Charged with CCW violation after lawful shooting?

[Sam1911]

Er, no. The correct response is to eliminate the threat if possible, attempt to avoid it if not, and prepare to counter it if avoidance fails.

Well, that's actually backward.

Avoidance is always your FIRST choice. That's what all of our "situational awareness" talk is about. The only good gunfight is the one you didn't have. And the "best" one you have to be in is still a terrible thing.

If avoidance fails, do what you must to stop the threat.

But, aside from that, I'm not sure where you two are so at odds. Sure, folks should get their carry permit or license (if any is required) just in case. No, no one should die sitting on their hands just because they didn't get that card in time. Yes, they may well expect to face some penalties if caught carrying illegally before that card arrives. Would I tell my wife to carry anyway if some jerk was stalking her and she didn't have her permit (yet) and we didn't have some better solution? Yeah, probably would.

Some states do have expedited carry permitting for folks with a dire and immediate need. I'm going to have to wrack my brain to remember where I saw that, though.

 

[Sam1911]

Some believe that if you are not present when the popo arrive you are not involved in the whole process.
Not me of course. I believe that if you defend yourself you should stick around and let a prosecutor looking to make his bones select you to be the guest of honor at a reenactment of Good Friday. Seriously, I'm a good little Jersey sheeple and I really believe that.

SOME people believe that unless you're wearing your super-invisibility cape and magic "no-evidense-left-behind" hat you stand a very good chance of being implicated in the event even if you scuttle off while the brass is still jingling in the gutter. And then you face a much worse situation than merely having to present your affirmative defense.

 

[Birch Knoll]

Well, that's actually backward.

You misunderstand what I mean by "eliminating the threat"; I do not mean a defensive gun use. In the stalking example I used, it would probably mean law enforcement action to arrest and jail the stalker. If the threat can be removed, this is the first choice. If it cannot be removed, and most often it can't, then one must avoid. If avoidance fails, then self-defense remains.

But, aside from that, I'm not sure where you two are so at odds.

Me neither.

No, no one should die sitting on their hands just because they didn't get that card in time. Yes, they may well expect to face some penalties if caught carrying illegally before that card arrives. Would I tell my wife to carry anyway if some jerk was stalking her and she didn't have her permit (yet) and we didn't have some better solution? Yeah, probably would.

That's all I'm saying.

 

[Loosedhorse]

To clarify...

There is a legal standard for when you are allowed to violate the law: the "competing harms" or necessity principle. For example, that is the common law principle that allows (where common law rules) someone to shoot another in that circumstance where there is no other avenue open to prevent imminent loss of innocent life.

Similarly, to "justify" illegal carry, you'd have to show that the threat was imminent (right now, not eventually), and that there was no other avenue (like avoidance); so illegal carry is unlikely to be justifiable in that manner.

So, yes, the decision is one of exposing yourself to illegal carry charges, possible manslaughter charges, the temptation to run away, or the hesitation to not shoot when you have to.

All of these risks can be avoided by getting a permit while you don't need it; and by obeying the law (by using some other protection other than illegal carry) if you "suddenly" do need it.

The idea that illegal carry is a good back-up plan for those caught unprepared is specious.

 

[Sam1911]

And that principle of "competing harms" is probably why so many cases of unlawful possession or illegal carry do get vacated or overlooked when the threat proves itself to be real in the case of a shooting ruled "self defense."