The Main Objective for Using Deadly Force

Will You Remain Lawful If You Use Deadly Force? A 5640 Word Comprehensive Article

Today’s firearms focus: ‘The main objective for using deadly force’ within the context of lawful self-defense.

When a person brings unlawful deadly force against you, your main objective cannot be to kill the attacker, even though they are trying to kill you. Instead, the main objective should be to only use enough deadly force ‘that is necessary to prevent your death or serious bodily harm.’ And this objective reasoning is founded on the moral basis that life by its very nature prohibits an individual from using human freewill to end another’s life which isn’t an active deadly threat to people.

You cannot kill anyone unless that person is in the act of attempting to kill or gravely injury you or others. To do so in any other situation is to commit Murder.

All people have a right to prevent murderers from killing. And Florida Use-of-Force law makes it very clear that “prevent” isn’t synonymous with “killing”. Therefore, when you point a loaded gun at a person actively threatening you with deadly force, your mindset should be to prevent and not to kill. It’s a moral fine line which you must address and implement into your mental and physical self-defense skillsets.

A lawful, law-abiding person does not desire to commit murder when they are forced against their will to prevent the murdering of themselves or others in their company. To prevent the killer from killing without killing them is the ‘only’ objective for the lawful law-abiding conceal carrier.

And I strongly assert that achieving this objective depends mostly on the actions of the murderer and not the actions of the lawful preventer. Ultimately a legal system would make the final determination if the attacker ceased committing the act of murder during your prevention, per the evidence produced in court.

It is therefore imperative that you use only enough deadly force to ‘prevent the attacker’s murderous intent’. Any amount of deadly force more than that subjective fine line of force, is illegal, and will in a majority of cases result in the felony charge of Murder.

To have access to the future FGSD articles please consider subscribing. It takes several hours to write and proofread the article, several times. At $30 a year or $5 a month I believe it’s a great deal which gives you access to both the Highlands Bass Angler and Florida Gun & Self-Defense publications.

If your attacker stops their deadly threat at any time during their assault, you have a legal responsibility to stop using deadly force…but only if it appears to be safely possible. And that again is determined by the attacker’s actions during your preventive response of equal deadly force.

Revenge on the attacker is therefore never an option. Justice is not your right and certainly not your responsibility. If your threat or use of deadly force results in the deadly force attacker abandoning their deadly threat such as for instance, they flee the scene, you must allow their disengagement and departure.

And if per chance, a very slim chance in most cases, that they don’t flee and remain present and voluntarily unarms themselves so that they are no longer a deadly threat, I recommend not trusting the appearance of de-escalation, but instead, remain skeptical and guarded and create greater distance from them and take a position behind cover if available all the while keeping your sights on the potential deadly threat.

Keep the pistol at a high ready position with the point of aim directed toward the midsection of the threat. Assume their seemingly submissive action to be a trick to gain an advantage over you so they could have a chance to use another weapon they have not yet revealed. In these types of instances always assume the worst case scenario is about to occur.

What course of action you take next in this scenario is up to you. There are two choices to make when you successfully cause a killer to pause or stop their deadly act. I will say at the outset that you should call 911 but keeping yourself protected while doing so will be risky. There is also the second choice of allowing the killer to leave the scene and then call 911---I do not recommend an option which excludes calling 911.

However, I would rarely consider option two because criminals who have been stopped by their victim’s defensive deadly force often times go around the corner and call 911 posing as the victim of an attempted armed robbery. They want revenge and will use law enforcement to achieve it. They’ll take their chances with a ‘his word against your word’ situation when law enforcement arrives. And if they called 911 first, they are treated as the victim of a crime.

Therefore, if there are no ‘good witnesses’ present, who you believe would be willing to testify on your behalf, and you allow the attacker to flee, you must be the first one to call 911. So, call while you watch him flee, don’t wait.

And for those of you that believe you can prohibit a killer from fleeing because he’s a danger to society, which he is, let me be perfectly clear, you CANNOT use deadly force to prohibit the escape. And I don’t recommend using non-deadly force to detain the subject. No sense in reentering severe jeopardy either physically or legally. So be sure to quickly call 911 to report the crime before the perp has a chance to be the first caller.

