Hypothetical self-defense in a "no-gun" zone...

[guitarman531]

So I heard from my instructor that he carries concealed even in "no-gun" zones (like a post-office). The rationale behinid this is that the BG's don't care about "no-gun" zones and he doesn't want to be stripped of his methods of defense should he need them.

While I understand (and definitely agree) with this mentality, I was wondering what the legal ramifications of a self-defense shooting would be in a "no-gun" zone. Say a BG pulls a gun in a post office or at a school and you are armed and take him out. Would you (probably) be facing felony charges as well?

 

[General Geoff]

Most likely yes, though in a super-high profile case such as a school or stadium shooting, where you are carrying despite the place being prohibited by let's say state law, if you take out a guy who opens fire on a crowd of innocent people, most DAs will decline to charge you to avoid of bad publicity.

In other words, the "hero factor" might protect you from criminal prosecution, but don't count on it.

 

[testosterone]

As stated, it'll depend on the local AG and the Mayor.

I would fully expect to be prosecuted and pray for a pardon from governor or pres.

 

[Bailey Boat]

Depends on whether you want to be "tried by twelve or carried by six"...... I know it's an old saying but it's one I force myself to live by....... Wrong???? You betcha, but so is the BG that pays it no attention and causes me to defend myself....... Damned if you do, damned if you don't........

 

[Dokkalfar]

Hmm... I remember reading something somewhere (vague I know) regarding how using a firearm in a GFZ is a valid defense if it was in self-defense. I don't know if this was Texas, Federal, some other state or just part of a proposed law, but I remember it from somewhere

Otherwise, I'd tend to agree with the above posts, that its generally still chargeable, but you'd probably have charges dismissed for the good publicity of not taking the hero to jail or such.

 

[Oro]

There was a local case a year or so back where a civilian was cc'ing in a "GFZ" (mall) and confronted a deranged shooter. Gunman killed, civilian badly injured. No issue.

However, I would not push that on federal property like a post office, airport, or military zone. That's taking on too much civil risk for too little real gain. The federal properties are administered through federal prosecutors and they are more responsive to their bosses political agenda than popular sentiment or common sense.

 

[mljdeckard]

Your instructor is taking the "I would rather be judged by twelve than carried by six" idea all the way. Which is fine. AS LONG AS YOU UNDERSTAND THAT YOU REALLY WILL BE JUDGED BY TWELVE.

Realistically, what he is looking at is a federal charge for carrying a concealed weapon, probably a misdemeanor.

Any instructor who advocates breaking the law needs to be reported to the correct authority and lose his certification.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Two words:
Jury nullification.

They could charge you with a technical violation of the no gun zone, but anything which they may wish to add to that (such as firing the gun, which would also be a probale violation in the no gun zone) would be defeated by an affirmative defense of "necessity". A DA would be foolish to bring charges, however, DC did bring charges against someone for having an unregistered handgun (pre-Heller) even though he used it in self defense. That came back to bite DC in Heller when they claimed they would NEVER use their gun laws to go after someone who used their gun in self defense... Gura kicked a$$ on that one.

 

[Frank Ettin]

There can be two issues: the use of force; and the weapons violation. If the use of force was justified, you might get off on that. But you could still get stung on the weapons violation.

The "poster child" for that outcome is Bernie Goetz, the 1984 Subway Vigilante. He defended himself with an unlicensed handgun in a New York subway from some armed robbers. He was tried for various assault related crimes and the weapons charge. He was acquitted of the assaults (the jury found his use of force to be justified self defense); but he was convicted and went to jail on the weapons charge (and he was hammered in a subsequent civil suit).

Of course, there's such a thing as prosecutorial discretion. So if you're a big enough hero (e. g., you use your illegal gun to save a bus load of developmentally disabled children from a gang of child rapists), the DA might let you skate. But I wouldn't count on it.

 

[philpost]

Bernie Goetz made it worse on himself by following the assailants and trying to finish the job. But still, I'd rather go to prison any day than watch my loved ones gunned down, knowing I had stashed my firearm outside in my car.

 

[Hoxviii]

Look up the revised statutes for your state, see if there are exceptions under the unlawful use of a weapon statute.

In Missouri there is an exemption to all UUW laws if the firearm was used in self defense and was not concealed w/o a CCW. This covers all state and federal buildings, churches, election buildings, schools, etc. Not to say the Feds might not try something. . .

 

[Autolycus]

I hope your instructor is arrested for breaking the law. By his logic he is the same as the criminals he dislikes and therefore just as bad as them. Criminals break the law and he is, so he has become what he hates.

Either way you should not break the law.

 

[4sooth]

Ask your attorney about the Doctrine of Competing Harms. If one deed (the saving of a human life) outweighs the other(illegal carrying of weapon/various others) then frequently--no harm done.

 

[Cranky CJ]

the Fed doesn't want you carrying in any of those GFZ, therefore they WILL prosecute to not let a precednt be set for letting whom ever off the hook for carrying in a GFZ.

