.

Do you give back this guy's CHL?

bsebastbsebast Member Posts: 190 ✭✭✭
edited January 2002 in General Discussion
Suppose you have the job with the State Police that reviews incidents involving concealed handgun permit holders. The report below hits your desk.Question: Do you allow the guy to have his permit back? You must also write on the report a sentence or two explaining your decision.
Shopper's gun discharges in Castleton Square, December 24, 2001No one hurt as weapon goes off in the mall food court after falling from a Noblesville man's holster. A crowd of holiday shoppers was stunned into silence after a .38-caliber handgun went off in the Castleton Square Mall food court about 3:30 p.m. Sunday. So was the gun's owner. "It scared the hell out of me, because I thought somebody was shooting at us," said Charles Whitacre, whose weapon accidentally discharged.Whitacre, 43, of Noblesville, said he and his 19-year-old daughter had just finished eating when his holster snagged on the chair and broke. The gun fell out and went off. Whitacre said he felt the wind from the bullet as it flew past his head. The bullet lodged in the ceiling near Sakkio Japan restaurant. A female passer-by was startled when she kicked the weapon. Then Whitacre retrieved it. "He picked his derringer up and went on sauntering down the mall like it happens every day," said Sgt. George Martin of the Marion County Sheriff's Department. Whitacre, who said he bought the gun for personal protection and is legally licensed, described Sunday's events as "a total accident." "I just thank God nobody was wounded," he said. After Whitacre picked up his gun, several officers followed him into a retail space occupied by Bath and Body Works and the White Barn Candle Co. Sheriff's deputies were already on the mall property, directing the busy traffic. Whitacre got the permit 10 years ago, when he owned a restaurant. He now is a contractor. Deputies handcuffed Whitacre temporarily inside the store but released him after they discovered his permit. "It really put a damper on our shopping," Whitacre said. Whitacre's weapon and permit were confiscated. They were sent to the State Police for a hearing to determine whether Whitacre may continue to carry a weapon legally. Officers determined there was no reckless action or criminal intent.

Comments

  • salzosalzo Member Posts: 6,837
    edited November -1
    Give him his gun back. You have a crime to charge him with, then charge him. You want to make him liable for the damages he caused, then make him liable.The idea that a couple of cops are going to arbitrarily decide whether or not this fellow has forfeited his right to carry is ludicrous.If the troopers decide he should no longer be able to carry,than any "peace officer" who has accidentally discharged his weapon, or has used it in a negligent manner, should also forfeit his weapons.I dont think the state troopers would be all to gunho about removing weapons from their brothers.
    Happiness is a warm gun
  • john carrjohn carr Member Posts: 1,717 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    A really hard call to make. I wouldn't carry in a holster without a retaining strap. Guy sounded like he was kind of scatter-brained but should his permit be recinded? Too close to call for me.
  • bsebastbsebast Member Posts: 190 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    No, John Carr. You have the job. You don't have the luxury of saying "I don't want to make the decision."
  • robsgunsrobsguns Member Posts: 5,031
    edited November -1
    Dont treat him any differently than someone else who has had a traffic accident, with the same outcome. He gets a report filed, should it happen again, then you take a good, hard, long look at this man's competency to (drive), handle a gun. No one was hurt, so that leaves him footing the bill for property damage. You know if I keep it up, someone is going to get the idea that we can go ahead and start charging permint holders a 'gun insurance' fee, and require them to have insurance to carry. I better shut up now, before some Democrat hears me. On the other hand, if we could simply have a license to carry a gun, that was good in any state, and carried insurance that covered us in the event of an accidental shooting, and it was comparable to what car insurance costs, I think I'd be all for it. Shooter's eduacation class, license, insurance, good in any state, and you get it taken away if you're found to have too many violations of properly handling it, not a bad idea eh? Hmmmm....???
    SSgt Ryan E. Roberts, USMC
  • He DogHe Dog Member Posts: 48,599 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    "Officers determined there was no reckless action or criminal intent."He gets it back. He sounds a little scatter brained, I mean how do you drop your derringer in the mall, but he did nothing wrong, just unsafe. Might suggest a safety course or even make it manditory to retreive pistol.
  • ElbestaElbesta Member Posts: 334 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Read what it said,"eating when his holster snagged on the chair and broke. The gun fell out and went off"The holster broke, give him back his gun.The Beast
  • XracerXracer Member Posts: 1,990 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Those of us who carry weapons in public have an extra obligation to see that they're carried in a safe manner.I like He Dog's solution. Make him pass a safety course before he gets it back.
