Choosing a Handgun

For any gun owner, choosing the right gun is extremely important. The first thing a new shooter needs to do is get familiar with handguns. Go out to your local gun store and start looking around. Ask the owner to see the handgun and ask them how to field strip the gun. Get familiar with the weight and the feel. Learn how a handgun operates, whether it is a pistol or a revolver.

After you understand how a firearm operates it's time to go to the range. Go out to your local shooting range and rent the biggest, baddest pistol you can find. Actually that would be the worst thing to do. For a first time shooter guns can seem extremely menacing. Look for the smallest caliber handgun. Usually this well be a little Ruger .22 pistol.  Hand the pistol in your hands and manipulate it until you are comfortable. Now it's time to shoot. First time shooters should always shoot with an expert or coach for the first few times. Develop the skills  and shooting technique necessary to become an accurate marksman.

Once you have become comfortable with shooting a .22 you can then try different calibers. Try out a .380 or 9mm and see how those feel. Once you have the proper shooting techniques you can easily transfer them to any firearm. If you feel confident in your abilities to shoot you can try a revolver. They are slightly harder to shoot because the sights are different.

If you have tried a wide variety of handguns then you are ready to buy your first handgun. Consider the price and availability of your firearm and ammunition. Chose a gun that will fit into your daily life and a gun you are 100% comfortable with. Do not buy a cheap, knock-off brand when choosing a gun. You will get what you pay for and when your life might be on the line you can't spend too much.

Congratulations, you have bought your new firearm. Now what? Practice! The only way you are going to be effective with your new gun is if you practice. I recommend that you shoot at least fifty rounds a month. This will improve your accuracy and comfort with the gun. Pretty soon that new pistol or revolver will feel like a part of your hand.

Storage is extremely important. If you don't have that gun on you it needs to be locked up. A good gun owner is a responsible gun owner.

Buying a gun is a very enjoyable experience. Make it fun and keep it safe.

Holsters

Choosing a holster that is right for you is one of the most important steps to ensure a safe carry. There are many different types of holsters and handguns to choose from.

The first and most important step is acquiring a handgun. Choosing the right handgun is all about personal preference. However, the handgun you choose needs to be comfortable and safe. If you don't feel comfortable with your handgun than you need to choose a different model.

After you get your handgun you can move on to chose your holster. There are two main categories of holsters: inside the waistband and outside the waistband. The law doesn't specify what type of holster you must get, the only thing that matters is that the handgun is concealed. An important thing to consider is the type of environment you are in. Is it cold? Rainy? Can I wear a jacket most of the time and still fit in?

Inside the Waistband:

Inside the Waistband

This is the most popular type of holster among CCH license holders. It is not the most comfortable way to carry but you can wear almost anything and still have a concealed handgun on you. The holster slides between your body and your pants. Usually the holsters has a clip or belt loop to secure the holster to your pants. This type of holster can be uncomfortable for new users and large caliber handguns. Remember, the larger the handgun the more uncomfortable it is to conceal it.

The versatility of this holster is what makes it so popular among CCH permit holders. It can be worn any place, at any time.



Outside the Waistband:

Outside the Waistband

Outside the Waistband holsters are popular because of their comfort. They are worn on your pants outside of the belt. Police officers carry their handguns outside of the waistband. The reason why everyone doesn't carry their handguns outside of the waistband is because of brandishing. Brandishing is a serious crime. It is defined as to wave or flourish (something, esp. a weapon) as a threat or in anger or excitement. If you decide to carry outside the waistband you need to ensure the handgun is never shown. When you carry outside the waistband and wear a jacket, than you cannot take that jacket off until you are back home.


In conclusion, choosing a holster to fit your needs is a personal choice. Take into consideration your surroundings and climate. Choose the holster that fits your handgun and your lifestyle.

KS 21-3212

Use of force in defense of dwelling, place of work or occupied vehicle; no duty to retreat.

In this post I am going to talk about the right to defend yourself and how that relates to CCH. Because I live in Kansas I am going to specifically focus on Kansas' law and how that applies to me. As stated in the title, KS 21-3212 is about the use of force in the defense of a dwelling, place of work or occupied vehicle.

