PDA

View Full Version : in CA this guy would be jailed


vantec08
05-08-2010, 5:57 PM
http://www.omaha.com/article/20100429/NEWS01/704299833

LINCOLN - A citizen's fatal shooting of a would-be robber in Omaha has sparked a debate over whether Nebraska should join three other states and do away with training and permit requirements to carry concealed handguns.

Harry J. McCullough III, a 32-year-old drugstore customer, shot one robber who was holding a sawed-off shotgun and apprehended another.

McCullough did not possess a state permit to carry a concealed handgun. He probably would be ineligible for such a permit because of his 1997 misdemeanor conviction for carrying a concealed weapon.

Many credit the actions of the former security guard with preventing the robbery and injury to others Monday night in a Walgreens store in the Benson neighborhood. McCullough drew his .40-caliber pistol and fired eight shots. Four struck the robber.
Advertising

“This is a perfect example of why the good guys should have guns and the bad guys shouldn't,” said attorney James Martin Davis, who is representing McCullough.

State Sen. Mark Christensen of Imperial said Wednesday that he would favor Nebraska's joining Arizona, Vermont and Alaska in waiving all requirements except the criminal background check to carry concealed weapons.

That way, more people would carry concealed guns, the rural lawmaker said.

“Why give criminals the edge?” Christensen said. “Police do a great job, but we can't afford enough to have them everywhere.”

Sen. Scott Lautenbaugh of Omaha said he would be open to looking at a law change. Two other Omaha lawmakers said public safety would be jeopardized by eliminating the state-required gun safety course.

Sen. Brenda Council, whose north Omaha district is plagued by gun crime, said doing away with the training requirements would only increase the danger to the general public.

“I'm always concerned about citizens acting as law enforcement,” Council said. “People who carry weapons like that are more inclined to place a lot of people in danger.”

It is essential that citizens be well-trained before being allowed to carry concealed guns, said Sen. Brad Ashford of Omaha.

“You don't want to create a firefight in a situation when people are shooting each other and they don't know what they're doing,” Ashford said.

McCullough had received some training in carrying a handgun because he had obtained a City of Omaha permit to openly carry a loaded firearm.

Such “open-carry” permits, which cost $105, are sought mostly by security guards who need the permits for their jobs, said a spokeswoman with the National Safety Council of Greater Omaha, which offers the gun-training courses.

The city ordinance has been around for at least 15 years. Eight hours of classroom instruction, followed by two hours at a gun range, are required. The training requirements are the same for obtaining a state concealed weapons permit.

The Safety Council spokeswoman was unable to say when McCullough was trained because she could not access the council's entire computer database, but McCullough renewed his permit it requires a criminal background check in 2006 and in 2009.

“He knew what he was doing,” said Davis, McCullough's attorney.

A person who has been convicted of misdemeanor charge of illegal possession of a concealed weapon as McCullough was in 1997 would be ineligible for a concealed weapons permit, said Deb Collins, a spokeswoman for the Nebraska State Patrol.

Council, the state senator, opposes letting citizens carrying concealed weapons, pointing to a recent incident at an Omaha restaurant in which several people were injured by shrapnel when a handgun, pulled out by a trained permit holder, went off accidentally.

Omaha City Prosecutor Marty Conboy said it might be a week or longer before his office decides whether to formally charge McCullough for failing to have a concealed weapons permit.

Conboy said witnesses would be required to prove that McCullough “completely concealed” his gun. The city attorney said his office also must decide whether to prosecute, given the outcome of the incident.

Douglas County Attorney Don Kleine has said that McCullough was justified in using deadly force and that he would not prosecute him for the fatal shooting of Marquail Thomas, 18, who was holding a sawed-off shotgun that, it turned out, wasn't loaded.

Davis plans to fight McCullough's misdemeanor ticket.

“You can't punish a guy for doing what he did,” Davis said. “He averted a robbery and prevented people from getting wounded and killed.”

Ashford, who heads the Legislature's Judiciary Committee, said state laws concerning citizens' rights to defend themselves with guns need to be clarified. That issue will be explored by the committee this summer and fall.

