Concealed carry without ccw

[junior40er]

How do you know?

[Malibugym]

I think just the fact that if the shooters knew that people there have the potential to have guns they would have found a different target altogether. I think him killing people at his job was more or less out of convenience because for one, he knew nobody was armed and two, he knew there would be a lot of people. Remember that they had a few different plans from shooting people in traffic on the 91 to shooting up Rialto high school. Again, 2 places where your average citizen isn't allowed to have a gun.

[King of the 109ers]

what if he clammed up?

how does anyone know he DIDN'T have it in a legal locked box all unloaded and just happened to be there, and in all the confusion the box "grew legs".

They would need SOMETHING to show he was CCW, not just a lack of legal container prior.

Like they told the kid Henry Hill in Goodfellas, "You said nuthin, so they got nuthin".

[ChuckW]

Say for example if one of the employees at that mass shooting in san bernardino had a concealed weapon without a permit and had used it on the two terrorists and prevented additional fatalities, do you think that employee would be charged with a crime? Or would he be considered a hero?

Probably wouldn't have made the news.

[Beendare]

I think a lot of people are concerned for their safety and finding their way to gun stores and gun sites. We should encourage them with facts and straight talk, not discourage them.

Good post ...and good subject. The more informed we are...the better the result...and running through scenarios helps.

When a firearm is involved even in a horrible scenario such as San Bernadino, don't expect a heros parade. if only our legislators made some common sense laws to protect those taking on the huge responsibility of protecting others...

[IVC]

So if we did end up with a GOP president, would he have the authority to speed up the 9th circuits decision? Or better yet, arm the whole nation?

If the Congress passed "national reciprocity" and the president signed it, depending on how it's worded it could create an instant legalization of any type of carry. It could be similar to how LEOSA protects LEOs regardless of state laws.

In reality, the bills we've seen would allow anyone with a permit from their state to carry in another state, so no permit in CA would be still on permit anywhere. The bill would have to allow non-resident permits to be treated as any other permit, so we go to another state, get permit, then carry in CA using that permit. However, this is *certainly* not going to be in the first reciprocity bill that comes to vote.

[IVC]

It's my understanding that there is a point of law that says that an action is not illegal if it is proved to be necessary for self-defense.

They can get you on two issues: (1) where was the gun *prior* to being in the self-defense situation, and (2) at what point did the situation become a "self-defense situation" especially if you try to take a shot from distance.

[IVC]

The term that applies here is "prosecutorial discretion".

I wouldn't count on that in anti gun states.

[IVC]

What is the difference between:

a: the bystander shot by a CCW holder (or not) who is shooting in defense of his own life and others'.
and
b: the bystander shot by LEO/swat team coming in shooting in defense of their lives and others'.

The difference is called "qualified immunity" and it's a HUGE difference.

[heidad01]

The difference is called "qualified immunity" and it's a HUGE difference.

Thanks. I kind of knew how it worked but not the legal term. I should have wroded it differently.

My question was more from the bystanders point of view and their preference for who may shoot them accidentally. That is why there is no difference.

[scbauer]

Guys, don't do it. If you must carry, go through the steps and do it right and get your permit and save yourself a lot of grief.

Do you live in the same state as us? How do you recommend we "do it right" if we don't live in one of the handful of CCW-friendly counties?

[Cokebottle]

The tricky part is how did you legally get to that point? This is how: You can LUC (locked unloaded carry) in a gun case or briefcase. So just have a locking case with/near you. You unlocked it, retrieved your firearm and loaded it, when the danger started.

So always carry a small lockable container sufficient to house the gun and magazine separated (thus, unloaded) to provide the investigating officer and DA with an "out" since you are NOT going to admit that you carried a loaded gun, and you are NOT going to lie to the officer and say that you LUCC when you indeed did not.

Interview with the media: "Mr Jackson has been cooperative and a very good witness to the incident. With respect to his direct involvement in the apprehension of the perpetrators, his attorney has advised us that he will be making no statements, but evidence indicates that he was carrying his firearm in a legal manner prior to the beginning of the attack."

[Cokebottle]

I thought jury nullification is when the jury stands up for justice and does not follow application of (perceived ) unjust laws.

Correct, and it is risky, as the jury is sworn in and legally bound to return a verdict as directed by the law.

There is a legal path for prosecution of the jurors.

[dozer wright]

I find it sad that this actually has to be a topic of conversation. That a lawful firearm owner has to be worried about defending his friends, colleagues and family from a terrorist. In this case the term terrorist is used correctly. I for one believe if you can lawfully own a gun you should be able to carry it. I for one hope that if even a lawful gun owner illegally carrying. Killed a mass shooter / terrorist that no d.a. In this state would press charges. Legal or not that person saved lives. Unlike the people not allowing us legal gun owners to carry. Why should I as a citezen of a country, why do I need a permmisionn from a bought and payed for politicain to carry? Even if caught for illegal carry any lawful gun owner should be able,to walk in to the court say the 2nd protects my right. But thats hopes and dreams in a broken system. So carry if you want I know many who do. Including teachers on campus, policemans wifes,Doctors and one Politicain before she had a ccw. Just to name a few all against the law. If you call protecting yourself, friends and family breaking the law.

[RickD427]

The difference is called "qualified immunity" and it's a HUGE difference.

Thanks. I kind of knew how it worked but not the legal term. I should have wroded it differently.

My question was more from the bystanders point of view and their preference for who may shoot them accidentally. That is why there is no difference.

Gents,

There's no application of "Qualified Immunity" here.

This thread was discussing the criminal liability involved in the act of CCW.

Qualified Immunity applies to civil liability. If anyone thinks that the doctrine has been extended to criminal violations, please throw down some cites.

About the closet that you come is a few narrow instances where federal LEOs have been held immune from state law in the performance of duty and that is far different from "Qualified Immunity."