It is this type of situation, of being in this dilemma, which compels me to mount a camera on my self-defense firearm. I want an objective witness to testify. A camera provides this. But to do so, you must know that you are able to remain lawful when under the extreme duress of a deadly encounter. Ultimately the camera footage will show the evidence which determines how law enforcement processes the situation for or against you--- depends on your ability to remain lawful.

In most self-defense deadly force cases, few result in the attacker fleeing or surrendering. Most cases come down to, ‘he who is more proficient with implementing deadly force wins the physical battle’.

Therefore, I have spent countless hours running drills designed to replicate various real life scenarios, which resulted in a much greater ability to tactically use deadly force within a one to two second time frame, and when under extreme duress. And this occurs only when scenarios replicated the exact moment of sudden imminent deadly force jeopardy.

The following is a one of many scenarios I use to train for tactical self-defense.

You have been attacked with lethal force, but you respond by shooting the attacker with three shots to the midsection before he can shoot you. He falls to the floor with his gun still in his hand, but he is not moving. You give verbal commands to let go of the gun but he does not respond.

You decide not to trust him. So, you keep your gun sights on the center mass of his body, while moving out of his line of sight. Your objective is to move to an area of his body so that if he wants to locate you, he must perform the most physical movement possible to find you. So, you move quickly to a position in back of his head, keeping the sights on target (attacker’s head is now closest to you and you’re out of his natural line of sight; positioned above and behind him).

You are now prepared If he moves his head to locate you to warn him to drop the gun and not to move. If he does not comply but instead attempts to get back into the fight by locating you, you will reasonably assume the attack is not over due to his continued threatening action to locate you. At this point it is reasonable to believe the deadly threat is continuing, which legally allows you to fire more rounds until the threat is prevented from further deadly force against you.

At this point the attacker is not moving, and you’re keeping your sights on the subject and checking around you to determine if someone else can call 911. If you determine that you are the only one able to call 911, you wait until you can do so safely. If you can move to a safe place of cover, (impenetrable barrier) you do so while keeping your gun sights on the subject as you reposition. You use one hand to call 911 and use the speaker option on the phone so that you can operate your gun again with two hands as you speak with the 911 operator.

Now I would like to address where to put rounds on the threat’s body.

Watching the videos of recent killer’s in action it is very evident that body armor is being used by murderers more and more—sometimes visible and sometimes not visible. So, it must be assumed that every killer is using this protection. Therefore, pistol rounds will be ineffective in stopping a threat if you aim for center mass. The increased risk element i.e. body armor necessitates a change in where to put effective preventative shots.

The best area of the body, I believe, is in the area just below the body armor i.e. the belt line to low hip midsection of the body—the pelvic girdle.

The main objective is to prevent the threat from completing their deadly act. A few rounds to the lower torso will have a very good chance of taking a leg out of action, or possibly significantly slowing the shooter down enough to allow you to move to a greater position of safety or even to flee the scene and call 911.

Let me be clear, any chance you can create to disengage safely during the deadly force attack should be taken, even though the letter of the law does not require you to do so while the threat could possibly continue. If you flee to safety, call 911 asap. Fleeing the scene of a self-defense shooting should not be the objective of a law-abiding conceal carrier. It implies what is referred to as “Conscientiousness of Guilt” by prosecutors when they analyze your conduct after the fact.

The pelvic girdle area has a descending aorta, the Iliac and femoral arteries, and the pelvic bone. If any of these areas are damaged it will greatly immobilize the shooter or at the very least create a pause in their plan of attacker. If this occurs, it enables you to gain the advantage physically and provide more lawful options.

My preference is to shoot in three-to-five round burst, once or twice, and in just under one to one and a half seconds depending on the situation. Which reasonably means six to ten shots into the mobility-center of the human body. In a majority of cases this tactic will create enough damage to immobilize the attacker quickly and allow enough time to save the person from dying.

It is important to note that the midsection of the human body is the last part of the body to move when the threat begins to respond to your act of armed self-defense. In most cases the attacker begins turning away from your gun but the midsection remains briefly stationary for a half to full second longer.

The odds of rounds hitting their intended mark during that initial one to two seconds are much higher than rounds fired at an upper center mass area which is turning away---results in a position that is sideways and bladed, a much narrower position, which creates a much smaller moving target.

The natural twisting of the upper body happens much sooner and occurs faster than the central hip area of the body. Therefore, aiming at the pelvic area provides you with more time and a larger target area in which to place effective shots which have a much higher percentage of preventing deadly violence.

