Poll: Reasons you have not gotten a CHL?

[Charles L. Cotton]

I had a feeling my post would get a lot of responses. Each response has very valid points and I appreciate hearing those reasons. No one can argue against readiness. :)

Yeah, I was pretty sure you were just throwing the skunk into the jury box. That's an old lawyer's trick of throwing something out knowing it's going to draw an objection and that the judge will sustain it. But once the skunk is in the jury box (the jury hears it), you can't get rid of the smell. Excellent job of doing it, by the way!

Chas.

[propellerhead]

I wasn't trying to skunk anything nor was I trying to convince anyone of anything. I'm just trying to learn here. Trying to see what reasons people have for getting a CHL, and of course responding to the poll on reasons why I don't have a CHL yet.

I really am on the fence on getting a CHL and possibly carrying. I even thought about starting a thread for reasons why you got a CHL and carry but I get the feeling all the responses will be from people who have felt strongly about carrying from the beginning. I tried it on a car related message board that I frequent and all the responses were as I expected. It was all from those where 110% convinced and decided to carry. I was hoping to hear from others who were in my situation. Those who have been on the fence for a while then finally decided to get a CHL. Reasons like "Because I can" or "I want to be ready incase some bad guy jumps out of a dark corner and tries to kill me" or "The massacre at Luby's could've been stopped" or "I own a car stereo business" are all true and valid reasons but I can't relate to them. Those reasons are not wrong. I just don't feel as strongly about them as most on here do. Just like asking people why they chose the shoes that they are wearing. Some will say for comfort. Some will say for style. Some will say for cost. All are valid reasons but they are all personal and specific to each person's situation, beliefs and experiences. I just haven't found reasons for a CHL/carry that apply to me, my background, my experiences. I believe in defending my home. I believe in defending my loved ones. I'm just not sure I need to have a gun in my pocket when I go to Albertson's on the way home from work.

I think the best course for me is to take the CHL class and go from there. I hope I didn't upset anyone by posting me reason (or non-reason) why I don't have a CHL yet.

[longtooth]

Crime in the parking lot of Albertson's in Lufkin was THE REASON business was so poor & they finally shut it down. When the sun went down business was through. During the day it was not safe. The final straw was a young lady abducted by 2. Repeatedly raped all night. Shot her the next morning early before daylight & and threw her nude off the 103 bridge into Lake Rayburn. God's providence had 2 fishermen tied to a bridge piller when she hit the water. About 20 ft drop. She lived to testify only because they were there. Just how safe is the Albertson's where you live?

[Charles L. Cotton]

propellerhead:

I hope you didn't take offense at my comment, I was just joking.

One of the best comments I've heard about the varying opinions on carrying a gun came from a CHL instructor. He said some people get a CHL just so they can put a gun in the car when they feel they are going somewhere that worries them. Others on the other end of the spectrum will put their gun on in the morning like they do their watch and never give it another thought, until they take it off in the evening. I fall in the latter category.

My wife and our youngest son each have had to use a pistol to defend themselves; my wife has had to do it twice. No shots were fired and both of them were in an area they considered perfectly safe. It may never happen again, then again it may happen today.

While I enjoy shooting as a sport, I carry a gun for the same reasons I carry a health insurance card and a AAA card. I don't expect to have a medical emergency that will require the health insurance card to be on me, nor do I expect to have car trouble and need the AAA card. But if I need any of the three, they'll be there. While the odds are in my favor that I'll never need to defend my life with my gun, increasing violent crime in the greater Houston area is unfortunately lessening those odds. When I take my gun off for the last time and I go home to my Lord, I hope I will have never had to fire in anger or fear.

All this said, I fault no man or woman for deciding not to carry a gun for whatever reason; it’s purely a personal choice.

Regards,
Chas.

[Diode]

I hope I didn't upset anyone by posting me reason (or non-reason) why I don't have a CHL yet.

Heck not me, I thought you made valid points and created a very interesting thread. That's why I am here, to learn and share points of view. You even managed to inspire "Lawyer Humor" from Chas...... think about that!