  • salzosalzo Member Posts: 6,837
    edited November -1
    Take away his holster, give him back his gun
    Happiness is a warm gun
  • VarmintmistVarmintmist Member Posts: 1,074 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Its not a crime to be stupid, or we wouldn't have politics He gets it back, hopefully with a new rear end after the butt chewing. If the saftey course is a requirement in that state, then he goes through it again, if not????
  • nunnnunn Forums Admins, Member, Moderator Posts: 35,110 ******
    edited November -1
    The guy is not competent, at least not without more training.He bought a derringer. I am not afraid of anything, but derringers scare me. The cheap ones are just about the only guns that can be counted on to fire if dropped on a hard surface. When I taught the CHL classes, I told my students to NEVER carry a derringer.His holster was cheap, or trash, or old, or all three, or it would not have broken.This guy will drop his gun again, and next time someone may get hurt.I am not discriminating against the poor. If you have little money, there are decent choices available.When you accept that license and strap on that sidearm and go out in public, you have a responsibility to not endanger the lives of the people you encounter.This guy blew it.Surely I am not the only one that sees that.
    Certified SIG pistol armorer/FFL Dealer/Full time Peace Officer, Moderator of the General Discussion Board on Gunbroker. Visit www.gunbroker.com, the premier gun auction site on the Net! Email [email protected] Jesus is Lord!
  • The artist formerly known as DanoThe artist formerly known as Dano Member Posts: 29,215
    edited November -1
    Stupidity may not be illegal, but you sure as hell don't ignore it, by giving the CHL holder his firearm / permit back.Make him sweat some. Demand some concessions. Reach into his wallet.I want blood.........his!
    Stay safe!!The "ONLY" bad thing about owning "A GUN" is....not owning two or more!
  • 7mm_ultra_mag_is_king7mm_ultra_mag_is_king Member Posts: 676 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    If it snagged why didnt he stop what he was doing and free it up. instead he just pulled harder to free it and bang. And if he didnt feel it snag then apparently it was loose enough it would have fallen out eventually. Dummy.
    when all else fails........................
  • talontalon Member Posts: 150 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    His employment status/reason to carry has changed. What State is this in? Some states grant Carry Permits based upon job you perform. If this is the case, and he changed jobs, wouldn't he have to reapply. Maybe?
  • bsebastbsebast Member Posts: 190 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I am sure everyone is waiting with great anticipation for my opinion, so here goes: Trying to put myself in the place of the individual (public servant) who has to make the decision, I wouldn't allow him to have his permit back. The gun: it's his private property. He gets it back. But from the facts I have to go by, the guy appears to lack competence in carrying concealed firearms. And I have to go by the facts as they appear. My concerns are twofold: (1) If I give this guy his permit back, and he goes out and has another discharge that hurts someone, how in heaven's name will I explain it to their family why I put him back on the street with a gun. I will then be viewed as the incompetent jerk. And (2) if he pulls another bonehead move with his gun, how would I explain it to my boss as he's escorting me to the unemployment line.No, I have his permit and he may get it back--but he is not getting it back from me. I'm more concerned about the public this guy could hurt, and the job he could cause me to lose with a poor decision on my part, than I am about him keeping his permit. He has the privlige of disagreeing--he can take it to court. Let a judge and jury decide on his competence. I think he wouldn't have a snowball's chance in court.
  • .250Savage.250Savage Member Posts: 812 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Yeah, make him take a training course, chew his * off, make him pay for damages, then give it back to him. Sounds like a bozo, trying to walk off as if nothing happened...what, did he think no one noticed? But anyone could make a mistake, even tho he seemed rather careless and yeah, probably was using a cheap gun/holster. If it had been me, that's the way I would have wanted it to go.
  • ElbestaElbesta Member Posts: 334 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Nunn has it right that gun should not be carried. A gun should not go off when dropped, if they all did a lot of us could be call the names that this guy has been called.The Beast
  • VarmintmistVarmintmist Member Posts: 1,074 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I dont want it to sound like I think this guy is the cream of the crop. Its apparent that hes a few fries short of a happy meal. The question is, what CAN you do with him? Morally, he needs his right hand broken, and a good lashing with a cat o'nine tails.Leagaly, can you take a CCW in his state for that? If they requier a test, then thats a invitation for a lawsuit if he passed the first time. Admittedly, a lawsuit is preferable to getting someone hurt. Then, do we apply the same standered to all? Someone mentioned LEOs. If people cant carry for making a mistake, we will be down a few cops in short order. If its in the law that the CCW can be removed for a mistake, PULL IT. If not, amened it, and be aware that the same pols that dont want you to carry are writing the law.Just my opinion
  • salzosalzo Member Posts: 6,837
    edited November -1
    The problem with the question, as I see it, is the fact that state troopers would have to make a decision with respect to whether or not this guy gets to carry. No law, just the opinion a few government employess. The system is supposed to be a system of laws, and not a system where government agencies are allowed to make it up as they go along.Let the government make laws that specifically deal with these types of situations. Accidental discharge in a public place- You lose your permit.Gun left unattended-you lose your permit.Put the laws on the books.Having a few employees of the state decide on a case by case basis, whether someone is allowed to continue to carry, smacks of King George to me.
