The Concealed Carry Creed
The Concealed Carry Creed
My weapon is for the protection of my life and the lives of others. That is its sole purpose. It does not confer rights, responsibilities or authority greater than that of other citizens. It merely allows me to protect life.
I will seek never to have to use my weapon. If I can avoid conflict, I will. If I can resolve conflict, I will. If I can escape danger, I will. If I am forced to bring my weapon to bear and use it, I will.
I will acquire superior training with my weapon. It is not the weapon that saves lives, but my effective use of the weapon. I will ensure my training is sound, my knowledge is current, and my mind is prepared.
I will know, understand, and obey all laws and ordinances concerning my weapon no matter where I happen to be. Failure to do so harms all who seek to legally carry an effective means of self protection.
I will know and follow the Four Rules of safe gun handling. I am a member of a growing community that must foster and teach safe and responsible gun handling if the community is to survive.
I wrote this last night as I was biking. I thought it was time the gestalt of concealed carry was summarized to teach those new to it. I wanted to give something that could be memorized, learned and practiced, a creed that would be universal across states for concealed carriers everywhere.
Feel free to reprint and use this creed as you deem fit.
If you feel the need, provide a link or insert © Xavier 2008 Used by permission at the bottom.
Labels: CCW
posted by Xavier at 9:43 PM
33 Comments:
Very, very well said.
Writing and biking at the same time? Don't they warn against that in driver's ed?
In all seriousness though, this is a very useful manifesto, just the kind of thing to give to someone thinking about getting a gun for self defense.
That is an amazing piece of writing! I'll be putting this on my blog, too!
BEAUTIFULLY WRITTEN!
Eloquently summarized!
My buddy and I are starting up a CCW training business. I think we will make this a part of our class materials.
I'd be honored Joe.
Posted over on GBW blog. Very well done. I know you don't mind it being used, but the use of a copyright statement giving attribution would be in order for anyone using it.
I live in a state where concealed carry licenses can and will be restricted by the police who issue them. This means that most people can only carry concealed while target shooting/hunting. Even after all requirements have been completed and after a LTC has been obtained.
"I will know, understand, and obey all laws and ordinances concerning my weapon no matter where I happen to be.
I don't agree with this for that reason. Self defense is a human right and a constitutional right. No one should restrict that.
-Jeff from socialist Massachusetts
Howdy, Xavier. I read your blog regularly. I have quoted you on my "mousegun tactics" page....
http://www.mouseguns.com/tactics/seltac.htm
Thanks for your good contribution to the "gun culture."
Marshall at www.mouseguns.com
Outstanding!
Thanks, Xavier. You have distilled it down to its essence. Brilliant! I guess I need to start memorizing, now...
I LIKE it!
It's going on my blog right now!
Aggie, Class of '70
An Anglican Firearms "Enthusiast"
Thanks for this. It is a Good Stuff. Here's hoping we all memorize it like some of us did the "This is My Rifle" litany back in the day.
I like it a lot, Xavier, but can't follow it. With respect, the problem is in the penultimate section. Sometimes I willingly break the law. If I attend a fuction at my old college, for instance, I'm armed--illegaly. Until the law is changed, I have no choice but to break the law. Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.
Budd and Jeff,
I understand what you are saying. Until such a time that all U.S. citizens are free to carry concealed without licensure, I can not advocate breaking the law. I will not write a creed that advocates breaking the law, even if I disagree with it..
Doing so only provides more fodder for the anti-gun gang to paint us as loose cannons and crminal types.
Does that mean I agree with the law? No. It means I do not advocate breaking the law, but rather working to have the laws changed or abolished.
Overall, excellent.
One change I would make. Change the last sentence of the first paragraph to read, "It merely improves my ability to protect life."
Protecting life whilst unarmed is always possible, but it is generally much more difficult.
Quite understood. It would be beyond irresponsible for you to advocate such a thing--as you say, it would hurt our cause. Merely pointing out that some of us aren't going to the back of the bus (and damn it, don't somebody jump on me for the comparison--it's at least partly a joke!).
Xavier,
Thank you for your continued service. This is simply excellent.
I hate to make recommendations, because this is so good. I would add only one thing - a statement along the lines of avoiding any substance or activity that will affect your judgment while armed.
The few anecdotes I have heard personally of those who abuse their CCW privileges involve, more often than not, the bottle or even unexpected responses to prescription medication. I think it goes without saying that, if you have a weapon on you, you must have your wits about you as well, and not do or take anything that would affect that.
I realize that this is likely covered under the statements "mind is prepared" and "obey all laws", and I am sure you had that in mind when writing this. I don't know if any addition to this is necessary.
I hate it when people tell me, "it's good, but". This is amazing work as it is. My recommendation is based on my own experience, and your mileage may vary.
NTP,
There are a couple of items, namely alcohol and brandishing, that I allowed to be covered by the "following the law" portion. The many differences of law and tolerance made that imperative to keep the creed universal.
Nice one Xavier. I'd like to add that on my blog. Well written and to the point.
Feel free DT.
I'm a little late to the party but wanted to offer this critique of this passage:
"My weapon is for the protection of my life and the lives of others. That is its sole purpose. It does not confer rights, responsibilities or authority greater than that of other citizens. It merely allows me to protect life."
Actually, carrying concealed DOES force one to carry added responsibility above and beyond the disarmed citizen.
I would make the following amendment, also incorporating Heartless Libertarian's suggestion:
"My weapon is for the protection of my life and the lives of others. That is its sole purpose. It does not confer rights, or authority greater than that of other citizens, only greater responsibility. It merely improves my ability to protect life."
The person who carries concealed must be exemplary in their conduct, as the rest of the creed implies, and that does imply greater responsibility. I apologize if I'm seeming anal retentive here, but your original text just bugs me at a logical level.
Perhaps you are right JJR, it could be mistread. The responsibilities I am speaking of is the "hero" responsibility some new carriers feel. The puffed chest feeling that they must madly rush and gunman who attempts to harm another person. a CCW does not give one this responsibility.
We all have the responsibility to conduct ourselves as gentlemen, whether armed or not. The person who fails to do so will not be swayed by anyone's attempts at convincing them otherwise.
My reply as seen at quidni quo pro where i first saw the creed. Substitute Xavier for 'the author'. No offense meant by not addressing you by name, just wrote it that way at quidni pro quo when I did not at first realize who was the author.
"As a legitimate and legal gun owner, I have to say there is an awful lot in that 'creed' with which I disagree. This sort of disagreement usually arises whenever anyone says this is the way it must be, and the only way it must be - just like it is said in that piece.
For instance, my weapon is not only for the protection of life. if that were the case it would only ever be used defensively. My weapon could also conceivably be used not only to protect life, but to ensure the continuance of the United States of America and her Constitution.
I will not seek ‘never to have to use my weapon’; instead I will practice with it often in the event I ever need rely upon it. If I were to seek never to use it, I would put it in a drawer and lock it away, or I would surrender it to my enemy. I would indeed seek to use it as I find myself morally, logically, and justifiably able to do so - otherwise why bother having it. I will not be "forced" to use my weapon as would the author of the 'creed' I would choose to use it when I deem necessary.
In preparing myself to use my weapon, I will not as would the author of the 'creed' acquire superior training; however I will train with it to make myself thoroughly familiar and proficient with it in various situations. To believe that any training I receive, or any practice I perform is superior leaves me open to failure because I have unwisely underestimated the ability of my assailant.
I will never be able to know, and understand all laws regarding the possession and use of firearms, or anything else for that matter. The legislators who enact laws, the executive branch who enforces them, and the judicial branch who interprets them are constantly at odds with one another over the meaning of laws, and all three are at odds with the People over the same, so how is it that anyone can believe that we can be expected to know it all.
On the other hand, I will make every effort in good conscience to obey laws about firearms, until those laws violate the Constitution of The United States of America. When that violation is blatant, and it results in the harm to fellow good citizens, and oppression of our rights to an extreme degree, I will do all within my power to uphold the Constitution of this great land. if that includes violating unjust, oppressive and tyrannical laws to achieve preservation of the Constitution, well then, so be it. Failure to do so means the end of liberty and justice, and the demise of a nation.
I will go far beyond the so called '4 Rules of Safe gun Handling' if only because they are a poorly abbreviated version of the Rules of Firearms Safety that were taught for many, many years before someone well versed in firearms decided to shorten them to help sell his name and his book. Yes he knew a lot about shooting, but Colonel Jeff Cooper was a fool if he believed those 4 rules were what it took to handle a firearm safely. I don' t believe that is what he thought, but I do believe it helped him sell himself and his book, and maybe that made him much worse than a fool in this regard, and I say that without attempting to detract from giving him his due relative to his other knowledge about firearms and his ability to use them. (edited a bit from the original to show I defer to the man and his experience on many things related to firearms, but just certainly not the 4 rules)
The above is not my creed, I have no creed when it comes to firearms usage. Life with all its twists and turns cause circumstances to change from day to day, and I tend to be flexible when it comes to my practical applications of anything. That includes my use of firearms. There is always something else to learn, maybe something to discard that you have already learned.
Of course if I were to have a creed, it might go something like:
I, Glenn Bartley, do solemnly affirm that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.
And you can bet I would be willing to use a gun to get the job done within the framework of just and moral legal system.
