I recently got a story in one of my message subscriptions about a man who accidently shot himself in the butt. The man was experienced and had been carrying concealed for over 10 years.
 
What led to the incident (as indicated in the message) was that he had recently changed from his regular carry holster to a new one. The material in the old and new holsters were different but are not relevant to this discussion.
 
I tried to find the original report but didn’t find it. I found lots of other ‘accidental’ (translated to negligent in my mind) self-inflicted gunshot wounds.
 
Back to the original story. The man felt comfortable with his new concealed carry holster and wore it while he was running some errands. On his last stop (he kinda got diverted) he heard a loud bang when getting into his truck. When investigating the sound, he discovered a hole in his pants. Further investigation revealed a through and through in his buttocks. He made his pistol safe and unloaded before going to the hospital for treatment.
 
After going back home he thoroughly inspected the pistol, looking for any clue to the discharge. Not finding any he felt the answer was clothing getting caught in the trigger.
 
In my classes I teach that each day you carry you need to (with no ammunition in your gun or area) practice drawing with whatever it is you are wearing. Getting dressed and arming up without this practice could very well set you up for failure.
 
For example, if you have a garment that impedes deploying your firearm you need to know that before you are faced with a threat and need to deploy it. By practicing with your firearm beforehand you will identify the issue and be mentally prepared to mitigate it and have practiced that mitigation. That simple habit can save your life!
 
Another thing to look for is any part of your clothing that may get caught up in the trigger guard. This is especially critical if you have a firearm that does not have a manual safety. Had the subject of the report done this there may not have been an issue.
 
We all (at least I hope we do) train regularly with our firearms. This training comes in the form of dry fire and live fire on a shooting range. This is necessary and helps us be proficient with our tools.
 
We also need to train with our concealed carry solution. We need to practice presenting and placing our firearm back into the holster. We need to know our equipment without having to think about it. We should get to the state of training where drawing and presenting are natural to us. It is equally important to practice returning to the holster.
 
If you have a carry solution that does not facilitate either of these actions you should reconsider your choice. Most of us have a box of holsters we have tried over the years. Each one was “the” one when we made the purchase. After putting them to use we find something that leads us to the next purchase.
 
For example, I purchased a minimal holster that was essentially a clip that went over my trigger guard and belt. A holster that covers the trigger and adds little to no bulk? Sign me for that! After trying it for a while I didn’t like the fact that once I deploy, I must remove the holster from my belt, attach it to my firearm, then clip it back to my belt. I tried to rationalize it because I thought it was so cool. This one is now used for demo in my gear and gadget module.
 
I could go on and on about the holsters in my box (gear and gadgets bag) but you are smart enough to get the idea.
 
Getting to know your gear is critical and your holster is part of that gear. One could even say the clothing we wear to conceal our firearm is also part of our gear. Knowing their limitations must be part of our decision-making process as we choose a carry solution. Once we have that solution we need to be proficient with it. Practice, practice, practice…

I was walking through one of my favorite sporting goods stores and wandered into the holster isle. My goal was to get a Level II holster that used a latch instead of a strap over the firearm. I found a fairly inexpensive Blackhawk Serpa holster, marked for clearance. I bought it.

It is an OWB holster, not my desired configuration. It did have a latch that must be activated to remove the pistol from the holster. For all intents and purposes, I had achieved my goal. I did carry with it a few times but prefer an IWB carry solution.

I showed the holster in a couple of my classes. Then, I saw a very strong warning from an instructor to not bring that holster to his classes. I did some research and found he is well founded in refusing that holster on his range.

The problem is the retention latch release is positioned directly above the trigger guard. When drawing the firearm, the finger is positioned to rapidly engage the trigger rather than indexed. That means it is extremely easy to have an inadvertent discharge while drawing.

This holster was issued by the U.S. Army. It has been replaced due to the safety issues. Active Response Training posted an article (https://www.activeresponsetraining.net/the-serpa-compendium) that gives some rather graphic evidence against the Serpa.

The basic problem is the involuntary hand clenching of the fingers when trying to draw quickly. This involuntary clinch is the root of the “Keep your finger off the trigger until ready to fire.” safety rule. The placement of the release puts the user’s finger directly over the trigger well while drawing the firearm.

With enough training this risk can be greatly reduced. However, the risk will still be a danger, especially at the start of the training. After extensive training the risk will still be there. Very few training programs will stress you as much as a lethal threat that must be engaged quickly.

