Great article on the merits of Citizen’s with Concealed Weapons.
http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/northwest/story/467502.html
More in state get license to carry concealed gun
JOSH FARLEY; Kitsap Sun Published: September 1st, 2008 01:00
AMSEABECK, KITSAP COUNTY – In Julian Piercy’s mind, the small bulge in his shirt near his lower back is a way of “leveling a situation.”
The clip he fastens to his waistband before leaving the house isn’t just another accessory. It gives him an option, he said, when all others are off the table and a life is on the line.
When he feels the pressure of metal on his back, it gives him confidence that he has a chance of protecting those he cares about most.
“As a parent, I am the first line of defense for my children,” he said. “Not the police.”
Piercy, a nursing student at Olympic College, lifts his shirt to reveal a .45-caliber Springfield XD, a semi-automatic handgun that weighs about 30 ounces when loaded. He carries it constantly with a few exceptions, mostly when he’s on campus and prohibited from doing so.
Having carried in his younger days because, frankly, he could, Piercy, 38, has again obtained a license to carry a concealed weapon and is getting used to the feel of carrying again.
“The gun doesn’t make me invincible, smarter or tougher than anyone else,” he said. “It’s merely there as a tool.”
Spurred by fear of a violent attack or because they’ve survived one, more Washingtonians are getting a concealed pistol license. License-holders jumped from about 179,000 to 258,000, 43 percent, between 2003 and 2007.
‘NOBODY KNOWS’
Federal buildings, courthouses, military installations, bars, schools and airports are off-limits to concealed weapons, but they’re allowed in most other public areas. In fact, Washington’s constitution permits its residents to “open carry” with a gun on their hip in public, but many gun owners choose to apply for the license and keep their weapon hidden.
“Nobody knows,” said Jim Wamsher, 52, of Port Orchard, who carries a Kimber 1911 on his hip. “And that’s the whole idea.”
Wamsher believes he has a “moral obligation” to protect his family and the community. But he acknowledges that carrying also gives him an obligation to be well-trained with his weapon.
There’s no training requirement to get a concealed pistol license, however. To be eligible in Washington, residents must have no felony or domestic violence misdemeanor convictions, or any warrants for their arrest. They must pass nationwide and local criminal background checks.
Many subscribe to the mantra: “When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.”
“It’s like a seat belt,” said April Borbon, 41, a business owner in Central Kitsap. “Hopefully I’ll never need it. And if I do, it’ll be a life-or-death situation.”
Eugene Volokh, a law professor at the University of California at Los Angeles, said those considering carrying concealed weapons aren’t necessarily analyzing the crime rate when they decide to apply for a license.
“I think they ask themselves, ‘What’s the cost of this to me and what’s the benefit to me?’” he said of those who seek the concealed pistol permit. “It’s very little cost to them, but they feel very comfortable with guns and carrying one gives them confidence.”
‘SACRED RESPONSIBILITY’
Do concealed pistol holders make society safer, a kind of armed public service?
Mark Duncan, deputy police chief on Bainbridge Island, said that’s a difficult question to answer. An easier question for him is whether they make society more dangerous. His answer is no.
“The cases of someone misusing their concealed pistol license are virtually unheard of,” he said.
Dean Byrd, chief deputy with the Mason County Sheriff’s Office, goes further.
“Sometimes that’s what people have to rely on,” Byrd said of license-holders in rural parts of the county he patrols, “because law enforcement may be a long ways away.”
Duncan, who added that he carries “everywhere I go,” including when he’s off duty, said those who get a concealed pistol license see themselves as having a “sacred responsibility.”
Kristen Comer, executive director for Washington Ceasefire, a gun-control advocacy group, questions whether having more people carrying concealed pistols results in greater public safety. But she concedes that it might be true among weapons carriers who are trained and know the “gravity” of their undertaking.
Reserving the use of a gun for life-and-death situations and spotting them is what Marcus Carter, executive officer at the Kitsap Rifle and Revolver Club, tries to instill in everyone he teaches.
Carter’s classes include instruction on the legalities of carrying. He can cite from memory numerous articles of the both the U.S. and Washington Constitution. Their amendments on the right to bear arms come easily to mind.
But just as he believes in guns, he believes in gun safety.