This may seem like semantics to some of you who read this. I think not. I think there is a definite difference between myself and the author of that creed, a basic difference in our philosophies when it comes down to the nitty gritty of it all. Not a vast difference mind you, but an essential one. Maybe I am wrong, maybe we are more alike than I imagine, and it is just the way of saying things that differs. Regardless of which, I am pretty sure our philosophies do not differ that much that we would not both strive for morality, justice, and the right way of being a responsible gun owner. For that, despite any differences, I tip my proverbial hat to the author of the Concealed Carry Creed.
By the way, I did not give my reply in order to offend the author of the creed; but rather to intelligently promote discussion about it, and to make others and maybe even the author himself realize there are a lot of other ways to look at legitimate firearms ownership. In that regard, I suppose my intent was also maybe even to get others tho think about whether or not creeds are probably much to narrow in scope to be applied to such a topic as carrying, or use of, firearms."
All the best,
Glenn B
Glenn,
This is my creed. There is no expectation that you comply with it simply because you carry a concealed firearm. If you think it's useful, use it. If you think it's not, dismiss it.
Feel free to disagree. I am not saying "this is the way it must be, and the only way it must be." I am not sure where you got that idea, but those are your exact words.
The rest of your comment seems to be based on your mistaken belief that I wish to impose this creed on all who carry. I do not.
Live your life and carry your gun however you desire. I have no wish to impose my beliefs on you. Do not impose your beliefs on me.
Treat me with benign neglect.
Glenn,
An oath and a creed are not the same.
Oath: a solemn appeal to a deity, or to some revered person or thing, to witness one's determination to speak the truth, to keep a promise, etc.: to testify upon oath.
Creed: any system, doctrine, or formula of religious belief, as of a denomination.
Xaveir wrote a creed. It is a formula of belief. We can accept it or not.
You wrote an oath. You want to force people to act your way. Defend the United States? Are you smoking crack? You think you can do that with your gun? A CCW is not a political office Glenn.
You sound like a washed up academic who wants to look smarter than anyone else. You're not.
make that you copied an oath Glenn.
Mr. Anonymous,
Washed up academic? That's actually kind of funny if you know Glenn.
Xavier,
Have I not treated you with respect, why would you mention to me that I should.
I replied like others. Is it because I did not agree you metion the respect thing? Man I am scratching my head over that one.
By the way, you called it The Concealed carry creed - you did not call it Xavier's crered of concealed Carry There is a difference, and therefore I gave my opinion that indeed it does seem you weant it to be everyone's creed who carries a concealed firearm. Thats is it plain and simple. There was never any disrespect intended, implied, or hinted. Rather, thjere was a good deal of respect in that I would bother to discuss your creed to the extent that I did in a civil and courteous manner.
All the best,
Glenn B
All the best,
Glenn B
As to the anonymous comments about the oath, so what if I copied it. It is one to which I have sworn; and which I have lived as a creed throughout my last 29 years. By the way, I never once claimed authorship - if anyone was foolish enough to imply such they must beleive others are truly morons in that others do not know the federal oath of office when they see it. I give people some credit in that they would know such.
As for it not being a creed, you are mistaken, and oath can indeed be a creed, think about that and you will realize how such could be the case. If you do not understand then reread my first comment with this thought in mind and maybe it will make itself clear.
All the best,
Glenn B
It was never my intent to belittle your creed, nor opinion, nor to insult you in any manner. If there was a perceived insult within my words, please allow me to assure you and the your readers, that such was totally unintentional on my part. I wrote what I did as a discussion of your piece, and as an expression of my opinion about carrying of firearms, and I would hope it is viewed as nothing more that that. For any insult that was taken, or if my blog somehow conveyed to anyone that I was being disrespectful, I do sincerely apologize.
All the best,
Glenn B
Glenn,
I don't think I said or implied anything about respect.
I did not call the creed I penned "Xavier's Concealed Carry Creed" because I wanted anyone to feel free to use it if they wished. It's free for the taking. A reader recommended that I take credit for it, thus my pseudonym at the bottom. I wasn't even planning to do that.
I've ran this piece by instructors and friends while refining it into what it presently reads. I implemented suggestions and held firm on a couple of points. I have published it, and I have no intention of altering it at this point.
No insult is taken Glenn. I am mature enough to understand that not everyone will agree with what I write or say. I appreciate your comments. You do not have to use the creed I wrote if you feel it does not meet your needs.
Worded perfectly its going on my blog!!!
I actually disagree with one aspect of this.
In certain very rare situations, I might have to make a choice between backing down and allowing a serious civil rights violation, or walking away to make sure nobody died.
If faced with that class of situation, I will not back down.
The best-known example happened in Athens TN in 1946 - do a video search in google for "battle of athens".
Your post suggests "nothing is worthy dying over" and I have to respectfully disagree.
Jim March
- Member of the Board of Directors, http://blackboxvoting.org
- Treasurer, Pima County (AZ) Libertarian Party
- Member of the Board, Southern Arizona chapter, ACLU
Post a Comment
<< Home