I use the holster to emphasize having extra retention protection when open carrying. I don’t recommend open carrying in my classes but address it because my students may elect that configuration. When your firearm is exposed, having a level II or III holster adds a margin of safety when a threat may try to take the firearm.

Having a release lever to engage brings some extra considerations. While the Blackhawk Serpa is the holster I have been talking about, it is not the only one that has this configuration. It is my strong recommendation that you avoid any holster that has the release over the trigger well. The Serpa does have some knockoffs. Other holsters have the release button along the frame or on the back. These are much safer to use.

Having a retention release mechanism brings another aspect to your carry considerations. The release is a mechanical device. As we all know mechanical devises can and do fail. A retention release can be jammed by foreign objects. These objects may be introduced if, in your response to a threat, end up on the ground. Debris kicked up can work its way into the holster.

So, to answer the question of training aid or consumer warning, I say both. I will still use the Serpa, but only in class. I will not carry a loaded firearm in it. I will show that this design has some serious shortfalls.

What equipment you carry is your decision. My aim here is not to bash the Serpa, only to point out safety considerations with that configuration. If you choose to use a holster in this configuration you should be aware of the safety considerations.

Is a retention device necessary? Again, that is up to you. If you open carry I strongly suggest you have a Level II or III holster, specifically one without a release over the trigger guard.

     When I bought my wife her first handgun, I asked her if I put it loaded on her side of the bed and an intruder came in, would she use it. When she said she didn’t know I told her I wouldn’t put it beside the bed. I explained that if she wasn’t certain she would use it then the intruder might take it from her and use it against her.

    In my classes I pose the same question. “Can you point a loaded handgun at another human and press the trigger?” It is a thought exercise. It is an exercise that anyone who carries a firearm should be doing.

    Lt. Col. Dave Grossman has written books on the subject. One, On Killing, looks at the challenge the military has in getting soldiers to shoot at people. This challenge has arisen from the societal shift away from families who raised and butchered livestock and supplemented that protein source with wild game they also slaughtered themselves.

    Today we get our meat from grocery stores, butcher shops and big box retailers. We no longer have the task of ending the animal's life and carving it up of our dinner. This was graphically illustrated by Ted Nugent’s Surviving Nugent reality show. One episode required the participants to cook a chicken for a meal. Unfortunately for those in the show, the chicken was alive. In explaining the challenge, Ted illustrated the task. He grabbed a chicken, slammed it’s head on a rock then ripped the breast out with his bare hands. Several of the participants were very repulsed. Ted said: “You have to kill it before you grill it.” The participants were all very hungry. Many of them could not carry out the task.

    Today we have a world where the snowflakes complain that hunters shouldn’t be killing animals. They should get their meat from stores where no animals are harmed. They have no idea…

    In the Civil War it was not uncommon for a soldier to be deemed unfit for combat due to teeth that were missing. It was required to have front teeth to be able to bite open the cartridges when loading. Many of these missing teeth were intentionally knocked out to avoid going to war. The reluctance to go to war was not fear of getting killed, it was the repulsion over killing another person.

    The actual fire rates have increased from war to war due to conditioning. After WWI the military started using silhouette targets. During the Viet Nam war the soldiers were conditioned using pop-up targets and timing. The target would pop up and the time between then and firing at was used to qualify. The silhouettes were to condition the soldier to shoot at a human shape. The pop up targets were to build neural pathway conditioning to shoot quickly to overcome the hesitation of shooting a person.

    It is not natural for a normal person to kill another person. That is why we lock up people who commit murder. The only type of person who can kill without psychological affects is the psychopath. Some soldiers meet the criteria for psychopathy. Most do not. That is why they must be conditioned.

    In normal society we have the same issue. There are some psychopaths. We know them as serial killers, mass shooters, murderers. They are out there with us. Our legal system does society a disservice when jails have a revolving door for violent criminals. That is why we carry and train.

    As we train, we should be using the same techniques the military uses to condition it’s citizen-soldiers to move past the revulsion over shooting another human. If we hesitate, the psychopath is just as likely take our firearm and use it against us or other innocent people.

    As we train, we should also remember that, as Lt. Col. Grossman says in On Killing, the military has 10% of it’s highly trained soldiers who still don’t fire at people. In Viet Nam it was not uncommon for a soldier to shoot his ammunition above the intended target.

    We may have the attitude we need to carry a loaded firearm with the intention of using it (as the last resort) to defend ourselves or others. If we do, our lives will change forever. It is very likely the fight or flight response will cause the blood our sphincters need to retain our bladder and bowel contents will be diverted elsewhere.