“If you’re going to carry a firearm, you have a responsibility to train with it,” he said.
Carter sees an upswing in the numbers coming to the club for training. He points to many reasons – a slumping economy or an upcoming election with fewer “pro-gun” candidates, for example – that prompt people to take their Second Amendment rights more seriously.
He said there’s been a steady influx of women, who typically are outnumbered by their male counterparts in gun use, at the club. In Kitsap County, home to a large and often out-to-sea naval population, those women left behind are apt to get trained with a firearm.
The most heated issue recently concerning concealed weapons occurred in the Legislature this past session with the introduction of two bills.
Sen. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, tried to ban guns from any campus that hosts high school students, such as at Olympic College, which hosts the Running Start program for high school juniors and seniors. Sen. Pam Roach, R-Auburn, introduced a bill aimed at prohibiting colleges and universities from banning holders of concealed pistol licenses from carrying on campus. There’s no state law, only college policy, keeping weapons off campus.
Roach, who has a concealed weapons permit, said she supports having carriers on campus because the mentality of a shooter “is to hone in on places that people are the most defenseless.”
“The reality is these scenarios are never good ones,” she said. “But potentially we have 258,000 people out there who can save people from dying. The issue is how many lives can be saved.”
I can understand the concerns of those who aren’t exposed to firearms on a daily basis. However for those of us who ‘don’t leave home without it’ it really isn’t that big of a deal. It becomes as natural as a cellphone, wallet and car keys.
Not that such a thing is not treated seriously. I may misplace my cellphone (well not now since I became an iTard 
) but the firearm is always under my control. I strongly recommend those considering this option to seek professional training. It won’t be cheap but it’s cheaper than having to hire legal council. Such training isn’t just the basics of marksmanship but on the judicious use of lethal force. A simple primer from Useofforce.us:
The use of lethal force that can end in homicide is justified in the situation of immediate, otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to the innocent. — Massad Ayoob
Mas effectively condenses the concepts of Ability, Opportunity, Jeopardy and Preclusion into one handy sentence.
Ability
Your attacker must have the ability—the physical, practical ability—to cause you harm. Common sense applies here, as does context. A gun gives your attacker ability (lethal ability, in fact); a knife gives ability as well. Indeed, most weapons qualify, all the way down to glass bottles, baseball bats, and screwdrivers. While the latter are not designed as weapons, if they are applied as such, they can certainly kill you just as dead.
Other “ability” considerations include disparity in size or physical power between you and your attacker—a very large man versus a very small man, a strong man versus a cripple, a trained fighter versus a bookworm, a man versus a woman, all can apply. And don’t forget disparity in numbers—four men attacking one can very easily kill or cripple, unless that one is a Hollywood action hero.
Most of the above are valid lethal force scenarios, but non-lethal force uses the same standard. Just about anyone can punch you and break your nose, or break your arm, or bruise your stomach.
In short, common sense is a more or less effective guide on this point. The important question is simply whether, as far as you know, the attacker has the ability to harm you—kill or maim you, if you respond with lethal force, or lesser degrees of danger for equivalently lesser uses of force.
Opportunity
Although opportunity can be viewed as a subset of ability, it is an equally important criterion. Basically, while your attacker may very well have the ability to cause you harm, it means nothing unless he also has the opportunity to do so—right here and right now. After all, there are probably countless criminals in the world who “could” kill you and might do so, given the chance; but they aren’t standing in front of you at this moment, so they don’t have that opportunity.
The biggest consideration here is range or proximity. Although a man with a gun is considered dangerous at any reasonable distance, a man with a knife standing 300 feet away is not, simply because he cannot stab you from that far away. Yet there is another factor, as well. If he were standing mere yards away, he still probably couldn’t reach you with his knife, but because it would only take him moments to approach you and change that, he would still be considered dangerous. A common police standard is to assume that a knife-wielding assailant is capable of covering 21 feet and striking with the blade in 1.5 seconds. Mull on that time span.
Some other considerations may apply when it comes to Opportunity. For instance, is a knife-wielding assailant behind a locked door a threat? Probably not. Therefore, if you were to shoot him through the door, that would not be justifiable. On the other hand, if he started—successfully—breaking the door down, then he would promptly become dangerous again. Again, use common sense.
