Calif. Lawmakers Granted Special Permission to Carry Concealed Weapons

[H D]

 

[Kevin Lang]

So, who are these privileged 4 legislators who get to pack heat?



Ah the hypocrisy of gun control nuts. So, if a dangerous armed shooter makes it into the state Capitol, past the armed Highway Patrol and the Capitol's own security forces, these 4 legislators charged with being the last line of defense will be able to keep order. Yeah, right. Where's the eye-roll smiley?



Or is the idea to prevent legislators from being assaulted outside of the protective confines of the Capitol? Because aspiring criminals will be deterred as they do not know if their potential target is one of the 4 legislators packing heat, which I don't presume they can even use. 4 legislators out of how many? Even if so, the odds are so low that it will be the same as if no legislator was packing heat.



Of course, this is all just BS security theatre so a bunch of legislators feel more secure--the irony is killing me bwahaha. Hopefully they'd never stoop so low as to make implied threats to their peers with their newfound armed status, politicians are above such petty thuggery. Oh wait...

 

[Tom Schindler]

California is already a "May Issue" state. This is typical CA BS.



Glad I live in a "Shall issue" state.





Tom

 

[EddieS'04]

Tom,

I also live in a shall issue state. Im working on getting my CHL right now..

Been practicing to see if I want to carry my 40cal or my 380 cal. Im best shot with my 44cal. revolver. But in texas, If you qaulify with a revolver. You cant carry an semi-auto. If you qaulify with a semi. You can carry either.

 

[Richard L]

Eddie,

Qualify with the Semi-Automatic. Qualification in TX is pretty easy. I qualified with my Bersa Thunder 380 before we even moved back to the 50 ft line. The written test is harder...:grin: I have always been a good shot, but the test does not require great shooting...infact my instructor recommended that I not shoot for a tight shot group since would make it harder to count the hits...:fire:



...Rich

 

[Tom Schindler]

Been practicing to see if I want to carry my 40cal or my 380 cal. Im best shot with my 44cal. revolver. But in texas, If you qaulify with a revolver. You cant carry an semi-auto. If you qaulify with a semi. You can carry either.

In Ohio, it doesn't matter when you qualify with. You can even qualify with a .22 LR and then carry a .45 ACP. You can also carry more than one weapon.

I qualified with my Bersa Thunder 380 before we even moved back to the 50 ft line.

You have to be very careful when qualifing with that weapon. It is VERY accurate and you can easilly shoot the same hole twice and make it look like a miss.



Ohio requires 5 shots in a 9" circle at 15 feet to qualify. Pretty simple. If using a Buckmark (legal in Ohio to qualify), you can get all 5 holes in a 1/2" circle without even trying.





Tom

 

[EddieS'04]

infact my instructor recommended that I not shoot for a tight shot group since would make it harder to count the hits

...



Richard,

Good to know. I have been noticing. Sometimes after 6 to 8 shots, 3 to 4 are in the same place. I havent been using silohautes. I bring my own 12" x 12" targets. Itape themto cardboard.

I heard you use the silohautes for your test though. One of my nieghbors and his mom took the test. They said, it was easy..:fire:

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Seems like a bad instructor and/or process if they can't figure out how many shots tore the same hole.



Just saying. Any qualifying test that can disqualify because one is too good seems flawed.



TJR

 

[Mark K 2]

I'm in an open carry state and carrying in a motor vehicle is illegal. Not many people carry because they have to unload and case everytime they get into a car. It's not worth the hassle.

 

[Kevin Lang]

But in texas, If you qaulify with a revolver. You cant carry an semi-auto. If you qaulify with a semi. You can carry either.

That makes no sense to me. I can understand that principle if this were a driving test, and if you pass with an automatic, you can't drive stick, but qualifying with stick lets you do both legally, but for firearms I don't see the problem here.

Seems like a bad instructor and/or process if they can't figure out how many shots tore the same hole.



Just saying. Any qualifying test that can disqualify because one is too good seems flawed.

