Your qualifying handgun?

[Guest canynracer]

But as far as becoming familiar with another handgun and showing you are competent with it, the carry permit qualifying standards are so lax as to be next to worthless.

agreed

[DaveTN]

But as far as becoming familiar with another handgun and showing you are competent with it, the carry permit qualifying standards are so lax as to be next to worthless.

That’s not a popular opinion, but it’s the one I have also. From the answers to questions on gun forums it doesn’t appear that the laws governing the use of deadly force, civil liability, and the possession and transportation of firearms are covered much. I know that you can only pack so much info into 8 hours, but someone from the local Prosecutors office should be at the classes to field legal questions.

[Guest canynracer]

That’s not a popular opinion, but it’s the one I have also. From the answers to questions on gun forums it doesn’t appear that the laws governing the use of deadly force, civil liability, and the possession and transportation of firearms are covered much. I know that you can only pack so much info into 8 hours, but someone from the local Prosecutors office should be at the classes to field legal questions.

+20!!!

[Cruel Hand Luke]

That’s not a popular opinion, but it’s the one I have also. From the answers to questions on gun forums it doesn’t appear that the laws governing the use of deadly force, civil liability, and the possession and transportation of firearms are covered much. I know that you can only pack so much info into 8 hours, but someone from the local Prosecutors office should be at the classes to field legal questions.

It really depends on who you take the class from.

[Guest 2HOW]

There is a lot of misinformation and just plain no information on many topics concerning CPs. I think a bigger problem beside which gun you carry is what ammo you carry, thats a whole different bag of worms. Its up to the individual to know the laws, the powers that be will let you carry but that doesn't mean they like it and that sure doesnt mean they will be forthcoming with all the info you need to be criminally and civily safe as far as law goes.

[DaveTN]

It really depends on who you take the class from.

True.

You may be the best firearms instructor in the state and I mean no disrespect to you when I say that unless you are a lawyer specializing in criminal law in Tennessee your interpretation of the law carries no more weight than mine…. Which is none.

As a Police Officer I saw differences in what a Prosecutor would bring to trial from one county to the next. Laws are impacted not only by the written law, but by case law.

I wouldn’t seek out a criminal lawyer for firearms training and a person shouldn’t base their decision of when deadly force can legally be used based on legal interpretations of a firearms instructor.

The most important decision a person may have to make in their life is whether or not they are justified in the use of deadly force; they should have the best legal advice available to them in making that decision. Once they make that decision the outcome may well be based on how well you have done your job.

[DaveTN]

I think a bigger problem beside which gun you carry is what ammo you carry, thats a whole different bag of worms.

I would say that it may matter in the civil case, but it probably won’t matter to most prosecutors in a criminal case. If you are being charged criminally there are some questions as to the legality of the shoot; not the ammo you used.

How many times have you seen on a forum “I use Glaser’s in my carry gun!� Probably the worst possible round you could choose for carry. So why do people use it? First off they are clueless to what it is or what its application is. But more importantly there were attempts to outlaw the Glaser….. That automatically makes it one bad azz carry round.

Anything that a civil trial lawyer can do to make you look bad; he will use. Off the shelve factory ammo for me; it’s been proven time after time there is no better ammunition for ending the threat than what is generally available. He’ll take a shot at my Hydra-shoks, but that’s a lot easier battle to defend than Glasers or fragmentation rounds. (And a lot better round)

[Cruel Hand Luke]

The most important decision a person may have to make in their life is whether or not they are justified in the use of deadly force; they should have the best legal advice available to them in making that decision. Once they make that decision the outcome may well be based on how well you have done your job.

Agree.

But honestly that decision can be simplified to this....."Does this person need to be shot RIGHT NOW to prevent death or grave bodily injury?" or "If I DON'T shoot this person right now will I (or another innocent party) be killed or suffer grave bodily injury?" If the answer is yes then the requirements under the state statute have been met. If the answer is no then then you do not need to shoot them.

While it is ALWAYS a good idea to get good professional legal advice , we need to remember that TN is NOT CA, MA, IL,MD,or NJ. The statutes are pretty clear on when use of lethal force is justified. And TN is not exactly a bastion of liberalism where folks are hung out to dry if they defend themselves. On the contrary, there have been cases here where all gun magazine logic would say the shooter should have been indicted and they were not... Jurisdiction is a huge factor. Here in Chattanooga the DA is EXTREMELY pro self defense. And even in liberal areas like Memphis you don't hear about politically motivated persecution of folks who use their gun defensively. We don't live behind the iron curtain guys.....

[DaveTN]

Randy, you are correct if you reduce it down to the simple question of whether or not you are justified in using deadly force; then your description applies for all 50 states.