    Many police officers who have a line of duty incident that ends up with a threat perishing, leave the force. Many who get into a defensive gun use cannot tolerate firearms after the incident.

    We must train regularly. We need to get a variety of training from a variety of instructors. This is how we get as close as we can to being able to engage and stop a threat. When the fight or flight response occurs, our neural pathways will take over. If we are training properly, we are much more likely to be in the 90% group of people who will engage the threat.

Let me start with a disclaimer - I am not a lawyer and cannot give legal advice. What I am saying is my opinion and my opinion alone. You should seek legal advice from an attorney to get defensible advice.

I am often asked about the use of deadly force to defend a family pet. This is a very tough situation, especially for those that consider their beloved pet a member of the family, as most of us do.

My answer has been a consistent probably not. If the deadly force is employed in a manner that eliminates a threat to a person, then it is a clear no. Sorry...

If the use of deadly force is employed when the threat to the pet is also a threat to a human, then it is probably defensible.

This subject was addressed in a presentation by The Law of Self Defense. they have regular presentations and post them on several platforms.

The specific presentation was discussing an Arizona case of a suspect threatening a K-9 that was assisting LEO action to apprehend the suspect. The subject was engaged by a SWAT officer and subsequently perished.

The question being addressed was weather this was a good shoot. The teaser for the presentation indicated the answer was a no. Their determination (they are lawyers) is that pets are property. In 49 states the only legal force against a human in defense of property is non-deadly. This includes a K-9 in performance of law enforcement duties.

In Texas, however, one would be ill advised to mess with a man’s truck or his dog.

If you want to see their presentation it is available on YoutTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26HAo9X-OtU

As always get legal advice from an attorney in your area for the best answer.

On March 15th, a shoplifter a Family Dollar in Phoenix was confronted by the store clerk. The shoplifter struck the clerk who responded with a semi-automatic pistol shooting until the magazine was empty. He struck the shoplifter 10 times and was reported to have continued to shoot after the shoplifter was down. At least that is how it was reported.
 
Many times, a shooting incident is tried in the court of public onion before the fact are known. This is an unfortunate reality in the days of short attention spans and news cycles. Many times, the facts are irrelevant when compared to the emotionally charged first reports.
 
My interest in this story has only a marginal connection to the shooting. Rather it is what happened afterwards.
 
In our training we don’t just cover firearms handling and the concealed carry laws. We also cover the personal defense event and aftermath, with emphasis on interacting with law enforcement. The store clerk would have benefitted from the training.
 
The incident occurred just before 8PM. The shoplifter was known to the clerk to be a serial shoplifter. He confronted the shoplifter and directed him to leave the store. That is when the altercation occurred.
 
The clerk was young, only 24 years old. The news article does not indicate the age or physical characteristics of the shoplifter. I bring that up to consider a possible disparity of force. If the shoplifter was a larger, stronger, man the force employed may have been easily justifiable. I am not saying it wasn’t, only adding another dimension to the event.
 
The clerk made two mistakes after the shooting that handed the conviction to the prosecutor. We should all know that statements made before the Miranda rights have been read are deemed spontaneous utterances and admissible in court.
 
What did the article report that he said that was incriminating?  “[the clerk] explained he was struck and decided to shoot but looking back, he realized it was egregious.”*
 
When looking at the flight or fight response characteristics the clerk was functioning with diminished mental faculties. His body was pumped full of endorphins and adrenalin. His perceptions were altered. He should not have been making any statements to the police.
 
I don’t know if a prosecutor would have taken the case without that statement. It is possible that the shooting until the magazine was empty (an assumption since the firearm was not identified) alone would have justified charges. Admitting that it was a mistake most certainly severely weakened his defense case.
 
You might say that shooting so many times should have been enough to justify charges. However, I offer that this young man was not aware of how many times he fired. Many police officers also report less rounds than fired. This is the result of the fight or flight response. It is this fact that led the police union to not allow interviews before 72 hours have passed. Perceptions and memory are altered by the body’s fight or flight response.
 
The clerk could be said to be in a state of shock during and after the event. In this state of shock, the ability to make judgements is replaced but a conditioned response. Then we have to consider the training the clerk had. I suspect it was little to none, considering the shoplifter was still alive and in the hospital. A good defense attorney might still be able to successfully defend the clerk.
 
The moral of the story: get training and keep training. With training you will know when you are justified in using deadly force. With training you will know what happens to your body in a defensive shooting incident. With training you will know how your actions after the incident can help your defense or solidify the prosecutor’s case.
 