I agree. This reminds me of the infamous story of General Patton at the Olympics, where he was the only contestant skilled enough to put multiple shots through the same point on the target, but the officials claimed this wasn't possible; instead of putting the shots through the same holes, they contended that he simply missed the whole target. A logical failing, as no one who makes it to the Olympics should be missing the target so flagrantly.



In the case of this modern firearms test, there should be no such thing as "too accurate to carry a firearm". What ridiculous logic is that? Though, tangentially, if you were to be that good on your test, and then were forced to use your gun in self defense, would your accuracy be held against you? Could the prosecution at court enter your test results in evidence and claim that you had the accuracy to only wound a man trying to kill you, but instead you killed him? I don't have faith in common sense in the courts.

 

[Tom Schindler]

Seems like a bad instructor and/or process if they can't figure out how many shots tore the same hole.

My instructor was an MP in the Marines. Not a bad instructor at all. He is required to keep the targets we used for range time in case he is ever audited. While he can count the times a bullet has traveled through the same hole, the person doing the audit (if he is ever audited) may not.



To error on the side of caution, put the holes next to each other.:fire:



Mark, Your state also deny's the right for concealed carry. Ohio is also an Open Carry State and while in a motor vehicle, the gun must be unloaded and placed in some type of container seperate from the ammunition. The nice thing about open carry is that anyone legal to own a weapon can carry one. The bad part is that the bad guy knows you are armed and they could take an offensive approach (i.e. shoot first and then rob) if they want to cause trouble.



Honestly, you should push your lawmakers to get the right to concealed carry.

Could the prosecution at court enter your test results in evidence and claim that you had the accuracy to only wound a man trying to kill you, but instead you killed him?

If you were able to shoot the bad guy and just harm him, then be prepared to defend yourself for that. Shoot at the largest target, such as the torso (chest and stomach), and shoot until the threat is eliminated. A shot the the face is considered "Intent to kill" while a shot to the chest is considered shooting for the largest target and if the bad guy dies, so be it.



A pizza shop owner shot some punk 7 times before the punk died. There was a shotgun in the face of the owner and when the bad guy repositioned his grip on the gun, the owner shot him in the chest 4 times. The bad guy fell to the ground and then got back up. He was shot 3 more times, before he ran out of the shop and died a block down the street. Prosecution did not charge the victim (pizza shop owner) with anything. the bad part is that the victim had to go to bed every night knowing he took the life of a 17 year old kid. It could have been worse. The shop owner could have been killed, along with customers and other employees that were in the shop when it happened.



In the end, it is a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation.





Tom

 

[Kevin Lang]

While he can count the times a bullet has traveled through the same hole, the person doing the audit (if he is ever audited) may not.

Without video, how could anyone who wasn't actually there confirm this? Seems hard to me.

Honestly, you should push your lawmakers to get the right to concealed carry.

Technically, I think this should be "push your lawmakers to repeal the laws that are taking away your 2nd amendment rights", but I agree.



In MD, a pizza shop clerk was accosted, in the pizza shop, by some armed thug. The owner of the shop was also present, and as he had no gun, his only method of defense was to run out of the back room and beat the thug down with his pizza spatula. If the thug hadn't been startled from the assault, and dropped the gun after the first hit with the spatula, things could have gone badly. The thug was hit with the gun still pointed at the cashier. In that case I laud the pizza shop owner for his tenacity, but he got lucky.



In another MD pizza shop incident, a kid was in the store (in a rather seedy area alarmingly close to my residence) and some other thug kids went in and gunned him down in the shop. Pizza store staff, while they probably wouldn't have intervened, had no gun, and thus no recourse, but to run and let the kid get blown away. They weren't close enough to try and follow the example of their fellow store owners and charge at armed gunmen and use a pizza spatula like a club.

The bad part is that the bad guy knows you are armed and they could take an offensive approach (i.e. shoot first and then rob) if they want to cause trouble.

Eventually thugs are going to just jump to that. With the reported dehumanizing of their "foes" that these thug gangs go through, there won't be the moral conundrum of shooting someone. The racist gangs will get to the point where they'll just "bust a cap in whitey" and loot his corpse. Of course, when the citizenry is armed, they might think twice about it.