But Police officers are trained in shoot/don’t shoot scenarios for a reason. The fact that you are justified in using deadly force doesn’t relive you from all criminal or civil liability. The fact that you are observing an armed robbery at the local quick mart doesn’t give you the right to start blasting away. If you kill the perp all is good. If you cause a gun battle that ends in the death of an innocent person; all is not good. Not only will you be devastated financially but you stand a good chance of being charged criminally if it is determined that your actions were reckless.

People should fully understand the legal ramifications of their actions and hopefully they could be explained to them by someone from the office that would be deciding if charges would be brought.

Or you could just take the “Better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6.†attitude and roll the dice. Because after all leaving your family bankrupt or alone while you spend time in prison is no big deal.

[Cruel Hand Luke]

I'm in no way (nor have I ever ) insinuated that starting a gunbattle (especially if you are not IMMEDIATELY involved in the precipitating event) was a good thing.

And that is what I pass on to students. Unless it is UNAVOIDABLE (Does this person HAVE TO BE SHOT RIGHT NOW to save a life?) then it is best to just be a good witness.You have NO commission to act as a police officer. You are NOT contractually bound or compelled to act in defense of anyone. In fact you will LIKELY make a situation worse unless you do have extra training and even then nothing is a sure thing. It is hard to condense a 1 hour lecture into a snipet on a forum without losing A LOT of the nuances of the lecture. I'm not some "cowboy". I make sure the students understand there is a difference in truly being in danger of death and just being afraid of the unknown.

There is a reason that cops shoot far more people that did not need to be shot than armed civilians do. Cops are PROACTIVELY going LOOKING for bad guys with limited info. That is how Amadou Diallo got killed. He matched a description of a suspected rapist and didn't comply with the plain clothes officers commands (because he didn't speak English very well), looked like he was going for a gun and they reacted as they had been trained to react to an attack.....

BUT..the key here is they were LOOKING for someone and expecting a fight....He didn't approach them. He didn't initiate the confrontation. They initiated it....because they were looking for someone who had committed a crime. We as civilians are NOT questioning people suspected of committing crimes! Therefore since we are not actively seeking out people who we suspect to be armed and dangerous, in order to lay hands on them and control them and take them into custody, we are FAR less likely to be involved in a mistaken identity shooting like this.

The armed citizen is REACTIVELY responding to an attack in progress that he did not initiate. The armed citizen typically has the "benefit" of the other guy invading his space and trying to kill him. I say benefit because that is not something easily mistaken. You generally have a pretty good clue as to whether dude is trying invade your personal space and kill you or not;). And the citizen is NOT trying to take people into custody. That in and of itself prevents the majority of possibility of shooting folks that don't need to be shot. Again, hard to condense a 1 hour lecture into 2 paragraphs for a forum post.

[towerclimber37]

yah, but it was a great post! I like the contrast between the actions of a police officer and a civilian!

well said and informative...if nothing else it will allow thought on the matter.

[John Wall]

Dear Cruel Hand Luke

As one trainer to another, WELL SAID!

The loophole that allows a peace officer to be issued a carry permit without taking a class bothers me. His ingrained training is to hunt and apprehend the bad guy.

The properly trained civilian not only does NOT hunt for the bad guy, he looks for a way to evade or escape the bad guy. Only if the civilian CANNOT get away AND has justifiable fear of imminent serious injury or death (imminent meaning RIGHT NOW), is use of lethal force appropriate. The bad guy MUST have ability, opportunity AND demonstrated intent to cause serious injury or death right now to make lethal force court defensible.

The civil void in qualifying with a 22 target pistol and subsequently injuring (or worse) an uninvolved bystander with a large caliber handgun that you are unfamiliar with makes me very uncomfortable. I do not think this shop is doing a disservice.

[Marswolf]

The civil void in qualifying with a 22 target pistol and subsequently injuring (or worse) an uninvolved bystander with a large caliber handgun that you are unfamiliar with makes me very uncomfortable. I do not think this shop is doing a disservice.

But that's the legislature's call.

[DaveTN]

As one trainer to another, WELL SAID!

The loophole that allows a peace officer to be issued a carry permit without taking a class bothers me. His ingrained training is to hunt and apprehend the bad guy.

So you think the professional trainers that are training the Police Officers in Tennessee aren’t doing their job?

[Guest jcramin]

The problem I see with this "qualification" of another handgun is that it is a joke. Getting a passing score to the level required to get a carry permit is so easy that it is unusual to have someone fail to qualify who has never shot a handgun prior to the class.

Now, if someone want to take a real shooting class to fine tune their shooting skills, I'd go for that. But this add a gun thing to show you are good enough to get a permit with another gun is just a scam.

Do you think any competent civil lawyer is going to let you get away with claiming that this sham qualification shows that you really know how to use that particular handgun?