As far as the instructor goes, hard to give any firearms instructor any credibilty when he advocates breaking the law.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Ask your attorney about the Doctrine of Competing Harms. If one deed (the saving of a human life) outweighs the other(illegal carrying of weapon/various others) then frequently--no harm done.

Not necessarily. It will depend on how the doctrine of competing harms is applied in a particular jurisdiction.

For example, in Maine, the doctrine is described by statute thus: "1. Conduct that the person believes to be necessary to avoid imminent physical harm to that person or another is justifiable if the desirability and urgency of avoiding such harm outweigh, according to ordinary standards of reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the statute defining the crime charged. The desirability and urgency of such conduct may not rest upon considerations pertaining to the morality and advisability of such statute...." (Maine Revised Statutes, Title 17-A, section 103, emphasis added)

To the extent the doctrine of competing harms may be applied, as in Maine, to a violation of law necessary to avoid imminent harm, it might not apply to a continuing violation of law, such as carrying a gun in a forbidden area or carrying a gun without a required permit. When the conduct constituting the violation was begun, there was no imminent irks of physical harm, merely the speculative apprehension that such a risk might possibly arise.

 

[Jamie C.]

The U.S. Constitution says I have a right to keep and bear arms. The Supreme Court of the United States has affirmed that it is an individual right.

However, over and above all that, I say I have a right to keep breathing, and that it is a right I may at times need a gun to support and affirm.


Seems pretty simple to me...


J.C.

 

[SiNNiK]

Every time I ponder this, I think of Dr. Suzanna Hupp and the Luby's shooting.

It's a chance if you do, it's a chance if you don't.

I'll take my chances.

 

[bdickens]

I can't help but think how irresponsible it is for an instructor to suggest that you break the law.

 

[Art Eatman]

The OP said that the instructor related WHAT HE DID. The OP did not say that the instructor ADVOCATED an illegal action. Let's not get side-tracked into thread drift.

Stipulating a legitimate use of deadly force, the "no carry zone" aspect would still be in force--but subject to prosecutorial discretion.

The issue of "discretion", to me, makes it an individual choice when assessing risk vs. reward.

 

[Cranky CJ]

Art, I think you are splitting hairs. If an instructor- the authority figure on the subject matter- stands up and tells what he does, what his practices are; he is advocating that behavior. That behavior, in this particular situation, happens to be illegal. Not what firearms instructors ought to be doing.

As far as the original question, I think that if you practice this long enough, you will eventually be caught carrying in a forbidden zone and then be held accountable under the law. The Feds aren't going to just let you go. In the end, it is your call.

 

[ChaoSS]

I think this is what the idea of "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6" was all about in the first place.

Many people use this to justify carrying without a concealed carry permit, or having a gun when it is illegal to do so. The fact is that while this is a choice that you must make, in most cases, it is much more likely that you will be found out than that you will need to use the gun in self defense. Thus, it's not really an issue of either be judged by 12 or be carried by 6.

However, if you do carry a gun into a prohibited zone, and a self defense situation arises, then the choice becomes clear. In that case, virtually everyone would rather risk a jury putting them in prison rather than losing their life. This is what that phrase is really all about.

 

[bdickens]

Art, that instructor most assuredly is advocating breaking the law. Why would he bring it up in the first place? Why put his business out in the street like that instead of keeping quiet?

Students model and imitate teachers; that's part of the learning process. When an instructor says "This is what I do," he very well is reccomending that as a course of action.

A truly professional instructor would say, if asked about going ahead and carrying in statutorily off-limits areas, "I do not advocate that you break the law."

 

[HeXeD775]

The U.S. Constitution says I have a right to keep and bear arms. The Supreme Court of the United States has affirmed that it is an individual right.

However, over and above all that, I say I have a right to keep breathing, and that it is a right I may at times need a gun to support and affirm.


Seems pretty simple to me...


J.C.

I dont condone breaking the law but I need a "like" button for this post.

 

[NoAlibi]

Keep the macho lip zipped.

fiddletown - The "poster child" for that outcome is Bernie Goetz, the 1984 Subway Vigilante. He defended himself with an unlicensed handgun in a New York subway from some armed robbers. He was tried for various assault related crimes and the weapons charge. He was acquitted of the assaults (the jury found his use of force to be justified self defense); but he was convicted and went to jail on the weapons charge (and he was hammered in a subsequent civil suit).

I saw one of the videos of Bernie's interrogation and he not only showed no remorse for the harm he brought onto his attackers, but his macho statements gave the impression that he enjoyed it. While they may have deserved what they got this is surely not the way to garner the sympathy of the public or the mercy of the District Attorney's Office.

Subsequent to Bernie's incident a similar one envolving a black victim (Known as the "Black Goetz") and white assailants, the DA declined to prosecute him. Newspaper accounts quoted him as saying that he was saddened that he had to resort to violence to protect himself from harm.

 

[Extremely Pro Gun]

The "law" is merely the opinion of others. I don't care for the opinions of others. I know what is right. The only thing is... i dont want to get arrested.

Times have changed. Why cant an upstanding citizen carry a pistol with no license and not get hassled? Society is turning into a bunch of head in the sand wimps. Gun control is to make ignorant people feel good.