In the end, it is a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation.

Sadly. Moreso if your state is blue.

 

[Tom Schindler]

Sadly. Moreso if your state is blue.

Our stated voted in a Republican Governer that has a track record of being anti-gun and was part of the big shots at Lehmen Brothers and got one of those bonuses on the tax payers backs.



Stricklant (Democrat) told the NRA if they proposed a Vermont style CCW law, he would sign it.



That would have bene awesome!!!





Tom

 

[Richard L]

Texas law is probably a bit different then some of the other states.



The requires you qualify with a handgun of 32 caliber or larger (no 22's). If you qualify with a revolver, you can only carry a revolver. If you qualify with an semi-automatic, you can carry either a revolver or an semi-automatic. They do not explain their rationale for that ruling, but I suspect that a semi-automatics may be slightly more complicated to cock and chamber a round, as well as the variations and number of different safety's they use?



To qualify you must shoot 50 shots at 3 distatances, 3 meters, 7 meters, and 15 meters. Targets are not kept. The instructors certifying that you qualified is sufficient. All targets are destroyed after qualifying. The purpose of the test is NOT to get a tight shot group, but to hit the target...he casually mentioned that too many holes in the same area might make it hard to score. I'm sure he can tell if you know what your doing when you start shooting. Perhaps by law he is required to consider two bullets through the same hole as a miss? Scoring does not occur until the end of the 50 rounds, and not after each segment where the previous holes can be patched between sessions. Each distance includes single shots in 3 seconds as well as 2 and 3 shots within 5 seconds. After shooting at 7 meters, he could easily see that all my rounds hit the shilouette, so he said that I had alread qualified before we moved back to the 15 meter mark. At the 15 meter mark I had two shots outside the scoring range, but still hit the shiloette.



Texas law says that if you are in a situation that requires the use of your firearm, you are authorized to use Deadly Force by targeting the center of the torso (not the head). You are allowed to fire as many rounds as it takes to stop the assailant (if you shoot the assailant in the head, they might look at that as an intent to kill). In every shooting incident, a grand jury will convene to determine if the shooting was self defense and if you followed all the rules.

As an added note, my instructor serves on the Grand Jury in Waco, becuase of his knowledge of Texas Gun Laws. He does not teach you to shoot...He only test your shooting proficiency and you knowledge of Texas laws regarding the carrying of a concealed weapon.



As with most states, you are not allowed to carry a weapon into a bar or to even be drinking while carrying a gun. There is no blood alcohol limit if you are carrying a gun. Carrying a gun with a blood alcohol level of just 0.001 is illegal in Texas. If you go into a restuarant that makes 51% or more of their revenue from the sale of alcohol, you cannot carry your weapon inside. Such businesses are required to post a sign that has a red circle with "51%" and a slash through it.



Some of you may not agree with these laws, but if you don't live in Texas, it doesn't matter. If you do live in Texas, then don't apply for a CHL...and be greatful that you do not live in states like Illinois where you are not allowed to ever carry a gun, and cannot get a permit to do so. If you have no desire to ever carry a gun, then it doesn't really matter.



...Rich

 

[Thomas Rogers]

RichardL, others,



As you know by now, I am a stickler for words having their common, everyday meaning and for things making logical, common sense.



With that said, in several posts above there has been the terms: "deadly force", and "intent to kill" used, somewhat with distinction. For example, a shot to the head being of the "intent to kill" variety, while a shot to the torso is merly "deadly force."



Okay, so my question. WTF is the difference? Really. Wouldn't "deadly force", by definition and implicit meaning of the words mean "force that is deadly", and isn't the definition of "deadly" simply "that which kills?" So, I guess my point is: Isn't someone that uses deadly force intending to kill?



Sure, I guess it may be more likely to kill someone with a headshot than with a shot to the chest...depending on a number of factors.



But aren't we simply mincing words here? Head shot, chest shot..who cares. Don't shoot unless you are intending to kill...I think I have heard that before too.



