Much of the CCW discussions here and on other forums center around the "best" gun, the "best" caliber, the "best" ammo, etc.
It makes for interesting reading and the occasionally emotional defense of our personal selections. Most of our theoretical adversaries tend to be home intruders, muggers and occasionally the unhinged motorist in the grips of road-rage.

Yet, a threat exists to the CCW and off-duty LEOs alike and which does not receive the amount of tactical thought and planning needed if we are to survive such an encounter. I'm talking about the armed robbery of the local convenience store, often within minutes of your home. By "convenience," I mean any local store from the candy and tobacco shop, the bakery, liquor store, gas station, the general store, etc.

Much of what we know or think we know about robberies is gleaned from television and the movies, where a stereotypically desperate individual, in need of a fix, pulls a gun and robs the nearest retail establishment. Knowledge is also gleaned from actual surveillance tapes capturing robberies and subsequently shown on the evening news. In most instances, the cash register is the primary target, not us.

In the fictionalized version, the ruggedly handsome good guy or disarming fem-fatale usually comes out on top using a slick tongue or gunplay that would make Jerry Maculek scratch his head in awe and wonderment. As every police firearms instructor advises: never take tactical lessons from television or the movies.

There are four retail robberies that come to mind in which events did not follow the usual script and which you should be familiar with. Much information on these four particular robberies is available online and I encourage you to spend a few minutes reading about them while placing yourself in the middle of such a robbery. What would you have done?

1. Medford (NY) Pharmacy, 8/19/2011, in which a robber, seeking drugs, executed a pharmacist, a clerk and two innocent patrons in the wrong place at the wrong time.
4 People Killed In Shooting At Haven Drugs Pharmacy In Medford « CBS New York

2. Seaford (NY) drug store robbery, 1/2012, in which both a retired police officer and an off-duty BATFE agent responded, the retiree killing the BATFE agent in a mistaken identity situation.
Investigation Continues Into Deadly Seaford Pharmacy Robbery « CBS New York

3. Seacrest Diner robbery, 1982: a large, suburban diner taken over by five armed men, two of whom stationed themselves at the door, instantly transforming patrons into hostages. Besides robbery, hostages were forced at gunpoint to engage in sex acts with each other. To my recollection, an off-duty officer patronizing the diner elected to surround his gun rather than resist.
Herald-Journal - Google News Archive Search

4. Radio Shack Robbery, lower Manhattan (NY) 1992: a retired police sergeant is slain in a gun battle with four, possibly five robbers.JUSTICE AT LAST FOR SLAIN COP | New York Post

These are just four tactical nightmares and there are scores of others. These four are easily found, detailed online so there's no point in my summarizing each incident at length.

Here are a few tactical thoughts:
1. Re-familiarize yourself with Jeff Cooper's "Condition Yellow."

2. When visiting a convenience store, stop for a moment and observe the interior before entering. Does everything look normal? There's no excuse for walking into a robbery-in-progress.

3. Don't take action if there are people behind you that you cannot identify or control.

4. If you see a robber, there may be an accomplice. If you see two robbers, there may be a third accomplice, etc.

5. Do not automatically take action. A valid response is to do nothing, especially if you can't figure out who is who.

6. Don't assume that if someone produces a gun, he's a bad guy. He may be an LEO or a CCW, just like you.

7. An idling car out front with driver behind the wheel. Most likely someone waiting for a companion who went into the store but on occasion, a getaway driver. This should be a warning to open your eyes and to use them.

8. Don't give chase. Your use of deadly force is more easily defended within the premises, Once you begin a pursuit, you are no longer acting in self-defense, the bread-and-butter defense of the CCW.

9. You'll likely be held civilly accountable for wrongful use of force and possibly for injured bystanders, even those injured by the robber.

10. If someone surrenders to you, maintain a safe distance. Do not position yourself between the robber and his only apparent means of escape. Do not attempt to restrain them. If they are cooperative, put them face down on the floor, spread-eagled and have them look away from you.

11. Make sure you don't have a gun in your hand when police arrive. Having the guy on the floor looking away prevents him from taking action when he's momentarily no longer covered.

12. Last but not least, something I've never seen discussed in any forum: if you "capture" the robber, intruder, mugger, you are now responsible for their safety and you may not allow your friends or strangers to use them as a heavy bag or a soccer ball. If you stand idly by, he sues you and wins. If those irate bystanders succeed in killing your captive, you may become an accomplice to manslaughter. The faster you can turn the miscreant over to the police the better off you are.

13: Lawyers' advice: never make citizens' arrests.

