PaciFIST Firearms, LLC

Concealed Handgun Permit Training in the Baton Rouge Area

Defensive Shooting in Baton Rouge – April 1, 2018

An armed robber was shot to death in Baton Rouge last weekend by an armed citizen after he attempted to rob the victim in front of a convenience store.

Link to story

According to the news report, the robber was standing outside of the convenience store and asked the victim/defender for money. The victim said that he would give him some change on the way out of the store, which he did. Even after giving him some money, the robber decided that it was not enough. He pulled a gun and demanded more. The victim defended himself, drew his own pistol, and killed the robber.

Fortunately for the victim, the scene was captured on the store’s surveillance camera, which appears to be enough for police to believe that he acted in self-defense.

This sort of scenario is, unfortunately, all to common. I’m sure everyone has, at one point or another, been approached at a gas station or convenience store and asked for money. It happens to me all the time, and as a concealed carrier, it is one of the most frightening situations. While I have never been robbed, this story makes clear that this is always a possibility, and it is always a concern of mine when approached under similar circumstances. What makes it extra frightening for a concealed carrier is how quickly it can go from innocent to deadly, and how quickly you may be forced to make a life-or-death decision. You can’t pull a gun on someone simply for asking you for money. You are often boxed in between your car and the pump, and they can maneuver themselves to prevent your escape. Essentially, there are many such encounters where, no matter how aware you are of the situation, you simply cannot prevent a possible attacker from having the upper hand. This is precisely why criminals often choose these tactics. You can’t know if drawing your gun is justifiable until after a gun has been drawn on you, and you may have very limited options for escape.

In this case, even though the defender had to draw on a drawn gun, he was still able to defend himself successfully. However, it could very easily go the other way, so think very hard about that decision. If you choose to draw against someone who already has you at gunpoint, make sure to utilize movement and cover to the best of your ability – a moving target is harder to hit, and running and drawing are not mutually exclusive – they can be done together.

Finally, avoidance is important. However, as I stated before, I have not been able to avoid parking lot beggars many times, despite my best efforts. Sometimes you just have to go somewhere. Sometimes they aren’t there until you are leaving. In larger parking lots, there are many places to hide. If you drive up to a store and see a suspicious person in the parking lot, maybe the best plan is to keep driving and try the next store. But what if they appear after you’re in the store? You can’t just stay in the store forever, waiting to see if they leave. Calling the police may be an option, but most of the time a suspicious looking person is not actually suspicious and is not doing anything wrong. There are just so many reasons that total avoidance of this scenario is simply not practical.

Even so, it is important to make your best effort to both stay aware and stay collected. You don’t want to get ambushed at the gas pump or coming out of a store, but you also don’t want to be so afraid that you pull a gun on anyone who walks by and end up committing a crime yourself. Try your best to go to safer, well-lit stores and parking lots, and try to go when there are plenty of other customers around. However, unless you shut yourself inside forever, there is no guarantee that all of these situations can be avoided. So far, I’ve had a 100% success rate in dealing with these situations by simply telling people that I don’t carry cash. However, because I do carry a gun, it is important that I make my best effort to ensure that, if I have to use it, that I do so as responsibly and effectively as possible.


The Joe McKnight Road Rage Shooting Verdict

Yesterday, a Jefferson Parish Jury reached a verdict in this highly publicized case, sentencing the shooter to 30 years in prison for manslaughter. Take a moment to read this article.

I believe that the court reached the correct result in this case under our laws, at least based on the information I have. I have only read the news articles. I have not pulled the court records or anything. It will be interesting to see if this is appealed and reported as caselaw, in which case it may be very useful indeed.

But for the time being, here is what I believe happened, legally speaking. For the purposes of this discussion, I am assuming that the law was applied properly, and that neither the judge nor the attorneys made a grievous error of any kind.

As you can see from the article, “the trial showed [defendant Gasser] passed up many opportunities to defuse the situation by pulling off the road, calling 911 or even rolling up his car window.” This may, of course, cause one with any familiarity with Louisiana self-defense laws to ask: “but wait, I thought we had no duty to retreat!”