[propellerhead]

Chas:

No offense taken, sir. I hope you didn't think I was just flaming your forum. I held off for a long time to answer the poll knowing a post from someone who just didn't have a strong reason to get a CHL would draw a lot of arguments from those who feel really strongly about their CHL and choices on when and where to carry. I respect everyone's choices and value everyone's thoughts on the matter. It's just that everyone's reasons don't necessarily apply to me. Just like my reasons for the type of shoes or car or music I choose may not apply to everyone else either. I will probably be the type of person who gets a CHL to carry a gun in the car on trips that would otherwise worry me. You acknowledging the existence of occasional carry folks vs. 24/7 carry folks warms me up to the idea more than any post I've read. Thank you. :)

I have medical insurance, auto insurance, roadside assistance coverage and smoke detectors. These are all 'just in case' items but these do not require the same responsibility as concealed carry weapons. I can't go to jail for showing off my insurance card or for calling roadside assistance in a public school. From what I've been learning, the law already covers me for a majority of the 'just in case' scenarios I face in my day to day life. Without a CHL, I can legally use my weapon to defend my life, family and property at home. Without a CHL, I can legally have my gun in my car and use it if my life depended on it. On the surface it seems like a CHL will let me carry a weapon when I'm not at home or not in my car, excluding being at work. My work prohibits having any sort of firearm on company property even if it is locked in your car. So that really covers walking around on foot or riding in someone else's vehicle. The way I see it, the CHL will only add coverage to small windows of time. Do I feel the need to cover 100% of the time? I don't know yet. I haven't for the last 41 years. Do I need a snow shovel living in north Texas? I haven't for the last 6-7 years.

Thank you.

[txinvestigator]

Here is my take;

If you are capable and allowed under the law to carry and you choose not to, for whatever reason, then you have decided that you are prepared to face a deadly assault unarmed.

There really is no other realistic way to view it.

[anygunanywhere]

After reading Chas' post, it triggered a point I should have made to propellerhead.

I have used a handgun three times prior to having a CHL. Once in the 80's to defend my wife and children from a looney in Houston (car carry), once to thwart two hispanics from robbing me at an ATM in Baytown in the early 90's (packing just because I felt I needed to), and once in California to prevent three Arab males from driving off with a truckload of my stuff they were "buying" from us at our garage sale. Not a shot fired.

The first time we were stuck in traffic and the looney walked up to the car and was attempting to open the doors. I guessed right. +1 for me.

The second time I guessed right again. Another +1 for me.

The third time I just had one of those feelings that something was not quite right so I armed myself. Another +1 for me.

I do not guess anymore. Neither does Mrs. Anygun. Neither does Anygun Jr.

Thanks for the opportunity to share. I have always been a giving individual.

[propellerhead]

After reading Chas' post, it triggered a point I should have made to propellerhead...

You just triggered another reason I have been stalling on getting a CHL. Thank you. :)

It may be a misconception but I've read several times about not drawing your gun unless you're ready to use it. I haven't dug into this but the laws against brandishing a weapon are really strict and if I was packing and got into a sticky situation and I drew my gun to avoid a situation from escalating, wouldn't that be considered brandishing a weapon? Wouldn't that get me into trouble with the law? It seems like there's a gray area between someone cussing at me and I draw my gun and someone coming up to me with a baseball bat and I draw my gun. The line between brandishing a weapon and drawing for self defense doesn't seem clear.

[Charles L. Cotton]

[As txinvestigator has pointed out in other threads, Texas does not have a brandishing statute. There are other statutes to address such actions.]

There was a long and very interesting thread on threatening the use of deadly force when the use of deadly force would not be justified. The thread was prompted by the McDermott case that involved the conviction of a CHL holder for failing to conceal his handgun. Here is a later post of mine in that series.

This thread has been inactive since Dec. 19th, so people may have forgotten the very narrow issues presented. Remember, the discussion centers on two issues: 1) whether TPC §9.04 authorizes a person (other than a LEO) to threaten the use of deadly force by the production of a weapon when they would not be justified in actually using deadly force; and if so 2) does TPC §46.035(a) subject a CHL holder to prosecution for intentionally failing to conceal his handgun if they did so. (The McDermott case upheld the conviction of a CHL under these circumstances.)