Ashford said he wants to expand the study to include gang-related shootings in Omaha.

“We're living in an incredibly violent time,” he said. “I think public policy is behind in dealing with it.”

Christensen, the lawmaker from Imperial, introduced a bill in the past legislative session to clarify citizens' gun rights. It included a clause that would have barred people like McCullough from facing civil lawsuits for taking lawful actions to defend themselves from threats of death or violence.

The bill was killed in the Judiciary Committee but led to a planned interim study of the issue.

An official of the National Rifle Association, which backed the Christensen proposal, said the organization is hoping to persuade other states to follow the lead of Arizona, which passed a law this spring to do away with the training and permit needed to carry concealed weapons.

Arizonans would still have to pass a federal criminal background check to buy guns, said Scott Stevens, a legislative aide with the NRA.

“It definitely makes it a lot easier for law-abiding citizens to just buy a gun and not worry about the permit process,” Stevens said.

Christensen said “common sense” would dictate that people obtaining handguns to carry would obtain or have the proper safety training.

Ding126
05-08-2010, 6:35 PM
Too bad common sense in Ca....... isn't very common. If there were, we would be a shall issue state

JDoe
05-08-2010, 7:18 PM
Wow. Even the dead robber's mom forgives the shooter.

Robber's mom forgives shooter (http://www.omaha.com/article/20100429/NEWS01/704299843#robber-s-mom-forgives-shooter)

The mother of a man who was shot and killed by an armed citizen said she doesn't hate her son's killer.

“I'm not angry or mad at him,” Kim Thomas told The World-Herald on Wednesday night. “I've already forgiven that man. What Marquail did wasn't right.”

Marquail Thomas, 18, wearing a ski mask and armed with a sawed-off shotgun, went into the Walgreens in Benson on Monday night with another man and tried to rob the store, Omaha police said...

N6ATF
05-08-2010, 7:24 PM
He'd be hung, electrocuted, drawn and quartered, then shot for daring to harm a criminal.

vantec08
05-08-2010, 7:48 PM
He never "misused" a gun . .. he simply carried one CCW without the Big 10-4 from Massah.

Mstrty
05-08-2010, 8:03 PM
What was he thinking shooting a masked man. Clearly a Daddy-less welfare crack baby elementary school flunkie that just needed someone (the government) to help him. Hang the shooter. Oh this wasnt east LA.....My bad. Good shooting:)

vantec08
05-08-2010, 8:33 PM
bwahahahahahahahaha

Whiskey84
05-08-2010, 8:42 PM
In this state, the libs would be screaming how he killed a man with an unloaded gun... Good shoot though. This is a tough situation if someone hypothetically chose to carry without the permit.

cmaynes
05-08-2010, 8:45 PM
Please explain the downside to training? I personally do not see it as a speed bump to a CCW- or it shouldnt be in the mind of the citizen- we require driver training to get a license....

firearmenthusiast
05-08-2010, 9:00 PM
Please explain the downside to training? I personally do not see it as a speed bump to a CCW- or it shouldnt be in the mind of the citizen- we require driver training to get a license....

Usually training comes hand in hand with the CCW process. They can't force all regular citizens who own guns who might be wanting to be CCWing without a permit in the future to do so. So the only way would be to set up some kind of program for the CCW process which entails training as well.

p7m8jg
05-08-2010, 9:02 PM
He wouldn't be prosecuted in my county, even in Kalifornia. No jury would convict him.

Now, in San Francisco, you'd be screwed..................HAH!

Deadpool
05-08-2010, 9:10 PM
Hope everything works out for that guy. That could be a really good precident to set if the DA drops all of the CCW with no permit charges.
Another great story!

G17GUY
05-08-2010, 9:25 PM
He wouldn't be prosecuted in my county, even in Kalifornia. No jury would convict him.

Now, in San Francisco, you'd be screwed..................HAH!

Maybe for concealed carry?

glockwise2000
05-08-2010, 9:38 PM
That guy would be in jail if he was here in Kalifornistan.

pointedstick
05-08-2010, 9:47 PM
Please explain the downside to training? I personally do not see it as a speed bump to a CCW- or it shouldnt be in the mind of the citizen- we require driver training to get a license....