Lets think way back here.... When you buy HOT coffee from McDonalds shouldnt you assume it is HOT and you will BURN yourself if you spill it ????? Well Some lawyer was able to convince 12 people that being stupid and spilling hot coffee and burning yourself was actually McDonalds fault because they did not tell someone that HOT coffee HOT and you may burn yourself if you spill it.

So do you think it would be that hard for a lawyer to make 12 people think you cant shoot a gun since you cant prove you can shoot THAT gun ?

We all know if you can shoot you can shoot and we all know if something is HOT then it is HOT but you have to trust that 12 people will all have common sense enough to think on their own, and we all know thats not the case.

I did do the add a gun at this range just to make me feel better. That is one less thing that can be used against me.

J

[Im Neero]

I have absolutely no plans to "add a gun" to anything, that being said, I remember a criminal case a few years back from Phoenix Arizona, in which the shooter was convicted largely based on the fact that he used hollow points in the shooting. It was supposed to be a self defense shooting, it was ruled otherwise, but that's not the real point. The point is after the trial at least one member of the jury was interviewed and said that the fact that the guy used hollow points was why he convicted the guy of murder, because hollow points are designed to kill people.

When a jury is involved the law only counts for so much.

Edit: Here's the quote from the juror:

Elliot: The whole hollow point thing bothered me. That bullet is designed to do as much damage as absolutely possible. It’s designed to kill.

[Guest jcramin]

When a jury is involved the law only counts for so much.

I agree 100% I add a gun for my own personal fuzzy feeling inside.

[Marswolf]

I've been a member of a few juries.

I'm betting that it is more likely that one of the jury panel says something like, "Sounds to me like this defendant wanted to have as many ways to kill someone as he could pay for training to do. He even took extra classes to be able to be more likely to kill someone."

[molonlabetn]

How long does the state keep the record of what gun you used to shoot the qualifier? Do they at all?

There's no place to document the pistol used on the HCP application... Is that information required to be on the permit course certificate, from the instructor? Do they actually keep that certificate on file for the rest of your life?

Honestly, if a hearing/trial over whether a shooting was justified hinges upon which gun I used... I've got bigger problems, since it was obviously a questionable scenario, to begin with.

[Guest canynracer]

For classes, I can see that point...but to "qualify" (show proficiency) with the gun you carry, I don't see them saying "sounds to me that he wanted to kill someone with the gun he carries, he even showed that he could qualify with it..."

but, I can see that argument happening where people take tactical training classes...

[Guest canynracer]

How long does the state keep the record of what gun you used to shoot the qualifier? Do they at all?

There's no place to document the pistol used on the HCP application... Is that information required to be on the permit course certificate, from the instructor? Do they actually keep that certificate on file for the rest of your life?....

From what I understand from the course instructor, it is on file as long as you have a permit to carry. then it is archived

[creeky]

Seems like I remember something about it being on the permit the first and maybe

the second year. (Not sure though.) Like the requirement that you had to be bonded

as well. It was all dropped pretty quickly. (That is if memory serves me.)

The whole argument back then was that Police had to qualify with their weapon they carried. (Including backup weapons.) So it stood to reason that anyone else actively

carring a handgun should have to show that they have a reasonable ability to control it. Then I remember some saying that permit holders should have to qualify once a year with their weapon. All kinds of things were disscussed at the time.

It all basically fell apart in the end, with the argument that average people will use the firearm for personal protection, and theoritically the weapon will be employed less than the average police due to the fact the police man will find himself in harms way daily.

[Guest canynracer]

Seems like I remember something about it being on the permit the first and maybe

the second year. (Not sure though.) Like the requirement that you had to be bonded

as well. It was all dropped pretty quickly. (That is if memory serves me.)

The whole argument back then was that Police had to qualify with their weapon they carried. (Including backup weapons.) So it stood to reason that anyone else actively

carring a handgun should have to show that they have a reasonable ability to control it. Then I remember some saying that permit holders should have to qualify once a year with their weapon. All kinds of things were disscussed at the time.

It all basically fell apart in the end, with the argument that average people will use the firearm for personal protection, and theoritically the weapon will be employed less than the average police due to the fact the police man will find himself in harms way daily.

true, but the type of gun is still on the paperwork in Nashville...may not be on your permit, but they do have the gun info you qualified with.

[molonlabetn]

...but, I can see that argument happening where people take tactical training classes...

Yah... I'd say that a prosecutor would love to show a video of the person all Tac-ed out, running around burning cars with an 'evil' rifle shooting at silhouettes, to the jury...

Something like that sure wouldn't be one's 'saving grace', for sure... depending on the jury.

[creeky]

true, but the type of gun is still on the paperwork in Nashville...may not be on your permit, but they do have the gun info you qualified with.

hmmm... that means they still have me on file with a Interarms Firestar .45?!? Oh my! How embrassing....