It does seem like the court imposed a duty to retreat on Gasser in determining whether or not he held the reasonable fear for his life that would justify a homicide. But why? After all, the justifiable homicide statute says, among other things, that “no finder of fact shall be permitted to consider the possibility of retreat as a factor in determining whether or not the person who used deadly force had a reasonable belief that deadly force was reasonable and apparently necessary to prevent a violent or forcible felony involving life or great bodily harm or to prevent the unlawful entry.”

I believe it is the previous statement in that same statute that decided this case against Gasser (or, if it did not, could have anyway, which is what matters for the purposes of this discussion): “A person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and who is in a place where he or she has a right to be shall have no duty to retreat before using deadly force as provided for in this Section, and may stand his or her ground and meet force with force.”

I think this “engaged in unlawful activity” language likely vitiated Gasser’s “no duty to retreat” protections. Gasser apparently made a statement to police that he became irritated and set off after McKnight and they continued a “tit-for-tat” argument arguing as they drove. So it seems like Gasser, in engaging in a rolling car chase argument, was probably doing at least something unlawful during the course of the encounter. This was likely enough to remove his protections under the statute and allow the jury to consider his opportunities to retreat, which were many, in determining whether or not he held a reasonable fear. Being allowed to consider those facts probably made all the difference, as someone who truly feels threatened would take an easy opportunity to escape if presented with one, or would call the police.

I don’t think that a determination of who was the aggressor made the difference here, despite how much it was talked about in previous news articles, though it may have. I base this pretty much solely on the fact that they don’t mention it in this article with specificity, and don’t seem to discuss the law or trial in a way that would necessarily be consistent with the outcome relying on that determination. But, for the sake of this article, let’s run through some analysis of how it could have come into play. In Louisiana, the aggressor cannot claim self-defense at all unless he withdraws from the conflict in good faith and in such a manner that his adversary knows or should know that he desires to withdraw and discontinue the conflict. In this article, they were discussing whether or not his fear was reasonable, not whether he had the right to self-defense whatsoever, leading me to believe this was not the core issue.

However, it could have been important. The jury may have been considering his duty to retreat in terms of trying to decide if he was the aggressor or not. Had they found him to be the aggressor at any point, they would have to determine whether or not he had, prior to the shooting, withdrawn from the conflict in good faith and in such a manner that his adversary knows or should know that he desires to withdraw and discontinue the conflict. This requirement of withdrawal from the conflict is, essentially, a duty to retreat. As I state in my classes, an aggressor does have a duty to retreat (withdraw) before he can claim self-defense.

So again, whether or not you look at it as “unlawful activity” or Gasser’s status as the aggressor that provided a duty to retreat, it seems like the court got this one right. It is a great example of why I call my operation “PaciFIST Firearms” and why I have my PaciFIST Principles. Even if the law does not impose a duty to retreat on you, if retreat is the better option (as it seemed to be in this case) retreat is a good idea. Even if McKnight started the altercation, this result goes to show you why taking the bait and choosing to engage further in an altercation, even if you didn’t “start it,” is never a good idea.

Piece be with you,

Everett C. Baudean

PaciFIST Firearms LLC


Concealed Carry Insurance

Concealed Carry Insurance is a topic that gets discussed in concealed carry circles and online quite a lot. A lot of this discussion focuses on whether or not it is worth the money, necessary at all, or just some kind of scam. The opinions vary considerably, with the general consensus seeming to be “it doesn’t hurt to have it.” Some “entry level” plans can be as low as around $10 a month, with prices going up to around $30-$40 a month for a higher level of coverage. Recently, the NRA announced that it is entering the concealed carry insurance market, which is what prompted me to write this article, as all indications are pointing toward this sort of insurance becoming more and more mainstream.

As a practicing attorney, though, it is another interdisciplinary topic for me. I’m familiar with the costs of litigation, the potential criminal and civil liability, and in dealing with insurance companies generally. So I’ve usually got something to add to the frequent conversations about concealed carry insurance coverage, and I would be remiss not to repeat my recommendations on my own blog. 