In Kansas, residents are justified in the use of force against another when the resident believes that such force is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's unlawful entry into or attack upon such person's dwelling, place
of work or occupied vehicle. In plain English, this part of the bill states that if you feel threatened in the a fore mentioned manner than you have the right to defend yourself. You have the right to defend your family at your house, you have the right to defend your co-workers at work, and you have the right to defend yourself and your passengers in your vehicle. As long as you believe that such force is necessary to stop an intruder than your preventative actions are protected under the law.

Also covered in KS 21-3212 is: A person is justified in the use of deadly force to prevent or terminate unlawful entry into or attack upon any dwelling, place of work or occupied vehicle if such person reasonably believes
that such use of deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to such
person or another. Section B basically states what is in section A with one major change. Section B explicitly states that deadly force is authorized for the prevention of imminent death or great bodily harm.

To be clear, if someone runs into your house with nothing but the clothes on his back you have the right to get him out of your house. However, unlike Texas, you do not have the right to kill them for entering your house; Unless the person is running into your house wielding a weapon and you reasonably believe your or your families life is in danger.

The final section of KS 21-3212 covers the duty to retreat; or in Kansas, the lack there of. As stated, nothing in this section shall require a person to retreat if such person is using force to protect such person's dwelling, place of work or occupied vehicle. If this sounds confusing than you're not alone. What is a duty to retreat? If my life is in danger why should I have a duty to retreat? The duty to retreat basically means that you have an obligation to walk away from the situation before you have the right to defend yourself. Luckily for Kansas residents, no such duty exists.

How does all of this relate to CCH? It relates because knowing the law is an obligation everyone is society holds. After all, ignorance of the law is no excuse. This obligation is especially true for residents carrying handguns. If you are going to carry a handgun you have to know when and where you are legally allowed to use it.

It is also worth to note another piece of information that directly relates to firearms and crime. The law that has been described above is also known as Castle Doctrine. Once implemented, Castle Doctrine has been shown to reduce murder rates by 9 percent and violent crimes by 11 percent (University of Chicago Press, 2010). If crime rates reduced because potential offenders knew they could be legally killed than issuing CCH to law-abiding citizens should have the same effect. If a criminal knew their victim was armed would they still commit their illegal act? 

Costs Associated With a CCH Permit

The cost to obtain a CCH Permit is extensive. Considering the right to keep and bear arms, one can argue the point that requiring lawful citizens to get a permit to carry their handguns is unconstitutional. After all, states that do not require their residents to have a permit are called Constitutional Carry states. 

Bearing all of this in mind, many residents believe the cost to get a CCH permit is too high. The costs are so high that many Kansas residents cannot afford to get a CCH permit. A young adult who is enrolled in university cannot afford to shell out $300 to get a piece of paper that says they can legally carry their own property. Because of this cost, the university student cannot carry their handgun and will not be able to adequately protect them self. 

Should the cost to protect you be so expensive that many Kansas residents cannot afford to get the permit? Currently Kansas requires a payment of $132.50 to submit a CCH application. This payment is just to have the Attorney General's office review your application and decide whether or not you’re a suitable resident to have a CCH permit. That means if you do not meet their standards, you’re out all of your money. You just paid for a permit that you will never receive. Furthermore, if you are approved by the Attorney General, you are required to go and spend an otherwise pleasant day at the DMV to pay to get your CCH permit card. Could there be any more hoops to jump through or fees to pay? 

The whole process needs to be updated. Residents should not have to pay $300 dollars to get a permit to protect them self. The state should reduce the fee associated with the application. Every Kansas resident should be able to afford to get a CCH permit.

Kansas HB 2353

Kansas is currently in the process of amending their concealed carry law. As I briefly stated in my last post, the biggest problem with the concealed carry law in Kansas is the restrictions on the buildings. Currently there are way too many places excluded to carry a concealed weapon. Please see K.S.A. 75-7c01 et seq. 
Why do Kansas residents obtain a concealed carry permit? They get a permit so they can carry a firearm, for personal protection, on them at all times. The current version of the Kansas Personal and Family Protection Act makes it almost impossible to carry your protection around with you. 