    Happiness is a warm gun
  • robsgunsrobsguns Member Posts: 5,031
    edited November -1
    Flame me is you wish. I totally disagree with you all on wanting to take this guys gun, or cause * harm to him, or take his permit or what ever solution along those lines, I understand your opinion, but its completely hypocritical of all of you. You talk about how the antigun movement is our biggest enemy, which indeed they are, but after listening to your opinions on this guy, I'd say our 2nd biggest enenmy comes from within. Why do I say that? Listen to what you've all said, and I think you will notice that you all want to treat this guy completely differently than the idiot that goes out and runs into your wife and children with his POV. I dont see anyone getting in a car accident and immiediately having his license pulled, vehicle confiscated temporarily. None of what you've described should be done. I see drunk drivers still on the road, the justice system treating one drunk driver, one driver involved in an accident, completely differently from one incident to the next. You all, however, seem dead against this guy, that he should have his permit pulled immiediately, probably not get it back. ITS HIS FIRST ACCIDENT, as far as we know, HE, WE, SHOULD NOT BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY THAN THE DRIVING PUBLIC. If we sponsor this type of treatment of our own, what do you think they, the non shooting public, will be sponsor to? Disarmament maybe? Think about this before you flame me, then let loose if you need to, but think about it, I implore you to THINK. A safety course, yes good idea. But on another thread, we had the opinion that the state or gov. of any type was infringing on our right to bear arms by first requiring the safety courses. Now that this guy has had an AD we suggest he should go to a safety course, that being said, it would appear that he should have gone to one before hand, making us look dumb for our prior comments about the safety courses. We must be united in our cause, unified in our fight to keep the right to bear arms. We must all be sure of what our goal is, and keep focused upon that goal. If it is our goal to have safe shooters, responsible for our fire arms and their use, then we should not be clamoring against the idea of being required to pass a safety course before being allowed to carry one, if the first thing we are going to say when an AD occurs is, 'he should have to pass a safety course'. We must not be part of the problem, we must be willing to make compromise where there is room for compromise, and take a hard line where the need for a hard line is required. YOU CAN NOT TAKE THIS GUYS RIGHT TO CARRY AWAY BECAUSE OF ONE ACCIDENT, THAT RESULTED, LUCKILY, IN NO HARM. Treat him the way you would hope to be treated, treat him the way that anyone else would be treated if they had run a red light and no one was hurt, but it was an incident that caused a traffic tie up. Well, thats my 2 cents worth.
    SSgt Ryan E. Roberts, USMC
  • robsgunsrobsguns Member Posts: 5,031
    edited November -1
    Oh, there is one thing more, the guy had his AD and tryed to walk off like nothing happen. I have a real problem with this. I think he should be treated like hes just had an accident and left the scene. HIT and RUN. Isnt that a felony? That is how you remain fair about this, and that is how you punish this guy, which probably would result in his losing his permit, as most of you are in agreement with I believe. That would take this guy off the street with his gun, hit and run, lose your right to carry. I have no problem with that, but not taking it because he HAD and AD, no.
    SSgt Ryan E. Roberts, USMC
  • salzosalzo Member Posts: 6,837
    edited November -1
    ROBSGUNS- Not "all of you guys" disagree with you. I have said quite a few times on this thread that I think it is wrong to take his gun away.You have compared some of the logic offered as fuel for the antis. With all due respect, I think equating any type of gun accident with a motor vehicle accident is adding fuel to the antis. Do not equate the exercising of a guaranteed right with the exercise of a privelage. That is a tactic employed by the ANTIS.Furthermore, I remember that "safety course" thrad quite vividly, and most who posted on it felt madatory safety training should be required before carrying. People who are posting on this thread about requiring the fellow to take a safety course are not being hypocritical, just wrong again.