TJR

 

[Jacob Dryer]

deadly force = justifiable homicide

intent to kill = manslaughter



deadly - likely to cause or capable of producing death (so not always)

intent - the design or purpose to commit a wrongful or criminal act (purposefully attempting to kill)



It is all a word game, I was taught if I had to shoot someone, that when I call 911 to make sure I say I shot someone, not that I shot and killed them. Actually I was told if it's an option have someone else call (wife) just because 911 calls are admissible, and as unfortunate as it is I would need to be prepared to protect myself from legal action if I shoot someone no matter the circumstances.

 

[Richard L]

TJR,

JD Boxes definitions are probably accurate. Deadly Force does not mean you intended to kill the person, only that you used a weapon (handgun) capable of killing someone to defend yourself from an attack or to defend someone else from attack.



I guess the law assumes that a gunshot wound to to torso is not always fatal and the torso represents the largest target. If you shoot someone in the head it assumes you can shoot accurately, and a head shot could be viewed as a deliberate attempt to kill and not necessarily self defense. That does not mean that every case where a person is shot in the head is assumed to be a deliberate attempt to kill, it just means they make look much closer into the shooting incident to determine if the head shot was intentional or just happened because the guy ducked down, or made some movement that caused him to get hit in the head by the bullet.



Like I said earlier. Every shooting in Texas must go through the Grand Jury process to determine if the shooting was justifyable. Even if you have a Texas CHL you will probably still be arrested, and your gun confiscated until you are cleared by the Grand Jury. If the Grand Jury finds the shooting was not justifyable self defense, or intent to kill, you might stand trial for murder, or manslaughter...just depends on the circumstances



...Rich

 

[Kevin Lang]

As with most states, you are not allowed to carry a weapon into a bar or to even be drinking while carrying a gun. There is no blood alcohol limit if you are carrying a gun. Carrying a gun with a blood alcohol level of just 0.001 is illegal in Texas.

Hey Rembrant, you won't have to drink with your left any longer. Also, how do you tell the BAC of a gun? :banana:

Deadly Force does not mean you intended to kill the person, only that you used a weapon (handgun) capable of killing someone to defend yourself from an attack or to defend someone else from attack.

Here's a question then: Would defending yourself with ANY weapon be evaluated as deadly force? If they are not, then why are handguns given a more severe treatment? As a fist or a knife, or anything really, can kill a man "just as dead" as a gun, they all should be lumped together.

 

[Richard L]

KL,

Hey Rembrant, you won't have to drink with your left any longer. Also, how do you tell the BAC of a gun?

Simple, you put the barrel of the gun up to your temple and pull the trigger. If the gun fires it must be drunk or you are suicidal...:grin:

Would defending yourself with ANY weapon be evaluated as deadly force?

Texas does not have a licensing system for carrying a Knife, or Golf club, or baseball bat, so that's probably why they are only considering the handgun when refering to the use of "Deadly Force" in terms of the CHL training. :cheeky: After all, The subject deals with carrying a concealed handgun, but I'll bet you knew that.:grin:



...Rich

 

[Kevin Lang]

After all, The subject deals with carrying a concealed handgun, but I'll bet you knew that

And you'd be right.



However, my question pertained to your hypothetical court case, not the CHL training. A weapon is a weapon, and in court should be treated equally. On an aside, if it is revealed that you have a concealed carry permit in court, making your possession of the permit known, isn't part of the point of the concealed carry license now moot?

Texas does not have a licensing system for carrying a Knife, or Golf club, or baseball bat

Taking your logic here back to your hypothetical court case, and my question, this means that a knife, golf club, or bat would not be considered deadly force if used in self defense. Which would mean that guns are given some a more severe treatment.



Regardless of that, the fact that guns have to be licensed in Texas while other obviously lethal weapons do not, clearly shows that guns are already getting more severe treatment.



Hooray for Gun Control. And this is in Texas, the state that is supposed to be the exemplar state for the whole US of A. :banghead: