Related Articles

4 Comments

  1. Mike Douglas

    Wow, just wow. I could not agree more. One dilemma, which brings the most concern on my part, as a CHL holder, is that Texas has made it even easier for individuals to obtain their CHL. While im completely for their right to devend themself, i find it dificult to believe that very few individuals have the situational awareness necessary to react to the event taking place in a safe manner. I can go on and on regarding the particular topic, yet i believe you hit the nail dead on the head and found it to be a great read.

  2. Tony

    I would mostly agree with your article except for the officers spending hours and hours on the range with an instructor. They may spend time getting qualified the first time but after that all bets are off. Due to budget or lack of wanting to be better, most officers shoot just enough to qualify every year. Yes, they know the law, however, I’ve encountered many and have heard of many more that couldn’t shoot there way out of a paper bag. Scary actually.

  3. David2014

    What state do you live in Mr. LeMascus? Reading your article, it appears to be a very ‘politically correct’ one that is controlled by anti-gun people who write the self defense laws. Are you really recommending that if we [your readers] see someone who is unarmed & being the victim of a violent felony crime… that we [a armed person] simply hide and call the police while that person is facing serious injury or death? Geesh!

    Here in Oklahoma, we have both concealed & open carry with a permit. I open carry a Glock 27 every day and have been doing so for several years. I open carry for convenience and comfort… not to show-off or intimidate anyone. I’ve had a handgun permit for 20+ years. I have never had to show my permit to a Law enforcement officer [LEO] in all that time nor have I ever had any issue with a business.

    Our self defense laws were written by the Oklahoma legislature to give us permit holders wide legal protection when defending ourselves & others from violent felonies… inside and outside our homes.

    TITLE 21 § 1289.25
    PHYSICAL OR DEADLY FORCE AGAINST INTRUDER

    A.
    The Legislature hereby recognizes that the citizens of the State of Oklahoma have a right to expect absolute
    safety within their own homes or places of business.

    B.
    A person or a owner, manager or employee of a business is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of
    imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is
    intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

    1.
    The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully
    entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, occupied vehicle, or a place of
    business, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against the will of that
    person from the dwelling, residence, occupied vehicle, or place of business; and

    2.
    The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or
    unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

    C.
    The presumption set forth in subsection B of this section does not apply if:

    1.
    The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the
    dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not a protective
    order from domestic violence in effect or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that
    person;

    2.
    The person or persons sought to be removed are children or grandchildren, or are otherwise in the lawful
    custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or

    3.
    The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence,
    occupied vehicle, or place of business to further an unlawful activity.

    ****************************
    D.
    A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has
    a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force,
    including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily
    harm to himself or herself [[[[[or another]]]]] or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
    ********************************

    E.
    A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter the dwelling, residence, occupied vehicle
    of another person, or a place of business is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act
    involving force or violence.

    ****************************
    F.
    A person who uses force, as permitted pursuant to the provisions of subsections B and D of this section, is
    justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force.
    As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes charging or prosecuting the defendant.
    ****************************

  4. David

    I agree with Tony. While generally correct in principle, the author presents an idealistic image of cops and a derogatory image of armed citizens. I, a non-cop, have helped train cops. I will no longer do that in large part because of the sneering attitude some cops have when saying ‘civilian’. SOME cops are well trained. Many are no more than an armed citizen with a uniform. Some are frighteningly inept and ignorant. On the other hand many of those non-cops are combat veterans. Others are experienced former cops. Others have spent many times more hours of range time and training than any cop who only does it because he is required. Just as there are non-cops who think they are experts because they were issued the permit, there are cops who think they are experts because they were issued the uniform. BIf ANYONE is to carry a firearm they need to honestly consider the consequences and responsibilities and learn as much as they can. This apples to BOTH groups. Officers, do not assume your Department minimum required training has made you experts. Get all the training you can.
    Finally, in today’s world if officers are seeing armed citizens “as an armed antagonist” they need more training.

Comments are closed.

Copyright 2016 Texas Fish & Game Publishing