[Gary Slider]

Constitutional Carry is the words people have used to describe places where a permit/license to carry a firearm is not required by the state. Mas is only saying that if you were involved in a shooting and took the stand and stated I was carrying under "Constitutional Carry" that it would open up a can of worms and the Prosecutor could ask you questions about that. Questions that the JURY could take in different ways.

Just like the debate on carrying Handloads. Many will say it doesn't matter and it shouldn't matter but it opens a can of worms if you are involved in a defensive shooting. Years back a Prosecuting Attorney of the County I held NRA Classes in did the law part. He was a shooter and a reloader. Very Pro Gun. He told the class if you used handloads it just opened up a line of questioning that you really didn't want to get into. First he explained that he would do everything he could to get people on the Jury who knew very little or nothing about firearms. Just what they have seen on TV. Then he would study your rounds you carried. Finding out what bullet, and powder you used. He used the example that you used 5.0 grains of X powder. The load for that cartridge was 4.6 to 5.4 min to max. Then he stated he would ask why you used 5.0 and not 4.6. You could explain that but remember the Jury most likely knows very little or nothing about firearms and ammunition. Then he used the phrase that he would want the Jury to hear. Did you use 5.0 and not 4.6 grains of powder so you could kill them deader? It really didn't matter but the Jury who again in most instances knows very little about firearms heard that. That is the prosecutors job to sway the jury to find you guilty. Words have meaning and what the jury hears will sway them one way or the other. There are other reasons not to carry hand loads but I won't get into them here.

A good shooting is a good shooting and it shouldn't matter what cartridge you use but THAT IS NOT THE WAY THE SYSTEM WORKS. That is what Mas is saying about Constitutional Carry. It just opens up the prosecution a line of questions that most people who don't know much about firearms will hear and it will only let the jury hear things they didn't need to hear which could hurt your case. So why use it if it can be used to hurt you?

Mas has been there and done that in many trials. He has seen what the Prosecution can do and how words have meaning and how words can get twisted. Most of us have not seen that.

That is why when I took LFI-I in 1995 (Now called MAG-40) and LFI-II in 1998 (Now called MAG-80) We typed up our class notes and mailed them Certified and Registered Mail to ourselves. They were stamped dated by the USPS and we didn't open them. Mine is in my Safety Deposit Box. If I am involved in a shooting and the prosecution brings up my training those notes will come out and be opened in court. Then we can put the Jury who most likely knows little about firearms through a mini LFI class right there in the Court room. We can educate the Jury and that can only help us. We do things now to help us if in the future if we have to use our firearm to defend our lives. Same with using Constitutional Carry. Nothing really wrong with that wording but if we use it we can give the prosecution ammo to shoot back at us. It all boils down to, do we don't want to give more ammunition to those who are trying to hurt us?

Mas is not telling you that "You can't use that phrase." He is telling you that it can cause you problems down the road so why use it. You will have enough problems if you are on trial for a defensive shooting.