There's no constitutional right to drive. If there were, our current permitting process would likely be unconstitutional. Rights can't be subject to licensure or they're no longer rights. Would it be acceptable for the government to require people to take "God safety" classes to become Christians?

JDoe
05-08-2010, 10:01 PM
Please explain the downside to training? I personally do not see it as a speed bump to a CCW- or it shouldnt be in the mind of the citizen- we require driver training to get a license....

Drivers typically will make use of their drivers license very frequently in contrast someone who is CCWing will most likely never have to discharge his weapon in defense of himself or others.

The benefit of allowing any non-prohibited person to CCW without training or even a permit is the deterrent effect it has on criminals. Not only will criminals will have no way to tell who might be carrying a weapon and will tend to commit property crimes rather than crimes of violence against a person but the individuals with very low incomes or other challenges that would make it difficult for them to obtain training, pass a test and get a CCW permit can now carry a firearm for defense.

If Vermont, Alaska and soon Arizona allow non-prohibited persons to carry concealed without a permit or training maybe it is because they have realized some benefit in doing so.

Training is always a good idea in my opinion I just don't want to prohibit someone from being able to defend themselves or others until some specified training is completed, passed and etc.

wheels
05-09-2010, 12:14 AM
There's no constitutional right to drive. If there were, our current permitting process would likely be unconstitutional. Rights can't be subject to licensure or they're no longer rights. Would it be acceptable for the government to require people to take "God safety" classes to become Christians?

You don't need a license to drive if you drive on your property. When you bring a vehicle onto public property you are required to have a license to certify your skills and insurance in case you damage someone else property.

If CA went shall issue and required 4-16 hours of training I'd have no problem with the law. You can still have and use a weapon in your residence or property, but to carry concealed in a public place you need to have lethal force training and demonstrate hitting a man sized target at 5-7-10-15-20 yards. If you can't keep all shots in the target body at say 15+ yards, then you better be damn careful if you need to engage at those ranges in a real life situation, because you are liable for every shot you make.

I'd want the instructors of said CCW class be able to fail a student who is incompetent or unsafe, and if 3 different instructors fail you - your good cause is gone.

CenterX
05-09-2010, 12:47 AM
"I'd want the instructors of said CCW class be able to fail a student who is incompetent or unsafe, and if 3 different instructors fail you - your good cause is gone."

Does this mean that no guns for crippled people, or someone that will know to only shoot at close range - within a threat zone?
Shooting someone at 15 yards is not self protection, that is turkey shooting.

Liberal terms like "incompetent or unsafe" marginalizes the frail and week.

gunsmith
05-09-2010, 9:29 AM
Can someone please cite the law that would be used to prosecute our hypothetical shooter?
In SAN FRANCISCO a guy grabbed a gun from his attacker, and ran down the street shooting at him. NEVER PROSECUTED.
CA self defense laws ARE QUITE GOOD! Its our ccw laws that need fixing.

"- we require driver training to get a license..." that old tired argument? I have a better idea, lets implement BACKGROUND checks to OWN a car, lets implement the same laws WRT to car ownership as we do guns, & not let felons OWN & DRIVE them.

-hanko
05-09-2010, 9:49 AM
You don't need a license to drive if you drive on your property. When you bring a vehicle onto public property you are required to have a license to certify your skills and insurance in case you damage someone else property.

Failed logic. Screw driving on private property or public roads. Try going back to basics: Bearing arms is an inalienable (look up the definition) right. It's not bestowed upon you by the Constitution, you're born with it.

Driving OTOH is not guaranteed by the constitution.

If CA went shall issue and required 4-16 hours of training I'd have no problem with the law. You can still have and use a weapon in your residence or property, but to carry concealed in a public place you need to have lethal force training and demonstrate hitting a man sized target at 5-7-10-15-20 yards. If you can't keep all shots in the target body at say 15+ yards, then you better be damn careful if you need to engage at those ranges in a real life situation, because you are liable for every shot you make.