However, there is now hope for the residents in Kansas. A bill has just recently passed the Kansas House and is now in the Senate. HB 2353 will amend the current Personal and Family Protection Act and allow licensed residents to carry into any building that doesn't provide adequate security. What is adequate security? Well, as stated in HB 2353, "Adequate security measures means the use of electronic equipment and personnel at public entrances to detect and restrict the carrying of any weapons into the facility or on such premises state or municipal building, including, but not limited to, metal detectors, metal detector wands or any other equipment used for similar purposes to ensure that weapons are not permitted to be carried into such premises or facilities building by members of the public".

Once passed, this bill will change concealed carry in Kansas to be more practical. Licensed residents will be able to carry their weapons anywhere they go. 

Due to the inaction in the Senate Federal and State Affairs Committee, the state Senate has not yet had the chance to vote on HB 2353. 

Concealed Carry in Kansas

Requirements for obtaining a concealed carry firearm permit are as follows:

• 21 years of age
• A citizen of the United States and resident of the state of Kansas
• A resident of the county of which the applicant is applying
• Applicant must complete a 8 hour handgun course

Disqualifying factors are as follows:

• A fugitive from justice
• Under charges or indictment for a felony
• Convicted in court of a felony, or any other crime, for which the sentence could be imprisonment for more than one year
• Convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence
• Subject to a court order restraining from harassing, stalking or threatening a person
• Arrested, convicted, addicted or unlawfully using controlled substances, including marijuana or any other depressant, stimulant or narcotic drugs
• Adjudicated mental defect or committed to a mental institution
• Discharged from the armed forces under dishonorable conditions
• Renounced U.S. citizens
• Illegally or unlawfully residing in the United States

Getting a concealed carry permit is a little more complicated than getting a drivers license. One of the opponents main arguments against issuing CCW (Concealed Carry Weapon) permits are their ease of acquirement. However, in Kansas it is not very easy to obtain a CCW permit. Considering the list of disqualifying factors listed about, I would not hesitate to say that it is long, expensive process to get a CCW permit.
Kansas has strict regulations regarding a concealed weapon. This includes the places permit holders can bring their weapons to. To see a complete list of places where carrying a concealed weapon is not authorized see K.S.A 75-7c10. In fact, one may wonder what the point of getting a CCW permit is after reading through the list of restricted buildings. Restrictions include: any state office, any facility hosting an athletic event, any school, any drinking establishment, and any place of worship. That list includes just a few of the restrictions stated in K.S.A 75-7c10. It doesn't seem fair that the state gets to decide where one can carry their concealed weapons. How can Kansas stop me from carrying my concealed weapon into my private church, of which I'm a member?
Needless to say, I believe Kansas is still a long way away from having an optimal system in place. A CCW law in place is designed to protect people, not prohibit them.

States the Recognized Kansas' Concealed Carry Law:

Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

Criminals in 'Shall-Issue' States

I have no doubt in my mind that concealed carry laws save lives. There is a great deal of research that has been conducted for both sides of the argument ‘do gun laws save lives.’ There is evidence to support claims that “shall-issue” states, states that issue concealed carry permits, deter violent crime. In the book Evaluating Gun Policy, authors Jens Ludwig and Phillip Cook suggest that criminals in states where concealed carry laws are implemented will move to states where concealed carry laws are not implemented to commit their crimes. This finding makes complete sense if we look at this from a criminal’s perspective. Criminals only attack victims whom they perceive as weak or easy targets. If there is a chance the criminal’s victim is armed than the chance an attack will happen will drastically decrease. Later in the book, the authors use a study performed by David Olsen and Michael Maltz using 1977-1992 data. The study supported claims that concealed carry laws reduce homicides. The study showed that firearm related homicides fell by twenty percent. However, at the same time non-firearm related homicides rose by ten percent. Opponents of concealed carry laws will fixate on the increase in non-firearm related homicides in their arguments against concealed carry laws. However, most of the people who look at the overall decrease of ten percent in all homicides will support concealed carry laws. I will close this post with some food for thought. If you were going to commit a crime, would you commit that crime if you knew the victim was going to be armed?

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Q05iNEB7egQC&oi=fnd&pg=PA287&dq=Concealed+Carry+Laws&ots=Mj3-a1u9Nd&sig=3dh92gQ1O2Prt2iyb24rSBApysk#v=onepage&q=Concealed%20Carry%20Laws&f=false


Ludwig, Jens, and Philip J. Cook. Evaluating Gun Policy: Effects on Crime and Violence. 
          Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 2003. Print.