    Happiness is a warm gun
  • bsebastbsebast Member Posts: 190 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    For us gun enthusiasts it is obviously difficult to set aside our emotions on this subject. We, including me, tend to allow our hearts to override our logic. From a second amendment supporter's and gun enthusiast's viewpoint, I say give the guy a break. Heck, he ought to be able to do whatever he wishes. But from the viewpoint of the responsible person in public service, who's job it is to make a decision based on the information available, I still say I wouldn't give his permit back.It's a black or white issue...but in this case, black and white is replaced with competent and incompetent. The question to be dealt with has nothing to do with rights, but rather: is this guy competent or incompetent in handling a firearm. Unfortunately, the information that has come to my desk indicates only incompetence. And since I have nothing else to go on, I have no choice but to keep his permit.If this thread does nothing else, maybe it will help us realize what might happen to us CHL holders if we screw up.
  • VarmintmistVarmintmist Member Posts: 1,074 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    RobsgunsI said IF the law is written in such a way that he could lose the CCW for this kind of thing, then poof its gone.BTWA moron who causes a accident in a POV should have greivous * harm done to him. You drive while intoxicated and cause a accident in which others are killed, 20 years mandatory min. He/she made the choice to drink/smoke/snort the brain away, that will give em a chance to dry out.
  • varmit huntervarmit hunter Member Posts: 1,674 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    How many cars on the road are unsafe.After a woman killed my mother,Because of her unsafe driving,They did not take away her licence.Yes this man needs retraned,But 40% of the people I see on the highway need retrained daily.The people in the mall were probley in more danger driving home than they were from this guy,He only had one shot left.
    A unarmed man is a subject.A armed man is a citizen.
  • robsgunsrobsguns Member Posts: 5,031
    edited November -1
    salzo, bsebeast,I fully realize that all my comments did not apply to all, no intent to offend those that they did not apply to was meant or implyed. Sorry if anyone took offense when I used the phrase 'all of you guys'. My major point though about the auto. comparison, is that we should not treat one of our own worse than a non shooter would treat a fellow motorist, who has had an accident, in order to set a standard. An accident is an accident, in other words, no matter what it is with. For example, I dont believe that there should be so many malpractice law suits against doctors, that have had a one time accident, no one is perfect. If people would take a second and look up accident in the dictionary, it will make you wonder why so many people are held accountable for a true accident, its not their fault. Each accident is diff. I know, case by case though, thats what is right, and just. As far as the safety course goes, maybe this is a good example of why one should be required, though I dont like the idea, people like this are why it MAY be a good idea, hell I'd hate to be the one to say its not required, which I did, and then have my daughter shot by this idiot, because he didnt know how to safely handle his gun. Its all subject to opinion, and what your inerpretation of the 2nd amendment allows, I suppose. For the record, I say keep the permit and dont give it back either, but thats just my opinion.
    SSgt Ryan E. Roberts, USMC
  • LowriderLowrider Member Posts: 6,587
    edited November -1
    What about incompetent elderly drivers? Every bit as dangerous as drunks.Lock them up too?A lot of people are playing judge and jury on this hapless dude in the mall. Is he stupid? Probably. Should his concealed weapons permit be taken away? Not if the law doesn't specifically address this kind of infraction. And even if it does I'm not sure I'd agree with that law.If, as many of you think, this guy should lose his rights to carry because he's stupid or incompetent, then so too should any law enforcement officer involved in an unjustified or accidental shooting. The thread currently running on this board about the R.I. swat team sniper who killed his supervisor with an "unloaded" weapon is a classic example. If the mall idiot had wounded or killed somebody with his "accidental discharge", the same folks here who are calling for revocation of his concealed permit would be calling for him to be locked up. I didn't, however, see anyone calling for the "accidental" swat team shooter to be thrown in the slammer.
    Lord Lowrider the LoquaciousMember:Secret Select Society of Suave Stylish Smoking Jackets She was only a fisherman's daughter,But when she saw my rod she reeled.
  • robsgunsrobsguns Member Posts: 5,031
    edited November -1
    No sir, elderly drivers that are incompetent should have their driving priveleges suspended, just as my grandmother had hers taken, BY THE FAMILY, when she rear ended another vehicle on the highway, at about 50mph, without even touching her brakes. It was for the safety of all, her and other motorists. The same could be said of a permit holder that clearly does not demonstrate safe weapons handling, even if at one time he or she passed a safety test. This is what I mean, fair treatment for all, that is why I use the motorist example so much, its the number one killer in America, but the media doesnt seem to like calling for an immediate recall of all vehicles. You know how they were slamming truck drivers a while back with how they are poorly trained and all? Bull$h!t. POVs cause more deaths than anything else I can think of. I guarantee you there are 50 motorists or pedestrians killed by an auto in every state each year. Thats 2500 deaths a year, and I know its more than that. You think the government is going to call for an..... oh forget it, way off topic.
