progun47 wrote:I agree with all said above, I'd add only this. If you go take the class you will be better informed about the law and the decision may come easier for you. After taking the class you can make the decision NOT to send in the packet and you are only out the cost of the class, but you will learn something from taking it so the money wasn't wasted. If you decide to go ahead and get the CHL, then you can also make the decision when to carry, now you are taking a great risk when carrying with out the CHL. I would think that the liability would be greater without the CHL than with one if the ball goes up and you had to use deadly force to save your life. Just my thoughts......
+1, and BTW, Welcome David!
Besides having the same first name, we have a little in common! I, too, was raised on a ranch and grew up in a family that took pride in gun ownership, hunting, etc. Although I don't have my CHL yet either (my wife wants to take the class with me and get hers at the same time, too), we had thought about it a few times in the past and certainly considered it a good thing.
With the exception of a few instances in the past where I sure wished I had something more than pepper spray handy "just in case", we've at least "felt" we were safe for the most part. Fortunately nothing happened during those instances, but I certainly wouldn't repeat them today without having something more at readiness. Even so, those occasions were not common by any means, so why go through the expense, time and training needed to get a CHL?
First, because if we ever find ourselves in one of those situations again, I will at least feel a little bit better knowing that I can, or attempt to, protect my wife and myself with something that carries a little more "oomph" than pepper spray should something really ugly happen. But, since those situations don't happen very often, why carry the rest of the time? That leads me to...
Second, the number of instances where someone goes ballistic on innocent citizens in peaceful surroundings is growing every day. Unfortunately some of these are occurring in "gun free" zones such as schools or 30.06-posted businesses or malls so there's little a CHL will do for you should you find yourself there when something bad goes down (assuming you're abiding by law and aren't packing), but there's plenty more that aren't. I certainly don't want to be "caught with my pants down" so to speak in one of these situations, so I guess you can say that fear is an underlying factor. Not fear in the sense that something WILL happen (or I'd be a hermit), but fear that SHOULD something happen, I would be more or less helpless and at the mercy of some criminal or psycho with an axe to grind against the world for some demented reason.
In "days of old" almost every common gentleman (and I'm sure many ladies, too) carried a firearm, not necessarily out of fear but out of respect; for themselves, their country and their freedoms. I would like to see some of that come back into style. I may not be able to prove it, but feel pretty sure that if that were the case there would be fewer casualties in "postal" situations.
Should CHL holders be held to a higher liability for their actions? I would really think it depends more on the action. Take carelessly brandishing a handgun in public for example. I would think that with the training one must go through to get their CHL, that they would, or should, have no excuse, so therefore should be held to higher accountability for their actions than someone who hadn't, as it would have been done out of stupidity instead of ignorance. But, as long as the law was followed and the CHL-holder did everything right, I would actually feel that a CHL-holder would have better preparation and training should deadly force be called upon, so there might be less determination needed to justify such use versus a non-CHL-holder in such a situation. Would this lessen the liability of either person? As long as the law was followed and the use of deadly force was justified, I would hope not (we're all liable for our actions, whatever they may be), but it might make some in the jury feel a little more at ease knowing that the victim had more training as a CHL-holder in justifying use of such force.
If your thinking on liability is more along the lines of the mess we have today in many courts, in that criminals that have been justifiably killed or wounded while committing a crime and having their relatives or themselves sue the person that shot them, I can't really say as I see absolutely no logic in that at all. The criminal put him or herself in that situation at their choosing, so in my mind at least, they should be held liable for their choice. My opinions of course, nothing more.
Once again, welcome to the forum! I know that I've gleaned TONS of valuable information from some VERY intelligent people and posts here, and am sure you will, too!