Whenever someone asks whether or not they should get concealed carry insurance, I always ask them this: How much uninsured motorist (UM) coverage do you carry? This might seem like a completely unrelated issue, but stick with me for a minute. I work on a lot of plaintiff personal injury cases and I constantly run in to the same problem – the client is hurt in a car wreck, and the person who hit them has little to no insurance. Then we find out that the client also has a little to no UM coverage (the insurance companies often try to convince you to waive the coverage to save on your premium, and many people don’t realize how terrible of an idea this is). So client is hurt, and can’t get any money. Sucks to be them, and sucks to be me, because I can’t make any money on the case, either.

This happens all the time, every day. A huge number of drivers out there, if not the majority, carry no more than state minimum coverage. Chances are, the person most likely to be driving irresponsibly and causing a wreck is also pretty irresponsible about having a lot of insurance coverage, or any worthwhile assets to even bother suing over. On the other hand, the only insurance you can guarantee is available to you if you are hurt in an accident is your UM coverage.

Here are some stats:

On an average, there are more than 6 million car accidents on the roads of the US, annually.

More than 3 million people get injured due to car accidents, with more than 2 million of these injuries being permanent.

There are in excess of 40,000 deaths due to car accidents every year.

Every 12 minutes, one person dies because of a car accident. Every 14 seconds, a car accident results in an injured victim.

For those in the age group of 1 to 30 years, the leading cause of death is due to being involved in a car accident.

By car insurance industry estimates, you will file a claim for a collision about once every 17.9 years. That’s if you’re an average driver, which, whether you’re willing to admit it or not, you likely are.

The point is, you will almost certainly be in a car accident in your life, perhaps several. You also stand a very substantial chance of being injured very seriously. This can be extremely expensive (follow up question – how much health insurance do you have?) and permanently debilitating.

But here are a bunch of people who just started carrying a gun, worried about the super rare occasion of facing prosecution for shooting someone, and willing to pay money to insure against that, though they probably haven’t given any thought to their UM coverage since buying their policy. They may have even waived UM coverage. I recently found out that my own mother had a state minimum, 15/30 policy. She was paying around $600 (six month premium, I believe) for this. I convinced her to raise her coverage. For a $900 premium, she now has a 300/500 policy. So for a 50% increase in premium, she has a 2000% increase in coverage. That same day, we almost got T-boned by a car going 55 mph. 

Back to concealed carry insurance, I think it is probably a good thing to have. I would generally subscribe to the “it doesn’t hurt” line of reasoning. I’m a fan of insurance generally. But if you’re willing to spend X dollars a year on insurance, you should really be spending it first on insurance you are most likely to use, like UM.

I personally don’t have concealed carry insurance, and wouldn’t bother buying it, until I at least had half a million in UM coverage. Maybe even a million. (I don’t have that level of coverage yet, but a man can dream). The chances of getting in a car wreck with 6 figure medical bills is much more likely than the chances of being prosecuted for shooting someone in self-defense, especially because you can limit your exposure for a defensive shooting with good training. If you make sure you don’t shoot anyone under questionable circumstances, and that your actions are justified, your chances of prosecution or civil liability are very low. 

Concealed Carry insurance policies often also come with an attorney referral service, or the insurer will provide an attorney for you (as your car insurance company would). However, I think it would be much better to go ahead and independently establish a relationship with a criminal defense lawyer. Make sure it is someone you like and can trust before you actually need him. There is no guaranteeing that your lawyer from the concealed carry insurer is any good or cares much about your case. There are very few lawyers with a lot of experience in self defense shootings anyway, because such shootings are reasonably rare, and prosecution for them is rarer still. There are a ton of experienced car wreck lawyers, though, because like I said before, car wrecks happen constantly. But a good criminal defense lawyer would be the best person to consult with regarding how to behave after shooting someone, and it is generally a good idea to have a relationship with one anyway. When you’ve been arrested and you’re asserting your right to an attorney, you at least want to know who that is. You don’t want to have to go shopping around for lawyers while you’ve got pending charges. You won’t be in the best state of mind at that point. So pick a lawyer, maybe have a meeting with him, which should only be a fairly small consultation fee, about how to act if you shoot someone. Keep his number in your phone, so you know who to call.

If you’ve done all these things, you have great uninsured motorist coverage, and you already know who your criminal lawyer is, by all means, buy concealed carry insurance if you want it. After all, the monthly premiums start at about the same price as a single box of ammo.