    SSgt Ryan E. Roberts, USMC
  • dheffleydheffley Member Posts: 25,000
    edited November -1
    He didn't take full "care and consideration" of his firearm. It's just an accident, but it shows carelessness. When I'm carrying, I fully conscience of where my weapon is and what is around it. If he were more consciece of his surroundings, this would not have happened. Bad choice of guns, holsters, and carrying. Suspended for 180 days pending repeating the training.
    Save, research, then buy the best.Join the NRA, NOW!Teach them young, teach them safe, teach them forever, but most of all, teach them to VOTE!
  • mudgemudge Member Posts: 4,551
    edited November -1
    The guy keeps his permit! BUT...The state police should tell him to get rid of that POS Derringer he's carrying. Maybe his instructor didn't know what he was planning to carry. My "instructor" is a personal friend and I know him well enough to know that if this guy showed up for the course with a Derringer, he would have been told to "take a hike". He asks what kind of handgun each attendee will be carrying.The way I read the story was that he had just finished eating and the holster snagged on the chair. I can only assume from that description that he was in the act of getting up from the table. I've had my holster snag on some chairs. Nothing ever came of it because I realized what was happening and stopped to clear it. My holster has enough retention capability that I could stand on my head and the gun wouldn't fall out though.As far as him walking away. How would you feel if the same thing happened to you? Don't tell me you wouldn't be just a wee bit "traumatized" by the experience and maybe not thinking too clearly. The police may have simply gotten to him before it occured to him what the proper thing to do was. Maybe if they'd been a few minutes later, he'd have realized that he should have reacted in a more responsible way. Bsebast....gotta' take issue on one thing you said. "What if this guy has another AD and injures someone?" How about this scenario: Take away this guy's permit. He and his family are out at a movie and while they're walking back to the car, some "goblin" pulls a holdup. This guy can no longer defend himself and/or his family with the gun he SHOULD have been allowed to carry.Which scenario is worse? Yours or mine?Like you told John Carr....YOU have to make the decision. One or the other."'tis a puzzlement".Mudge the forgiving
    I can't come to work today. The voices said, STAY HOME AND CLEAN THE GUNS![This message has been edited by mudge (edited 12-31-2001).]
  • bsebastbsebast Member Posts: 190 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    mudge-- You made a good point I had not considered. It is a tough decision. But after further reflection, I still think the safest course is to withhold the permit. I'll admit, there is a lot about it that isn't right and fair, but it would be more unfair to everyone else in the community, like you, your wife, and children, for me to put him back on the street with a gun.I think the best course for society would be for him to take it to court. Let society, represented by a jury of his piers, make the decision.
  • robsgunsrobsguns Member Posts: 5,031
    edited November -1
    Question, how does this get a fair trial when a jury of his peers most likely will have a majority against guns in the first place? Couple that with a lack of common sense, much like the man on trial, and hes doomed. Can it be that hes getting a fair trial since the jury lacks the common sense, just as he did?
    SSgt Ryan E. Roberts, USMC
  • salzosalzo Member Posts: 6,837
    edited November -1
    I cant helpbut think about the jury in New York who thought that gun manufacturers were liable for costs associated with crime. I cant help but think about the jury that felt Bernard Getz was liable for the damage he caused his attackers. And I cant help but think of the juries that award settlements to people who smoke, and then want the tobacco companies to pay for his choices in life.If he did not break a law, you cannot take his gun away.Leaving it up to a jury to decide whether or not this guy should be allowed to exercise his right, is worse than leaving it up to the state troopers to decide whether or not this guy should be allowed to exercise a right.There is something seriously wrong with a system that does not rely on laws, but instead relies on the opinions of police or the citizens. That is what voting is for.
    Happiness is a warm gun
  • 7mm_ultra_mag_is_king7mm_ultra_mag_is_king Member Posts: 676 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I agree with the suspension and Rob makes some very good points. Should we gang up on him like this? We should stand up for him. Sure he made a mistake, show him the mistake and suspend his permit for a while and require some training. Rob as far as the trucks, I can give you some info that would scare the crap out of you with some of the "pro's" out there. Just look at what has been happening in FL and IL.
    when all else fails........................
Sign In or Register to comment.