*https://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/family-dollar-employee-shooting-west-phoenix  - March 23, 2023

There are many hot-button topics that have passionate people on each side. This is one of them.
In the history of firearms development some bad things have happened. These bad things have cemented some best practices that are no longer relevant since firearms manufactures learn and improve.

One of these best practices is to never have a live round under the hammer/firing pin/striker. This was important when firearms did not prevent inadvertent discharges when a gun was dropped, or the hammer was struck. Modern firearms are much less prone to these issues. Note that I said less. It is not an absolute as the U.S. Army found with their new duty sidearm. It has a specific set of circumstances where it will discharge when dropped. You must know your firearm!

That being said, the one in the pipe carry is a matter of personal choice and carry conditions.

Let’s first address the carry condition. If you throw your carry gun in your pocket (or purse) without a holster you should not have a round in the chamber or under the hammer. A revolver (Uncocked, of course.) is safer than a semi-automatic but you are still taking a risk. Is there anything else in the pocket or purse that could engage the trigger? When you retrieve your gun are you 100% certain you will not engage the trigger? There is no way you should accept that risk. Either do not have a live round in the chamber or use a pocket holster that covers the trigger.

Now for the personal choice.

When a firearm is carried with a live round in the chamber it is only a step (or two with a safety) away from discharging. That condition may be more that you are comfortable with. If it is, then don’t carry with a live round in the chamber.

If it is so close to discharging why would anyone carry in that condition?

The first issue is time. It takes only seconds to rack a slide. However, it takes only seconds for a threat to close the distance to you and inflict injury. The question you need to consider is are there more seconds between you and the threat than you need to draw, rack the slide and fire than it takes for the treat to get to you.

Another consideration is noise. If you are not the primary focus of the threat racking the slide may cause the threat to refocus on you.

Working in law enforcement is a very hard job. It’s a job where every day there is a potential of not surviving the shift. Game wardens routinely go to their job knowing that most people they encounter are not only armed but in the woods with the intent to kill something.
 
The difference is that hunters are mainly law-abiding citizens who respect the game warden, where the LEO doesn’t know who is or isn’t armed and who has the intent to use deadly force against people and have no respect for the LEO.
 
Although that is groundwork for my comments, it doesn’t answer the question…
 
My last post addressed a situation that has been in the news concerning a ‘sovereign citizen’ who, during what should have been a routine traffic stop, was shot and killed by the LEO’s that responded to the incident.
 
On the surface it seems like this one more time a peaceful citizen was gunned down by aggressive LEO’s.
 
Let’s look at some perspectives.
 
First, there is the perspective that the average LEO is a hunter in society looking for a person to shoot. The first thought that comes to mind is the number of LEO’s who have an entire career without ever firing their gun outside of the range. A quick search reveals a number between 75-90% have never fired their gun on patrol.
 
Second, as a firearms instructor I am very concerned about teaching my students the law (as best a non-lawyer can) so they can follow it. What most people don’t understand is that the LEO use of force is just as restricted. They cannot go around pointing their gun at people unless they fear for their life or the life of someone they have a duty to protect.
 
Another perspective is that the LEO community is comprised of people. As people, they have the potential of having the type of person who has very low esteem and a need to prove their power. Most LEO agencies call these “bad cops” and do their best to weed them out. First in the various academies where they are evaluated, tested, and evaluated again. Some slip through. Some become jaded while working the streets. I firmly believe these “bad cops” are a small portion of the LEO force.
 
Finally, we must consider reaction time. In concealed carry training you should have received training on recognizing a threat and reacting to it. A LEO in the community has a body camera, protective vest, and several other tools at the ready. In the back of their mind each day they start a shift is “am I going to make it home tonight,” which is a consideration in every encounter. Unfortunately, the answer to that question must be made in two or three seconds. If they hesitate, they may be killed by the gun the person they have asked to show hands has in the hand they don’t want to show. If that person has an object that may be a deadly weapon (gun, knife, pipe, etc.) it is very possible that weapon can be used on the LEO who hesitates. Unfortunately, some of these incidents do not involve a deadly weapon but still result in the death of the person.
 
When a LEO does cause the death of another person, they are taken off the street and put on administrative leave. While they are on leave their shooting incident is investigated. Each, and every, time. None are just considered a ‘good shoot’ and garner a pat on the back for a job well done.
 
If it is determined that they acted withing the standard procedures and in defense of life, they are returned to duty. If it isn’t, they can and will be prosecuted. This is a secondary thought following coming home each night. Yes, the job of a LEO is not easy.
 
