When you say exception, in the law? If so that is great.
But people make choices. They decide to go around unarmed. They think the world is marshmallows and cream. Their irrational desire to believe nothing bad could ever happen to them is what they want to believe, and so they go around unarmed and without a mentality that would help them get through a bad situation.
I mean government would love for all of us to think and act this way, they could always be a hero, or at least, a shoulder to cry on while they take a loved one’s body out of the chalk outline and onto a stretcher.
If people weren’t so litigious and ready to sue someone who could potentially come to their aid, or had a DA that would prosecute them because they’re anti-gun for citizens, or want to make an example out of you for your vigilantist behavior, I think a lot more people would be willing to consider doing it.
But the bottom line is we are not trained to be officers, we are coming into situations already in progress and we have literally no idea of why what’s occurring is occurring. For all we know the bad person is the one that is currently “losing”. And if we make that mistake and get involved we have NO PROTECTION at all.
You know the mentality of judges is terrible. “I can understand your reaction, but I can’t agree with what you did, you are not an officer and you put others at risk not fully knowing what is going on....” I mean look at the people who are just travelling through an area and go to jail because of technicalities like magazine capacity.
It’s going to be a bad enough ordeal to keep your 2A rights if you have to defend yourself with a firearm, much less walking into a situation blind. Ask anyone who’s had to defend themselves and hope the DA doesn’t charge them, and then whether the criminal or their living family try to sue you (George Zimmermann comes to mind). And woe if you and the perp are different races and you’re white and male.
this whole country, this whole world, is being turned upside down. I know why. Damned if I’m going to fall into their traps prematurely.
Back in the last surge of gun-controlism in the 1970s, it was already a national debate when a new prosecutor was elected in Maricopa County, AZ. The yapping media went to his first news conference and blurted out the complex question: “What do you do if somebody breaks into your home?”
Without hesitation, the prosecutor succinctly replied, “You shoot the S.O.B!” And this has pretty much been the policy in the entire state ever since. And this was in the 1970s, when the gun-controlists had momentum.
Today in Arizona, wrongful death litigation against a citizen would be for the most part laughed out of court. It is almost exclusively used against LEOs, and then only when the LEO killed a bystander or clearly innocent person.
The two types of criminal gunmen in Arizona are either not from Arizona, either Mexicans or transients; or they are so crazy they don’t care if other people are shooting back at them, like Laughner in Tucson. Even at the political assembly for liberal Democrat Giffords in very blue Tucson, there were several armed people in the audience. He was tackled by a man with a gun while reloading, because it was faster than shooting him.
I like to point out that where there is gun liberty, even the mostly crazy people are more self-controlled, because the little bit of rationality they have left inhibits them when they face a gun, or the prospect of a gun.
My final point is that in Arizona, people are realizing that “every adult person of good character” is a lawman, and that the police are a convenience only, to stop bad problems already underway, to do detective work, and to doggedly pursue known badmen until arrested and put in prison. Basically doing the police work that the public are too busy to do.
The other states, are the other states, with their own rules.