Jeopardy
The most subjective factor of the AOJP analysis is the jeopardy requirement, sometimes called “imminent jeopardy.” This criterion requires that, in your specific situation, a “reasonable and prudent” person would have believed himself to be in immediate danger.
In other words, jeopardy is what distinguishes between a potentiallycould punch or stab or shoot you. The reason you aren’t “defending” yourself against them is because you have no reason to think that they are actually about to attack you. (Why would they?) dangerous situation and one that is actually dangerous. Hundreds of times every day, you walk by people who
On the other hand, if someone screams a threat and points a gun at you, any sane person would expect that behavior to indicate an intent to cause you harm.
It’s important to recognize that you cannot actually know this person’s intent; you are not a mind reader. All you can judge is his outward appearance and demeanor, which, in that case, are consistent with harmful intent. If it turns out that he was joking, or lying, or the gun was fake, or he wouldn’t actually have pulled the trigger, nothing changes, because you could not have known those things.
The other important qualifier to remember is that the jeopardy must be immediate. A general threat to your well-being in the distant future is meaningless, but “I’m gonna kill you right now!” is meaningful.
Finally, it’s essential to understand that the “immediate jeopardy” condition can go away at the drop of a hat. On the one hand, if you are attacked, beaten, and left lying in an alley, you are not justified in shooting your attacker in the back as he walks away, because he will have ceased to be a threat. On the other hand, if he turns around and comes back for more, then the immediate jeopardy resumes. Jeopardy can cease suddenly and unexpectedly if your attacker surrenders or clearly ceases to be a threat (if you knock him unconscious, for instance, or he tries to run), and continuing to use force in such situations can change your action from legal self-defense to illegal battery in moments.
Preclusion
Preclusion is not so much an individual consideration as it is an all-encompassing lens through which to view your actions. More complex than the others, it is nevertheless just as important. It is the idea that, whatever the situation, you are expected to use force only as a last resort—that is, only when the circumstances preclude all other options.
In other words, even when the ability, opportunity, and jeopardy criteria are satisfied, and knowing that you must clearly do something to protect yourself, the use of force, particularly lethal force, may only be that “something” if you have no other safe options.
The word “safe” is key there, because at no time does the law ever require you to choose an action that endangers yourself. If you can run away or retreat, you should, but if doing so would put you in harm’s way, you are not required to do so.
Preclusion is the factor that is missing in most self-defense arguments, and thus the reason most fail. You must remember that you bear the burden of proof; until you prove otherwise, the law merely sees two equal citizens in a dispute. You can say, “He tried to hit me,” but then the police and the courts will ask, “Why didn’t you _____?” You must have no options to offer to fill in that blank—there must have been no other courses of action you could have taken to maintain your safety except the use of force. Otherwise, you’re just fighting because you want to, and that’s a crime.
Does the Preclusion standard mean that an ultimatum like “give me your money or I’ll hurt you” requires you to, well, give him your money? Unless you honestly believe that he may hurt you anyway, yes. The law values “life and limb” above property. Or you can refuse, but you may not respond with a fist. He’s giving you a choice, which, by definition, means that you still have options other than force.
The point is simply that you must exercise self-restraint to the greatest extent possible. One vital aspect of this requirement concerns the appropriateness or degree of the force you employ, or how well suited your response is to the threat itself. If a man punches you, you probably cannot justifiably shoot him, because that’s a lethal response to a non-lethal attack. If a three-year-old punches you, you probably cannot do anything at all. If, on the other hand, a 300-pound boxer punches you, you may be justified in responding with deadly force, because his fists can be deadly as well.
Always remember:
- The threat must be current, immediate, and unavoidable.
- Your level of force must be appropriate to the threat.
- Your use of force must stop when the threat ceases.
Any of you folks in the Greater Boston/Southern New Hampshire area looking for excellent professional training, give me a shout and I’ll be happy to hook you up.
Finally don’t buy a pistol without considering how you are going to carry it. Most of the holsters sold in local gunstores are actually astonishingly inadequate. Good quality holsters are however available online but it helps to talk to those who carry daily in order to avoid the ‘drawer full of holsters’ that some of us have.
Personally I prefer Mitch Rosen’s ARG Inside the Waistband holster. I’ve been using one for 10 years now and it’s held up very well and is very comfortable.