The rare LEO that abuses the position of trust tarnishes the whole force. Those that are operating honorably are more motivated than the average citizen to get the ‘bad cops’ off the street.
 
So, the initial question I posed was not only blatantly wrong, but it is also loaded to paint a picture of vigilante LEO’s running amuck. Our media does little to help dispel this picture when the news stories are slanted against the LEO in most cases. TV programs that depict LEO’s that have little to no regard for due process are the ‘hero’s’ in the program may be entertaining but they are poisoning the minds of those who don’t recognize what they are doing. There are some good shows, but the majority (in my opinion) are not flattering to LEO’s.

On March 1st, 2023 a young man was on the roads in Utah. He was pulled over by the police for an “illegitimate license” on his car. The young man considered himself a sovereign citizen and not subject to the laws of Utah or the United States. He was uncooperative with the police officer and the situation escalated. Unfortunately it escalated to the point of officers discharging their firearms, fatally injuring the young man.
 
I am not a firm believer that the media gives us the full or unvarnished story. So, I take the media reports with a whole block of salt. News outlets, in the rush to be first, often get the ‘facts’ of the story wrong. The story reported several things that set off warning flags for me.
 
First, they guy had a gun in the car and the incident was by a post office. Maybe he was driving by, maybe he was leaving the post office. If it was the latter he had broken a law.
 
The concept of sovereign citizen is something I have not looked at seriously. The one thing that I can say is that is is very weak ground. I have traveled all over the world in the military. When we were in a country other than the United States I knew I was subject to the laws of the land. I could not tell the law enforcement in that country that I am not subject to their laws since I am not a citizen of that nation. A sovereign citizen, living in the borders of the United States may believe that US law does not apply. However,  Wikipedia says “Sovereign citizen arguments have no basis in law and have never been successful in court.” Like media reports, Wiki pages sometimes have errors but they at least have a couple of footnotes for sources.
 
When we conduct our Utah Concealed Firearms Permit (CFP) training we go through interacting with the police while armed. Had this young followed the principles we teach he would have been arrested but alive. He would have his day in court (which he doesn’t believe in, ironically) to justify his actions and present his case for why the police were wrong for pulling him over. 
 
In case you not aware of or don’t want to look up the story, here is why the story said he was shot. He would not exit his vehicle as directed by the officers. When they tried to extract him he put up a fight. During the fight one of the officers saw that he was armed. That meant that they were in a deathly force incident and could respond in kind.
 
Anytime a person is in an incident of some sort, who has. The other party in the incident having knowledge of the firearm is not required. All that is needed is for a firearm to be present. 
 
A police officer has only seconds to react when they are faced with an armed person. Those seconds are not for the officer to decide do I want to kill this person or not. Those seconds are for him to decide if he is going home that night. If the officer hesitates the armed person may have the ability to use deadly force. 
This is a decision I hope to never have to make. The only way to guarantee surviving a gun fight is to never get in it to start with. This is just as true for law enforcement as it is for the average person. 
 
I don’t know how the investigation will turn out. Will the officers get disciplined or charged for illegal use of force? They had body cameras on. The article mentioned that they were told to turn them off. Here is my cynicism. The reporter didn’t say why, just that they were told to turn them off. Was this to paint a picture of them trying to hide the remaining investigation? Or, was it to preserve the evidence already captured? I suspect it is the latter. Many of us have dash cams. We know they are on a 30 minute loop and if we have something we need to preserve we have to save the loop or turn them off. Could the body cameras have the same requirement? 
 
 
 
 

With the passing of constitutional carry in Utah we don’t need a Concealed Firearms Permit (CFP) to carry a fully loaded firearm, concealed or open, in public. Is that the end of the discussion?
 
No, that is not the end of the conversation. The conversation is much larger!
 
The first consideration is that with a CFP the permit holder has more freedom to carry than someone without the permit. If someone does not get the proper training provided in the CFP class, they may not know where they are not able to carry a firearm. Yes, there are still restrictions, do you know what they are?
 
The next consideration is that carrying a firearm in public increases the person’s responsibility in any interactions, regardless of even exposing a firearm. This requires a mindset that is taught in training. Any interaction is an armed interaction without respect to the actual use of a firearm. The prosecutor knows that, do you? Don’t expose yourself to a charge felony assault.
 
Finally, consider travel. While many states (~21) are constitutional carry, not all of them allow non-residents to carry. With the Utah CFP, you are legal to carry concealed in 37 states. If you inadvertently cross over to Idaho or Nevada and do not have a CFP, you can be prosecuted for a firearms violation.