If a killer can’t move effectively, and has their plan significantly altered due to serious injury, the odds of preventing the act of murder increase significantly in an overwhelming majority of cases. And the killer survives to face the legal system, which is the objective.

Personally, knowing my mindset and skill level and ability, even if the threat is immobilized but still actively attempting to engage me, I can successfully put rounds into the area of the dominate arm-shoulder which is holding the weapon, or if required, above that area into the neck-to-head area in a worst-case situation of a killer undeterred. My objective is to disable the threat’s ability to use their firearm. My last resort is to fire head shots to prevent being murdered which becomes very possible when a disabled immobile deadly threat won’t stop their murderous act.

When the downrange area has a high possibility for collateral damage.

By moving during my self-defense shots, as explained above, I allow myself the time needed to further reason and determine whether or not I should choose one area over another to be the downrange area. Missed shots are a possibility which must be considered and accounted for. All bullets travel and stop somewhere. And as the saying goes, “Every bullet fired, has an aggressive prosecutor and an expensive lawyer attached to it”. Therefore, it is imperative to learn to move tactically to a safe position which provides the best downrange area. The periods of movement and positioning enables this essential determination. Collateral Damage must be considered if the situation allows. Your training should factor this into your mental muscle memory.

Developing the physical ability to accomplish this tactic.

You must practice firing shots on a moving target which is standing, laying, or kneeling on the ground and is active when in those positions. And since most public gun ranges prohibit tactical practice, you will need to dryfire practice with a partner, either at the range if the range management will allow dryfire practice………or when practicing at home.

You must be able to verify your ability to put shots on a moving partner when dry firing. You can achieve this by using a laser mounted on your gun which has been cleared and checked twice that the chamber is empty, or by using a barrel and chamber block system, which when installed prohibits live rounds from being chambered and fired.

And remember, always move as you dry fire, never remain still. Get familiar with the challenge of putting rounds on target no larger than ten inches while moving rapidly in various challenging, threatening, situations and scenarios. Challenge your ability so that you know your inabilities and thus your capabilities. Learning how and when you fail, is the objective for advancing in your tactical abilities.

It is important to understand and address the ‘worst-case scenario.’

Namely that belt area shots into the human body do not always disable the attacker’s ability to keep firing shots…...at you. So, you need to construct your practice sessions to reflect this reality.

The goal is to discover mistakes in your ability to put shots on moving, wounded attackers, who can remain aggressive in the deadly force fight. Again, while moving rapidly. Split second decisions must be made when putting shots on a desperate wounded attacker determined to kill you. You need to know your rate of failure in all aspects of various situations where an attacker is aggressively firing shots from a position on the ground, and rapidly moving jacked up on adrenaline.

Remember the tactical, above-head position which naturally exists in the case of a prone positioned wounded attacker (strategy discussed above). Again, staying positioned in the area past the top of his head and about ten feet away, will force him to adjust at a much greater degree than if positioning yourself anywhere else in relationship to his body and head. If the attacker cannot easily point a gun at you, you have a far greater chance of surviving while making lawful tactical decisions.

This general position area above the head enables small movements within that area; such as moving a few feet left and or right, of the attacker’s head to prohibit his efforts to know where you are. This movement serves to provide a decisive tactical advantage by giving you additional time to decide if you need to take more shots to stop the threat. Again, only use enough shots to stop the threat, and nothing more.

Back to the Beginning: Gaining the advantage over an unexpected violent attack.

When you realize you’re being attacked with deadly force, the key is to auto respond with enough effective force to make the attacker react to your actions, as opposed to ‘reacting’ with the assumed response the attacker was hoping to achieve as part of his plan. It’s extremely important to reverse the ‘action beats reaction paradigm’ into your favor.

Reacting with overwhelming force is the last thing a violent attacker is expecting. They expect some resistance but not overwhelming resistance. You must practice enough to make this tactic automatic when you are most vulnerable, which is almost always in the moment of surprise. Easier said than done. But it can be achieved with consistent practice designed to force mistakes, which is the key to achieving success, force which overwhelms the attacker.

Remember, you’re only as good as the failures you fixed and retested--verified. What failures have you fixed lately? If you’re not failing you can’t succeed. Failures are precious gifts, which act as directional signs which point the way, and in this case, to prevent death and or serious bodily harm.

