Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Both of those were covered in my class. In Texas, you can only carry open if you have a CC permit, and we covered where and when. We also covered what to do post-shooting: be the one who calls 911, don't have the weapon in your hands when the police arrive, expect to be handcuffed, don't make any statements other than to identify yourself and that you will make a full statement after you have talked to your lawyer, etc. Pretty much the same thing Massad Ayoob advocates:2 things that I don't like about these classes:
1) For me to carry openly....I am not required to do anything, but for me to cover the gun with my shirt....I now have to go to a course and show that I can safely handle the same weapon I've been carrying openly?
2) instructors what they are not qualified to teach. Legal issues, what to expect emotionally after a lethal force encounter, what to do and provide in regards to police investigating your lethal force encounter, etc...
don't make any statements other than to identify yourself and that you will make a full statement after you have talked to your lawyer, etc.
I didn't say don't cooperate. Full cooperation throughout. But don't give a detailed statement until you talk to your lawyer. In Ayoob's 5 steps that I quoted, the first four are sufficient to get you through the field interview. The in-depth will come with the investigators, and you need a lawyer by your side at that point in time. Actually, there should be six steps: step 1a should be added after call 911, and it should be call your lawyer.See I disagree with that.
IMHO you are better off showing some cooperation and giving a short statement
I didn't say don't cooperate. Full cooperation throughout. But don't give a detailed statement until you talk to your lawyer. In Ayoob's 5 steps that I quoted, the first four are sufficient to get you through the field interview. The in-depth will come with the investigators, and you need a lawyer by your side at that point in time. Actually, there should be six steps: step 1a should be added after call 911, and it should be call your lawyer.
I highlighted two words in the quote that I think point out the issue.
this is my opinion on statements, feel free all to correct me if i am wrong.See I disagree with that.
IMHO you are better off showing some cooperation and giving a short statement
best to give your name and feign emotional trauma and that you will cooperate fully later when your in the right state of mind. (ie when your lawyer is present)
I think they should, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, I want to know that the person has had to demonstrate something of their ability to hit something they intend. Even the "hit the paper" requirement would disqualify some folks I've seen at the range. Secondly, I think people need to know the laws before they are allowed to carry. Those two points are societal. The rest (knowing what to do after using your weapon, etc.) is for their protection, and something they should want.I'm actually not a big fan of a lot of these courses.
In my opinion, these courses shouldn't be required.
I've noticed that, too. I used to be against registration on principle - just a gut reaction. But when I thought about getting a CCW, I realized the idea of it didn't actually bother me. Not sure why, it just doesn't. Knowing that, I decided I apparently don't really care about registration.I note this in the ironic sense that many are against mandatory gun registration, but will happily self-register to obtain a concealed carry permit. Never quite understood that part.
For the first point, I'd just say I think the classes should be required in both cases. I know some folks justify the difference by the fact that we can see it if it's open carry, but that's a pretty small difference in a practical situation.2 things that I don't like about these classes:
1) For me to carry openly....I am not required to do anything, but for me to cover the gun with my shirt....I now have to go to a course and show that I can safely handle the same weapon I've been carrying openly?
2) instructors what they are not qualified to teach. Legal issues, what to expect emotionally after a lethal force encounter, what to do and provide in regards to police investigating your lethal force encounter, etc...
My first CCW class was by a retired LEO. I suspect he was an instructor of some sort while an LEO, as well, because he was a good presenter, used good stories to reinforce points without wasting time, and was a stickler on gun handling during the qualification. Of course, his LEO background gave him the experience to be authoritative on use of force and other topics.I have never been completely happy with any CCW class I have been involved in. Most of the time it was the lack of professionalism that the instructors had. Some of it was the teaching for the written test and the inability of the instructor to present the material cohesively. I am sure there are good CCW instructors out there but to this point I have not met them. I will however say that my current firearms instructor is exceptional. Professional and knowledgeable with great credentials. He does CCW classes but they were not the ones I attended. As a firearms instructor myself he is a good role model and the one I follow.
I've noticed that, too. I used to be against registration on principle - just a gut reaction. But when I thought about getting a CCW, I realized the idea of it didn't actually bother me. Not sure why, it just doesn't. Knowing that, I decided I apparently don't really care about registration.
My thing is if you want to teach something have a background in it first.
This is exactly what I've been saying regarding self defense for a long time. We have at least one guy on this forum with little to no experience actual experience, who purports to be experts in the field. It's nuts.If someone wants to teach what a person should do after a lethal force encounter they need to have some experience in that field first.
Too many CC instructors teach what they assume will happen during the investigation when they dont know themselves.
Take the time and study some shootings...interview people who have been involved in them...sit in on some civil and criminal trials....etc...build a background into the subject.
They were running out of the building. They were not armed, they were simple shoplifters. She said at the time that she thought she was helping the store security as well as police by aiming for their tires; she was trying to shoot them out.
She did in fact hit one of the tires with a ricochet as I recall. The truck was abandoned a few miles away. The shoplifters were caught. None of which was worth endangering the lives of all the bystanders when she decided to open fire in the parking lot.
As I said, I live a few miles from the Home Depot in question. It's never empty, always busy. The parking lot is generally pretty full. What she did was very dangerous and served no purpose.
Random thought... since you can't constitutionally restrict gun ownership to people who are educated in the proper use of firearms and the legal considerations involved,
...then wouldn't it be a good idea to mandate universal firearm education/training in our schools. If we live in a society where guns are widely available, it makes sense. You know, kinda like requiring a civics course. Or am I just nuts?