If you can demonstrate that states that require CCW training prior to CCW issuance are "safer" than those with no training requirements, please post your data.

I'd want the instructors of said CCW class be able to fail a student who is incompetent or unsafe, and if 3 different instructors fail you - your good cause is gone.

An inalienable right does not require "good cause" nor training.

You're brain is in the location that PRK politicians want it. Spend a little time in a state that offers "shall issue" CCW without training and you might lose a little of your paranoia. I'd agree with previous post that training is a great idea, but that's different than making training a requirement.

-hanko

misterjake
05-09-2010, 10:08 AM
Any money you spend taking any gun safety class is tax deductable, that way you are not required to take it but you get some of your money back and earn responsibiliy at the same time. Or taking gun safety classes when you purchase angun will get you a 10-15% rebate on the firearm you used in the class. Again, it's not required but you save money and it will prevent accidents.

tyrist
05-09-2010, 11:14 AM
You would have to be insane for not wanting to take some type of training prior to CCW. If you were ever involved in a deadly use of force situation the legal as well as the gun handling training will save your bacon in court.

Unless you like being labeled a vigilante.

-hanko
05-09-2010, 12:11 PM
You would have to be insane for not wanting to take some type of training prior to CCW. If you were ever involved in a deadly use of force situation the legal as well as the gun handling training will save your bacon in court.

Unless you like being labeled a vigilante.
I agree...I wanted & took training way beyond the minimum in 3 states, none of which required it. I also agree on the need to know the legal realities that may follow a self-defense shooting.

Cite a case where lack of training turned a righteous shoot into a loss of bacon in court.

Take a second read & focus on the big letters:;) "I'd agree with previous post that training is a great idea, but that's different than making training a requirement."

-hanko

Pont
05-09-2010, 12:59 PM
I'm not in favor of permit-less CCW. The bar should be low, but everyone CCWing should at least be trained on things like proper storage, safe handling, brandishing, etc. Let people test-out of the training requirement ahead of time even.

Work out something with the gun stores to make it zero or minimal cost. Maybe they get a tax credit and can hold the trainings in their stores, which brings in customers.

Carrying a weapon is right but also a responsibility. I'm worried about all the dunces who would just shove a glock in their pocket and call it a day. Shall-issue CCW permits makes taking the class (or at least studying for a written test) the *easier* path for people who would otherwise never bother to train themselves. We all know irresponsible gun owners exist.

Heck, you could even make it a self-serve system with an on-line site that trains you in the necessary basic safeties and legal concerns, tests you, lets you re-train until you pass the test, and then you print out your certificate.

100% permitless Concealed Carry outside one's home and business just doesn't do enough to acknowledge the responsibility, IMHO. You'd end up with way too many people doing it wrong (printing obviously while carrying at a school, negligent discharge because they shoved a condition-zero semi-auto in a pocket with loose crap) and that would create a backlash for the rest of us.

-hanko
05-09-2010, 2:33 PM
100% permitless Concealed Carry outside one's home and business just doesn't do enough to acknowledge the responsibility, IMHO. You'd end up with way too many people doing it wrong (printing obviously while carrying at a school, negligent discharge because they shoved a condition-zero semi-auto in a pocket with loose crap) and that would create a backlash for the rest of us.
That doesn't seem to be the case in VT and AK.

-hanko

CRACKERJACK
05-09-2010, 4:08 PM
It's nice to read articles like this every once in awhile. A nice little splash of hope. Some people actually use logic behind their thinking still. And my hat off to the mother for looking at the situation for what it was.

gunsmith
05-09-2010, 10:43 PM
That doesn't seem to be the case in VT and AK.

-hanko

oh didn't you know? the streets of VT/AK and soon AZ are running with blood, oceans!
People are shooting themselves in the foot and shooting the car that's tailgating them. ... all because they didn't PAY for their RIGHT. ooops I mean "get training"

Personally, I've taken plenty of training, I love legal & shooting aspects of carrying firearms.

I also write letters to editors and vote, no one charges me for that & I will never advocate charges for others for their rights. I have a NV ccw, I paid, but I don't agree. never will.