Just to make sure there is no confusion, if you would be justified in using deadly force to thwart an attack, then you are justified in threatening the use of deadly force by pulling your gun on someone. Just because you can shoot someone, you doesn't mean you have to!

Back to the scope of TPC §9.04. Between Kyle and I, we have spoken to criminal defense attorneys, prosecutors for various DA’s offices, police officers, judges and a law school professor that teaches criminal law. Everyone Kyle talked with believes TPC §9.04 authorizes the threat of deadly force even when the use of deadly force would not be lawful, if the other requirements of §9.04 were met. (Let’s call this the “broad view.�) The people I’ve talked with fall on both sides of the interpretation. Some accept the “broad view,� while others contend that TPC §9.04 only authorizes the threat of force equal to the degree of force you would be authorized to use; i.e. you can’t threaten deadly force unless you can use deadly force. We’ll call this the “narrow view.�

To complicate matters further, I just received a return telephone call from a lady who is an attorney on staff with the DPS in Austin. She apparently teaches the law portion of the CHL Instructor Certification and re-certification course. She believes the “narrow view� of TPC §9.04 is correct.

I’ve spoken with a lot of very knowledgeable people who have differing opinions on the scope of TPC §9.04. However, if I were forced to choose one on whom to rely, I would have to choose the law school professor. As a law professor, he must remain current on issues such as this one and the professor I spoke with said the “broad view� is very common in the U.S. He also said the “broad view� is codified in the Model Penal Code. That said, he also concedes it’s an open question in Texas, since there is no case law on point, but the express language in TPC §9.04 appears to adopt the “broad view.�

All throughout my deliberations on this issue, I keep coming back to the two hypothetical scenarios txinvestigator and I presented. Mine was the slap in the face in the restaurant and his was the gang members following my wife and I in a theater parking lot. I have presented these scenarios to everyone I have spoken with and we all agree that these polar opposites are troublesome to reconcile. The restaurant scenario was presented to show the absurd result that could occur with adoption of the “broad view� of TPC §9.04 while the gang members in the parking lot reveal a reasonable application of the “broad view.�

The only way I can reconcile the potential abuse of TPC §9.04 with its useful application is much like txinvestigator did, i.e. by incorporating the requirements of TPC §9.31 (force). That is, §9.31 will allow the use force “to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. In the restaurant scenario, a person could not reasonably believe it was necessary to pull a gun to keep a woman from slapping you. Conversely, in the theater parking lot scenario, a person could reasonably believe it was necessary to reveal or even present a pistol to thwart an apparent stalking or impending assault. Beware! This is merely my evaluation and attempt to reconcile differing views on the scope of TPC §9.04. Don’t try to rely upon it!

However, this academic discussion of the scope of TPC §9.04 is even more complicated when we introduce TPC §46.035(a) - Intentional failure to conceal and the McDermott case. The statute and the McDermott opinion expressly state that you are justified in intentionally failing to conceal when you are justified in actually using deadly force.

These few facts are certain: 1) there is no case law in Texas interpreting the scope of TPC §9.04; 2) there is no agreement among experts in the field on the scope of TPC 9.04; 3) it is common in the U.S. for state penal codes to allow the threat of deadly force when the use of deadly force is not authorized, so long as the sole motive for the threat is to cause apprehension that you will use deadly force if necessary; 4) TPC §46.035(a) makes it an offense to intentionally fail to conceal your handgun, unless you are authorized to actually use (not merely threaten) deadly force; and 5) the McDermott Court rejected a CHL's attempted reliance on TPC §9.04.

Whatever the Courts ultimately determine concerning the scope of TPC §9.04, TPC 46.035(a) needs to be amended to include the justification found in either TPC §§ 9.04 (threats), 9.31 (force) or 9.32 (deadly force).

Regards,
Chas.

