Does having CCW increase my liability/responsibility in a justified defense shooting?

[stahlmangc]

I've not really been able to find an answer to a question. Firstly, I have NOT taken a CCW class yet...perhaps the answer is there.

I have an aquaintance who is an avid firearms guy. He, however states that he does not want to get a CCW permit for fear that it would actually put him at a higher legal standard of responsibility than a non-permit holder in the event of a personal defense shooting...say for example, someone breaks into the home of two gun owners-one with a CCW permit and one without. His theory is that the CCW holder would be critiqued more strictly than the non CCW holder since he has been through "training" and is "certified". (Much like a doctor would be held to a higher standard of care than a lay person if they both came upon an injured person)

He is NOT a legal expert, but it would be interesting to know from a LEGAL PERSPECTIVE if this is really true or not.

Any opinions, thoughts or precident?

Thanks

Gray

[Fallguy]

There is nothing in the law that says that.

A lawyer during a civil lawsuit can make a just believe almost anything though.

The basic Handgun Safety course required to get your HCP (Handgun Carry Permit) doesn't come anywhere close to making you and expert in firearms, their use or the law.

Using your doctor and lay person analogy....it would me more like the HCP holder knows how to put on a band-aid like their mother showed them when they were young...not the level of MD.

However if your only intention is to keep a gun in your home for self-defense...there is no real need to get a HCP if you don't want one.

[Guest 270win]

Justifiable homicide is justifiable whether or not you have a permit/license, in my opinion. A license just lets you carry a handgun in public when you otherwise would not be legal in doing so.

You would still be able to defend yourself with an 'illegally carried' handgun in public and the shooting ruled justifiable homicide.

Justifiable homicide laws and weapons laws are usually separate.....you can be legal in one and illegal in the other.

[Guest Phantom6]

I'm not an attorney nor did I sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night but I am a state certified instructor and therefore somewhat more than familiar with the Handgun Permit laws and I would submit that the only thing a handgun carry permit is going to do for you is allow you to carry a handgun or loaded long gun outside your property lines. In your scenario of shooting someone inside your home the only thing that may make a difference is that should the homeowner confront a raiding individual in their home and shoot said individual wounding them and then execute that individual with a final shot to the head AFTER the threat was no longer in play then there is a very slight possibility that the defending homeowner may get away with that 1st degree murder due to the mental stress of the moment. The carry permit holder could not because of their training that when the threat stops the permit holder stops shooting. Other than that I would see no difference.

[-boatman-]

Justifiable homicide is justifiable whether or not you have a permit/license, in my opinion. A license just lets you carry a handgun in public when you otherwise would not be legal in doing so.

That is the way I see it.

[midtennchip]

The liability does not change and I do not believe the "standard of care" would change, either. The issue I think your friend is talking about is whether a shooter negligently shot someone. In a home defense situation, negligence is rarely the issue. Rather, the shooter made a conscious decision to shoot, so the negligence standard would have little (or nothing) to do with it.

Having training would, in my opinion, make it easier to defend a self-defense shooting, mainly because the training would make it more likely that the shooter did not over react to the situation. If you listen to Massod Ayood (and I do), he will tell you that using the training as a defense is much better than not having training. When a jury hears how much training was taken and what was specifically covered in the training (i.e., when shooting is justified, how to recognize situations, etc.), it is much easier for the attorney to establish the fact that the shooter had a good faith belief that his life was in danger.

[Guest friesepferd]

+1 for justified is justified.

even if something happend (such as accidental shooting, etc), i cant see training having ANYTHING to do it

[DarrellG]

Your actions prior to and during a deadly force situation have the most impact. In the litigious society that we live in be prepared to face both legal and civil action no matter how justified your actions.

[tnhawk]

I would rather face a jury with training and a permit than without it. The laws are not different concerning the use of deadly force for trained or untrained, but having the training would show your intent to know and follow the laws on firearm use.

[jimic]

Not mine