Why California CCW holders probably won't help with an active shooter

[The Annoyed Man]

He's right.

[taylormade]

He brings a good point to the table....

[Abraham]

One of the common observations made regarding CHLers/LTCers is they have taken the time and expense to legally arm "themselves".

If others choose not to, they the CHLers/LTCers are under no obligation to save their bacon in an active shooter situation.

I got my CHL for me and mine.

Is that selfish of me?

Yes, as I'm not willing to face the various litigious horrors, media persecution, etc., the man in the video outlined if one steps up to the plate to save others.

If threatened, I'll defend myself, family and friends, but you're on your own.

When I got my CHL, I didn't take oath to defend the rest of the world.

[jed]

Well said.

[howdy]

He talks about California but I don't think it would be a lot different in some areas of Texas.

[John Galt]

This guy is Spot-on.

[Breny414]

I don't know... sounds like he's talking about running toward a situation that you could otherwise escape. To me that is borderline trying to be law enforcement. Hopefully there is enough saturation of LTC folks out there that there would be no need.

[BCGlocker]

I saw this video the other day, as a formal Calif resident, I agree with him. So glad I live in Texas now.

[The Annoyed Man]

He talks about California but I don't think it would be a lot different in some areas of Texas.

Here was my comment on his youtube page:

I moved from California to Texas in 2006. Soon after, I got my Texas CHL. We have a MUCH different attitude here on the part of gov't here toward use of force and use of deadly force in defense of another. I honestly do realize that it is difficult for people to pick up their lives and move out of California, for any number of reasons, and that it is just not possible some times. But I am still sometimes amazed that they don't.

@GunGuyTV, you might represent a minority opinion in California, but here in Texas, you'd be considered a part of the majority. One thing though...... Even in Texas, if you shoot someone in legitimate self-defense or defense of another, you will almost certainly face a grand jury........at least you will if you live in or around a metropolitan area. You will also almost certainly be no-billed. But, that does mean some legal expenses. So in the end, while you might face some expensive scrutiny from the state, you will in all likelihood walk free.

For my own part, there isn't enough beer in the world to make me move back to California. It is still the prettiest state in the union, but none of that is worth a cup of warm spit to the liberties I would have to surrender to move back. I would have to sell almost all of the contents of my gun safe because they are not legal in CA. When I travel back to CA to visit family, I only bring a little .357 snubbie for self-protection, because all of my semi autos are either not on the approved list, or I don't own (and refuse to buy) restricted capacity magazines for them. And it bugs the hell out of me that CA does not honor my CHL.

Keep up the good fight, and when you get tired of it, move to Texas if you are able to, where you will be welcomed.

[Abraham]

Breny414,

Yes, it does rather sound that way.

Some big city (D.C. for one) Chiefs of Police and Sheriffs like Joe Arpaio among others, are all for CHL/LTC folk to go actively after active shooters without any consideration of the legal exposure/media hounding that very well might ensue as the ugly aftermath, assuming you survive.

Not to mention your own potential mistaken identity as one of the bad guys. Who's to inform the late arriving LE you're one of the good guys?

This isn't a complete list of why assuming the role of law enforcement/soldier by taking out the active shooter is fraught with more peril than is immediately apparent.

[MechAg94]

In a mall shooting or in a convention center, how many CHL holders in Texas would be running toward the gun fire to help? That really isn't what most of us got a CHL for. If the shooting started close by, we would be under direct threat and will more likely take action. Most would see to their family's safety and maybe help others nearby get to the exits safely.

In a smaller store or gas station, taking part is much more likely, but the CHL holder is closer to the action at that point.

I would add that many CHL's holders are not carrying AR15 rifles with 10 loaded mags. We are carrying 380 auto pistols, single stack 9mm, or revolvers. We generally only carry one or two spare mags if any. Most carry guns are meant for short range defense. We are not equipped to charge in and get in a shoot out.

[Abraham]

MechAg94,

While being under-gunned is a worthy consideration, I maintain you and I among the rest of us CHLers/LTCers took the time and expense to be CHLers/LTCers

Yes, yes, I can hear some assert we've a moral obligation to save others and to "some" extent, I agree.

Would I work to save a child, or a pregnant woman?

Yes.

Would I feel compelled to save some strapping young guy who could himself be armed and save himself, but decided no, he wouldn't get his hands dirty with a gun. (yes, I'm doing some assuming)

Sorry chum, you're on your own along with the rest who were able, but decided not to defend themselves by getting a CHL/LTC and a gun.

I don't owe that lot my serious risk of body, home, and savings...

[jt88]

I would never run towards danger, unless I knew that a loved one was in harm's way. Otherwise, I would try to retreat.

If I had a clean shot on an active shooter, however, I would take it. But I would have to be within ten yards or so of the shooter. Maybe up to fifteen in perfect conditions (perfectly safe backdrop, decent cover).

I would not intervene in anything short of an active shooter, though. It's not worth the potential legal troubles. No one is ever going to get prosecuted for popping a mass shooter.

[C-dub]

I've considered all that stuff he talks about many times. One thing I have also wondered about, though, is why wouldn't the Good Samaritan laws protect someone under those circumstances? They are supposed to protect someone that tried to help, but weren't a professional at whatever they were doing to try and help and unknowingly caused more harm than good or just because of an accident.

[Abraham]

C-dub,

I don't know for certain that they wouldn't, but I'd sure not want to be the one to test them.

jt88,

"No one is ever going to get prosecuted for popping a mass shooter."

I wouldn't want to test that idea either.