Here is a link to the entire thread. http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_F ... +mcdermott

[propellerhead]

Excellent reading. Thank you.

About this broad/narrow view... does this apply to CHLs only? Do the same laws apply to non-CHLs who happen to have a gun in the trunk of their car?

[anygunanywhere]

After reading Chas' post, it triggered a point I should have made to propellerhead...

You just triggered another reason I have been stalling on getting a CHL. Thank you. :)

It may be a misconception but I've read several times about not drawing your gun unless you're ready to use it. I haven't dug into this but the laws against brandishing a weapon are really strict and if I was packing and got into a sticky situation and I drew my gun to avoid a situation from escalating, wouldn't that be considered brandishing a weapon? Wouldn't that get me into trouble with the law? It seems like there's a gray area between someone cussing at me and I draw my gun and someone coming up to me with a baseball bat and I draw my gun. The line between brandishing a weapon and drawing for self defense doesn't seem clear.

Nice discussion!

I would never draw a wepon unles I was prepared to use it. In the first instance, I was defending my family against an individual intent on trying to gain access to my vehicle - "carjacking" comes to mind.

The second time the two perps had driven up to the ATM (enclosed in the middle of a strip center parking lot). They exited the vehicle, a third stayed in the car with the engine running. They entered the enclosure as I pulled my card, money, and receipt out. They both reached under their jackets and into their pockets while asking me to hand over my money. I drew my 1911 before they managed to pull whatever they had intended to pull. I told them to leave or face the consequences. They left.

The third time the arabs had loaded up the items in a truck and failed to pay me $700. They were in my driveway, climbing in and trying to drive away. The driver, who "bought" the items politely remebered he had not paid me when faced with the trusty 1911.

Some may say I acted excessively, and some may say that $700 bucks worth of stuff or an ATM withdrawal are not scenarios that require the threat of deadly force. You will only know truly what you will do when the circumstances occur that cause you to take action.

I honestly believe that in the case of the ATM withdrawal, I could have well wound up dead.

Even after all I have learned an this board and subsequent to my obtaining my CHL, I am comfortable with my actions in the past, and am confident I will make the right decisions in the future.

I appreciate the discussion, propellerhead. Thanks again.

Anygun

[HOSSISFREE]

Voted "Other" for my roommate. I have had my H&K since I moved in, and frequently took him to the range with me to shoot. He had never fired a pistol before I did that.

Now after 3 years, I got over the cost and time to take the CHL class, and have done so. (In the Waiting Room). My roommate has gotten more gun-ho, and picked up a Ruger P90DC. We shoot just about every weekend, and he talks about joining me in the wait, but simply wont sign up and do it.

Doesn't make any sense. Workin' on it though. We have even gotten our friend Tammy to go to the range with us a few times, and she may be getting the CHL before he does. Yep, getting another female into the mix.

Should have seen the look on her face the first time she fired a .45. Priceless!!!! And the first words out of her mouth..."I want one!!!".

Hoss

[Charles L. Cotton]

Excellent reading. Thank you.

About this broad/narrow view... does this apply to CHLs only? Do the same laws apply to non-CHLs who happen to have a gun in the trunk of their car?

TPC §9.06 (Threats of deadly force) applies to everyone, whether or not they are a CHL. However, the wording of TPC 46.035(a) makes it an offense for a CHL to intentionally fail to conceal his/her handgun. According to the McDermott decision, the only exception this is found in TPC §46.035(h) which states that it's okay to display your gun, if you would have been justified in using (not threatening) deadly force. It can be argued that this provision doesn't trump TPC §9.04, because Chp. 9 justifications preempt all provisions in the Penal Code, but the McDermott court rejected this argument. This is why I feel TPC §46.035(h) should be amended.

Regards,
Chas.

Here is §46.035(h):

(h) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a) that
the actor, at the time of the commission of the offense, displayed
the handgun under circumstances in which the actor would have been
justified in the use of deadly force under Chapter 9. (emphasis added)

[KBCraig]

My roommate has gotten more gun-ho,

"gun-ho"... I like that!

Kevin