Learning the Self-Defense Legal Foundation Required By Law Enforcement.

If there comes a time in your life where someone causes you to ‘reasonably believe’ that a threat of great harm or death is about to occur, you must have a foundational understanding of the language of Florida’s self-defense use-of-force law. And from within this understanding of Florida law, you develop a lawful plan as to when and how you’ll use deadly force in lawful self-defense. Every decision and action of deadly force must be a byproduct of a learned legal discipline which in turn will produce evidence of a reasonable lawful mindset when the evidence produced is scrutinized by the legal system.

Florida Statute 776.012 (2) Justification in Using or Threatening to Use Deadly Force.

In Florida self-defense legal claims, the evidence must clearly prove the deadly force attack was unavoidable and that the only way to prevent it was by using deadly force. And most importantly the evidence, when scrutinized, must convince the legal system that anyone in the same situation would have come to the same subjective reasonable conclusion as you did, and therefore act as you acted.

You act of deadly force must be judged to be a byproduct of Objective Reasoning.

Here are the legal elements required for a person to legally claim justified use of deadly force in necessary self-defense. Ordered to reflect how they naturally occur in an overwhelming majority of real life situations;

First a person must be acting lawfully and therefore Innocence of causing the deadly force altercation. Must see a deadly weapon being used which requires Proportional preventative defensive deadly force against an attacker which is Imminent and must be prevented for survival. It was impossible to Avoid using deadly force and subsequently it was Reasonable in order to save your life--any lawful person would have done the same preventative subjective action.

Considering the wildcard element within the legal system.

The jury will collectively determine what a reasonable ‘lawful person’ would have done when they deliberate. Comparing their subjective reasoning influenced by the evidence produced in court, against your subjective reasoning at the moment of deadly jeopardy—looking at the details from the nosebleed seats of the legal arena so to speak.

It’s never really stated anywhere, but the fact is, there is no way to determine whether jurors were influenced by more than just the evidence produced during legal proceedings. Jury Instructions, provide reasoning guidelines to be used to deliberate but they don’t prohibit personal subjective analysis derived from personal feelings and ideas which naturally occur when jurors don’t know nor understand the legal meanings of words used in the instructions and how to accurately apply them to your situation.

Putting your legal fate into the hands of a jury who wasn’t there at the deadly scene.

The jurors judging you by the evidence produced in court necessitates that you provide your lawyers and the prosecutor with irrefutable facts per the evidence collected at the scene. Also, you should have no incriminating evidence existing anywhere in your life for criminal investigators to discover. The more complete and exculpatory your evidence is the better the jury will be able to come to the truth that your lawful act of deadly force self-defense was justified.

It is therefore imperative that you practice and drill yourself repeatedly in preparation for a deadly force encounter. Every thought, every move, in fact, all your actions, must be completely based upon, and be within, the word definitions and meanings of the law, and reflect the reasoning and intent of the law.

Therefore, the next thing to consider is, how will all of the evidence be identified, collected, maintained, and produced in court? We do not control very much within the scene of a deadly force imminent attack. However, the criminal does, and you can bet they’ve set it up to work against you.

Do you rely on, and hope for, a law abiding witness to be there for you? Have you considered the possibility that the attacker or attackers will have accomplices present to lie and cover the facts of the crime, and provide false reports?

Have you considered mounting a camera unit on your firearm to preserve your lawful use of deadly force? Because you’ll be alone with no corroborating witnesses in most cases today. Good moral, willing-to-testify people are hard to come by in today’s society.

As I have stated many times, if you practice extensively with a camera, you’ll be far more prepared to act lawfully when the high stress of a deadly threat enters your life unexpectedly. But if you do not learn the law and do not get educated by professionals you should refrain from using a camera.

If you take the uneducated camera-less approach, a jury of your peers most likely find you acted unlawfully in one of the element essential to prove justified self-defense. Unless you get lucky. Really lucky.

It’s a fact that people under extreme duress act irrationally and fail to make lawful choices. And even if you get lucky and be found not guilty, you will have to spend a fortune to obtain that freedom and most likely will financially be challenged for years to come.

Constant Education Put Into Practice is the Key to Being Better Able to Use Deadly-Force Lawfully.

