resolved to conceal their weapons, for although they had no desire to panic
the flock, they wished to remain in the fold. But they would not return to
those nights of terror, waiting for the wolves to come.

In time, the wolves attacked less often and sought easier prey, for they had
no stomach for fighting sheep who possessed tooth and claw even as they did.
Not knowing which sheep had fangs and which did not, they came to leave sheep
out of their diet almost completely except for the occasional raid, from
which more than one wolf did not return.

Then came the day when, as the flock grazed beside the stream, one sheep’s
weapon slipped from the folds of her fleece, and the flock cried out in
terror again, ‘Baaaaaad! You still possess these evil things! We must ban you
from our presence!’

And so they did. The great chief sheep and his council, encouraged by the
words of their advisors, placed signs and totems at the edges of the pasture
forbidding the presence of hidden weapons there. The armed sheep protested
before the council, saying, ‘It is our pasture, too, and we have never harmed
you! When can you say we have caused you hurt? It is the wolves, not we, who
prey upon you. We are still sheep, but we are not food!’

But the flock drowned them out with cries of ‘Baaaaaaddd! We will not hear
your clever words! You and your things are evil and will harm us!’

Saddened by this rejection, the armed sheep moved off and spent their days
on the edges of the flock, trying from time to time to speak with their
brethren to convince them of the wisdom of having such teeth, but meeting
with little success. They found it hard to talk to those who, upon hearing
their words, would roll back their eyes and flee, crying ‘Baaaaddd! Bad
things!’

That night, the wolves happened upon the sheep’s totems and signs, and
said, ‘Truly, these sheep are fools! They have told us they have no teeth!
Brothers, let us feed!’ And they set upon the flock, and horrible was the
carnage in the midst of the fold. The dog fought like a demon, and often
seemed to be in two places at once, but even he could not halt the
slaughter.

It was only when the other sheep arrived with their weapons that the wolves
fled, only to remain on the edge of the pasture and wait for the next time
they could prey, for if the sheep were so foolish once, they would be so
again. This they did, and do still.

In the morning, the armed sheep spoke to the flock, and said, ‘See? If the
wolves know you have no teeth, they will fall upon you. Why be prey? To be a
sheep does not mean to be food for wolves!’ But the flock cried out, more
feebly for their voices were fewer, though with no less terror, ‘Baaaaaaaad!
These things are bad! If they were banished, the wolves would not harm us!
Baaaaaaad!’

So they resolved to retain their weapons, but to conceal them from the
flock; to endure their fear and loathing, and even to protect their brethren
if the need arose, until the day the flock learned to understand that as long
as there were wolves in the night, sheep would need teeth to repel them.

They would still be sheep, but they would not be food!