ABC's Concealed Carry 'Experiment'

In this post I will address some of the issues I see with ABC's experiment that is shown above. Looking at this study from a researcher's point of view, it's evident ABC made some mistakes. ABC took any student willing to participate in the study. To my knowledge, none of the students in the experiment actually possessed a concealed carry permit. This is important information because not everyone is comfortable handling a handgun. The students in the experiment didn't have practice withdrawing their pistol from their holsters. Opponents of CCW, concealed carry weapons, will debate that these students had no more experience than is necessary to obtain a CCW. That's true, but it is not the only factor to consider. Most of the people who obtain a CCW are avid gun enthusiasts. These are the kinds of people who collect, shoot, and know guns. They are extremely comfortable around firearms and know how to use them; they are not your average college student. Secondly, the whole point of having a concealed firearm is no one knows you have it. In this experiment the active shooter, who is also a trained police officer, knows exactly where the student with the concealed pistol is. Doesn't that defeat the purpose of a concealed carry and, therefore, nullify the whole experiment? In conclusion, this experiment placed a student (18-22 years old) with little firearms experiment, against a trained police officer, who knew exactly where the CCW student was in the classroom. An extremely skewed experiment that was designed for one result: concealed carry permits cause more harm than good. I guarantee a real life scenario would result in much different results. If ABC would like to reevaluate their experiment and do it again I have a few suggestions. First, get a student how already has a CCW to see how someone with an actual CCW does. This experiment was performed on a college campus. What ABC didn't address was the requirements for a CCW. One has to be at least 21 years old with no prior felonies or convictions. That automatically disqualifies about 50% of students currently attending a higher education school. This experiment should be performed by students who actually qualify to have a CCW, i.e. upperclassmen, faculty and staff. Second, how many times is the shooter a police officer with years of firearm experience? The shooter should fit the personality profile of a school shooter who, more likely than not, has minimal experience with a firearm. Third, the shooter should not be aware there is a threat in the classroom. That is to say, the shooter should not know there is someone else in the classroom with a firearm. Those few changes will transform the whole dynamic of the experiment. The experiment will be more practical and have real life results.

The 2nd Amendment

The 2^nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights has become the basis for all arguments in favor or against gun control. It states, in part, that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Gun control advocates believe that the 2^nd Amendment was crafted for a different time in history, is currently outdated and therefore should be amended.

This however is untrue. Is the threat of tyranny less prevalent today than it was 235 years ago? Is crime less common or less violent today than it was back then? Following this same line of thought, should we also amend the rest of the Bill of Rights? Are our rights of freedom of speech and due process outdated? The answer to all of the questions is unequivocally, unapologetically no.

Currently, there are four states where there are no regulations on concealed carry, in what has become known as Constitutional Carry. The name says it all; Constitutional Carry is what is allowed by the Constitution and should be implemented by every other state across America.

The Right to Police Protection?

To start my blog I am going to tell a horrific story about # women in Washington, D.C. Two women were wakened to their back door being broken down and the screams of their roommate downstairs. Unfortunately, she was being raped by the two men who had broken into their house. The two women upstairs quickly called 911 to get help. The dispatcher advised the women to stay hidden and wait for the police to arrive. The dispatcher informed the police but rated the call as only a code 2. In other words, the call wasn’t very important. The two women were able to crawl out onto the roof to witness the police respond to the call. One police car simply just drove slowly by the house without stopping. Another police officer stopped, went to the door, and knocked. Regrettably, the rapists didn’t answer the door and the police officer left. Imagine that, they didn’t answer the door for the police. The two friends on the roof saw the police officer leave and called the police again. This time the dispatcher recorded the call as ‘investigate the trouble’. It’s too bad no one responded. The two women, who believed the police were there, called out to their friend. The two rapists went upstairs, captured the two women and raped all three for 14 more hours. The rapists were able to kidnap and brutalize these women with only a knife. Would it have made a difference for the women if they were armed with a gun? It is hard to imagine that it would have made things worse. The women sued to the police department for failing to protect them. Unfortunately, the police legally owed these women nothing and they lost the case. In fact, even if the police are court ordered to protect someone they are not liable for any harm. The Supreme Court will consistently uphold that citizens have no legal interest in police protection.

To read more on this story research Warren v. District of Columbia (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981).