Instead of relying on luck I strongly encourage you to become familiar with Andrew Branca’s Five Element of Lawful Self-Defense. Check out his publications and learn every word until it becomes your automatic mindset when under sudden extreme stress. I have been under his teachings almost daily, and certainly weekly, since 2010 and have tested and retested myself specifically to see if I put into action what I have learned and also practiced in the moments of imminent jeopardy type practice sessions.

I have personalized and customized his legal formula during that time and changed his order of five elements to what I consider a real-life scenario order---already introduced above. I have come to believe it better represents a majority of deadly force situations’ natural occurrences, which are commonplace throughout society today.

Branca’s order is Innocence, Imminence, Proportionality, Avoidance, and Reasonableness, which reflects a baseline premise that the law was written within i.e. Criminal Law. Which is premised within the world of the criminal element of society and is therefore written to address that unlawful element.

Law abiding people are therefore judged within a legal framework designed for the criminal element of society. It’s drafted to make prosecution highly possible no matter what counter arguments are made by the defense. So, Andrew’s order is taken from that legal perspective.

Therefore, my order is based on the premise of, ‘lawful people being forced to prevent sudden acts of deadly force’. The ordering of the five legal elements of lawful self-defense forcefully merge reality into these legal elements. In other words, place the elements of lawful deadly force into the order of deadly force events as they naturally unfold in real time.

This removes the need to consider how the law defines Innocence and Avoidance. In criminal law both elements are determined looking backwards after the fact by the legal system. But the order I use addresses these two elements looking forward to before the actual deadly encounter takes place---sort of a pre-engineered order designed by reverse engineering the thinking the activist jury’s social-justice mindset uses to deliver a worst-case scenario decision—Guilty!. Usually resulting in a miscarriage of justice. .

The realistic reality merged within the legal elements of deadly self-defense.

The overwhelming majority of deadly events realistically begin with you being Innocence of causation. Then almost immediately a weapon of serious harm or death is presented establishing Proportionality of force, which automatically defines Imminence at the same time. This subsequent reality absolutely negates any possibility of Avoidance or Retreat. Which in turn establishes your Reasonableness in a necessary belief to prevent a deadly force attack by using deadly force to escape death or serious harm and remain alive and healthy.

So, for the law-abiding person, Innocence is a natural automatic given element, as is Avoidance, Imminence, and Proportionality, in that exact order when a surprise deadly attack takes place. The remaining element of Reasonableness is presented by your lawyer’s arguments which will be based on the evidence. But it will be subjectively undermined by the prosecutor’s tactics to psychologically trick the jury into returning a verdict of guilty---assuming your actions were indeed lawful.

I incorporate this natural order into my education and training. When you are trained by me, I further adjust the order by instructing you to first focus on Avoidance in two parts, pre-attack jeopardy, and attack jeopardy modes. Once learned, it automatically organizes your mindset and responses and ultimately results in defining and proving your Innocence when your actions are scrutinized after the fact by the legal system.

I establish a sound natural mental foundation for understanding deadly violence via my two part Avoidance approach, which sets the foundation for when Imminence occurs, which enables a correct Proportional force evaluation that proves to be Reasonable in the eyes of those who will judge you. When the evidence provides this ordered use of deadly force, and is taken in totality, it will prove you acted Reasonable in the legal elements required by the law.

This order again is, two part Avoidance, Innocence, Proportionality, Imminence (must be ready to switch the last two either way depending on the situation), evaluated together, provides the Legal Reasonableness which has a greater ability to disprove what activist juries, judges and rogue prosecutors inflict on law-abiding non-criminal individuals who are victims of the criminal element of society.

The criminal-element legal system views everyone as a criminal out of necessity in order to create better odds to produce a just legal outcome and result in justice served. The whole idea that we are “innocent until proven guilty” is a misnomer because the state has far more power than the defendant in how the court will operate, and they will be judged by a law written for the unlawful element of society. Then when you consider and add to those two truths the present ‘social justice activism legal environment’, subjective element, it proves my assertion to be absolutely true. Lady Justice hasn’t had a blindfold on for many, many years…. she wears societal justice trifocals now and they’re not rose colored.

To illustrate my point, consider the following.

