Concealed Carry Permit and Stricter Rules of Engagement

[ScottieG59]

Mas, in a conversation with a coworker, he told me he did not obtain a concealed carry permit because he believed a permit holder would be held to a higher standard if he were involved in the use of deadly force.

My opinion is that a private citizen would not be held to a lower standard in the absence of a concealed carry license. I believe it may be argued that the person with a permit has made an informed decision to perform the necessary training and legal compliance and would be in a stronger position if all aspects of the self defense scenario were equal.

I figure you would have a good take on how this permit vs no permit would play out in the aftermath. I am assuming that the scenario would be where possession of the weapon within the law and does not involve competing harms. Clearly, a concealed carry permit allows one to address scenarios that may occur away from home.

The state in which he resides is Missouri and he is very frequently in Kansas as well.

What is your opinion of one choosing not to obtain a concealed carry permit in order to avoid a higher standard of conduct?

Thanks for your reply.

[Mas Ayoob]

Oh, wow...just...wow:faint:

Scottie, forgive me if I should seem just the least bit sarcastic here, but I've just spent 11-plus hours today teaching an immersion course in rules of engagement for private, armed citizens, and finished dealing with some stuff on an aggravated assault case at day's end, so bear with me here if I'm a little short on BS tolerance tonight.

You didn't mention if your friend actually carries or not.

If he is an unarmed citizen, and is giving you this BS excuse as to why he is not armed, it's not my place to judge him. Some people can protect those they're responsible for. Some can't. Those who can't seek face-saving excuses.

If your friend keeps a gun for home defense but doesn't carry, he clearly doesn't grasp the subtleties of the "higher standard of care" principle. Doing what you were professionally trained to do is solidly defensible. Ignorance is nowhere near as defensible. Any layman in the jury pool knows that "ignorance of the law is no excuse." At least your friend is not putting himself in legal jeopardy, having a gun at home but not carrying. But he is, of course, missing a very important defensive option.

And if your friend carries a loaded, concealed handgun in public in a place which requires a permit for that, and gives you the BS excuse you describe...well, his thought process may just be past hope of correction. He has made himself a criminal.

Hoping this has been responsive to your question,
Mas

[ScottieG59]

I was not sure if this was a common opinion out there. I did not ask is he carried illegally and I like to think he does not. I have suggested he get the training and a concealed carry permit and maybe he will wise up.

Thanks for the quick reply.