Florida is a state which doesn’t require a legal duty to retreat in self-defense use-of-force law, i.e. it doesn’t require the element of Avoidance before using deadly force. Because it is assumed to not be possible if in fact the threat is Imminent i.e. about to occur or is occurring. Which is certainly true in reality in most cases and therefore is reasonable. However, the wording of the law doesn’t disallow the jury from subjectively considering it. And as stated above, it can’t stop the juror, judge, nor prosecutor from doing so internally by using innuendo and ambiguity to give subjectivity breathing room during the legal process. As already stated, it’s impossible to know if a juror followed the letter of the jury instruction when they deliberated.

The jury is allowed through instructions by the court that they ‘can scrutinize’ the evidence given to them to determine if they would have, or would have not, had the ability to retreat. and therefore, avoid using deadly force if they had been in the defendant’s shoes.

Now, I believe the exact wording of the jury instructions seems to disallow subjective analysis by the juror, but because of the words, “Reasonable and Belief” in the instruction the door is opened wide for the jury to apply subjective feelings based on the juror’s inexperience and ignorance…..and feelings.

Subjectivity is applied to the defendant’s perspective, and the juror ‘s feeling takes precedent over what was actually forced on the defendant by the criminal in the moment of the reality of deadly jeopardy. Therefore, what actually occurred is overridden or at the very least influenced, in the mind of the juror sitting in a deliberation room, causing a much higher probability for reasonable doubt occurs as a result.

In the end of jury deliberation within an air conditioned comfortable room, the jury finds the defendant guilty of not reasoning as they would have reasoned......because for the simple reason that they feel it might have happened the way they imagine, which they naturally believe is ‘reasonable’.

When the average person in society today is asked what “Reasonable” and “Belief” means, the range of variable definitions is alarming.

Florida, therefore, is considered to be a soft stand your ground state due to the jury being allowed to consider the legal element of Avoidance in their deliberations via the ‘feeling emotional reasoning gateway’ of their personal subjective understanding of what reasonable and believable means to them….personally.

Texas by comparison is a hard SYG state because the jury is never allowed to consider anything but the evidence produced in court. If the strict plain evidence proves beyond any reasonable doubt that the attack was imminent, that’s it, the defendant is to be found to have acted lawfully. The jury is forbidden from even discussing how they feel about reasonableness and belief regarding avoidance or retreat. It doesn’t matter at all how they would have viewed it in their imagination if they were there.

Once again, my order is, Avoidance pre jeopardy and in jeopardy, which if done as I train, automatically gives you Innocence, Imminence and Proportionality or Proportionality and Imminence, depending on the threat situation, which leaves only the monumental task of the production of evidence, both from the scene and from your personal history, which will prove your Reasonableness of the other four legal elements.

If you have a clean non incrimination social media and personal history, and honest good moral witnesses who will tell the truth, along with L.E. agencies which perform their jobs correctly, you have a greater chance of the truth keeping you free from a felony charge during a pretrial immunity hearing. Add the camera footage which proves a lawful use of deadly force and you will stand righteously in the end, judged to be lawful in your use of deadly force.

But if you have to take the essential steps to learn the law and acquire the skills to tactically run your gun. Invest time and money to advance your abilities to the level required to survive both the physical and legal elements of a deadly force event. You need to become proficient all possible situations of jeopardy.

So, to conclude, the main objective for using deadly force is to prevent inescapable deadly force by using lawful deadly force designed and planned to spare the life of the attacker. Lawful conceal carriers should educate and train to reduce or negate the risk of committing murder by mistake if per chance they incorrectly act outside of the five legal elements required.

Make sure to check out Andrew Branca’s website, because you don’t want to carry a concealed firearm without learning his system of using lawful self-defense - Law of Self Defense and note that what I present here is my own interpretation and application of what Andrew teaches and might not be in total agreement with his content.

This article is also published at my business website, Learn Personal Defense Techniques | Florida Gun & Self Defense (floridagunselfdefense.com)

Florida Gun & Self-Defense offers firearms and self-defense training and education. Single or group classes or customized training is available. For more information visit FloridaGunSelfDefense.com or call Dave Douglass at 863-381-8474

Dave has been a firearms instructor and trainer since 2013. He is skilled in advanced tactical gun and self-defense gun operation, in accordance with Florida gun law and use-of-force self-defense law. He is not a lawyer but has studied Use-of-Force Law and Gun Law for over ten years. He is an adamant supporter of an original historical literal interpretation of the Second Amendment. You can contact him at davidpdouglass@hotmail.com