14. I nearly forgot to mention it but you need to be intimately familiar with the laws regarding use of force wherever you carry and wherever you may have to use force. You must also know the political climate as official responses to very similar circumstance can vary widely.

There is a very big difference between an off duty LEO and a citizen with a CCW. The citizen does not have the obligation of protecting others the LEO has... Being a good witness should be high on your list of "what to do". Most robbers want to take their intended goods rather it be cash or other property and get out of dodge - of course the taking by force constitutes the robbery rather than just theft. If force is not used and one of the good guys fires a shot then you may be looking at trouble. If force is used / or not and a shot is fired and an innocent is hit - more trouble.... you could either hit or kill the bad guy and still be in trouble. Save any heroic action for threat of grave bodily harm to yourself first and then others. Carrying is serious business and if you don't have a plan, then the consequences could be financially devastating if not worse.

Very good points.

And thanks for posting links.

I try to stay in condition yellow as much as possible (sometimes I get lazy. ) but I always try to be in yellow if not orange when in a bank, gas station or similar place where a robbery is more likely to happen.

I am still contemplating the that part you wrote about the "fem-fatale usually comes out on top using a slick tongue".

As an ordinary citizen, I've never been comfortable with taking custody of someone if they surrender.

I'd much rather the bad guy runs away, preferably before I shoot, but even after being wounded.

I suppose I might not have a choice if they don't try to run and put down their weapons, but I wouldn't order them to stop or threaten to shoot them again if they run. I'd rather the BG get's the heck out of Dodge and ends the threat.

I'd like to let the police take people into custody. I'm not trained for that.

As with most people, I don't know what I would do without knowing the particulars of the situation. The purpose, number and demeanor of the bad guy(s), weapons displayed, layout, number of people in the store, am I being observed, etc., etc.

In conversations with pro-right to defend/castle doctrine LE and legal people on this subject, the answer comes back to "depends". Their (and my) thoughts are, if the guy just wants to grab some cash or smokes and get out fast, get a good description and let him go. If it escalates beyond that, your training, or lack of it, will determine the response. Spraying bullets around a store full of innocent people is a nightmare situation. Training, even basic practical shooting drills, and situation awareness to avoid surprises, are essential. Along with an occasional prayer that you never find yourself in that position.

I'm not Matt Dillon, Steve McGarret or the Lone Flippin' Ranger. Unless my life is directly threatened or the holdup guy begins shooting, it's not my job to apprehend him and prone him out, much less punch his ticket.

This is a case for the professionals, not an elderly amateur.

I will, however, have my hand on my pocket-carried CC gun, on the off chance that things really start to go to hell and I have no choice but to use it.

__________________
Oh well, what the hell.

When old bear was young bear, his off shift, plan if he stumbled into an agg. Robbery were. Do nothing unless B/G start shooting or marching folks into a back or storage room. When B/G gets cash and started to leave store, young bear to shoot B/G in back, then yell “police” you’re under arrest. I never had to use this but it sounded like a workable plan at the time.
Today acting as old bear, keep eyes wide open, note details, and plan on being the best whiteness I can be. Now if B/G starts to hurt someone or marching folks into back or storage room, then ya may very well need to do something.

I agree on everything Ken158 said except for one thing. The US Supreme Court has ruled that a police officer has no duty to protect a person, whether on duty and especially off duty. The officer creates the duty to protect when he takes control of the situation, such as yelling for everyone to freeze. An off duty officer, like a CCW person, they should be an observer only if possible. Taking action with your weapon should be done only when your life or the life of someone is under immediate threat.

Apparently the supreme court never worked under Sheriff Joe Harris or they would have known any deputy would be armed at all times he was outside of his own home and he was never "off duty" just sometimes he was not getting paid!

Yes there is different protocol if you are out of uniform but your responsibility was "to protect and serve"!

After 39 years I still put on my CCW every morning and take it off at bedtime. I hope to never have to use it but like a fire extinguisher it is available and functional.

A well thought-out reminder for those who carry.
Also, for those of us who are mobility-challenged, we
need to remain Alert to our surroundings. I find that
my situational awareness suffers from being too-attuned
to just walking. I have to continually remind myself to
Pay Attention. It's already obvious to anyone around, what
an easy target I make when in Condition White.
JMHO, TACC1.

Excellent thread. Thanks. Yiogo

A lot of food for thought here--gosh! I'm stuffed!

Excellent post. Good information worth consideration.

__________________
I am a sheep dog!
1601 (ret)

15. Plan ahead to avoid SHTF situations.
Resupply gas and booze in daylight at busy places.
Use drive-thru services and online services for banking and pharmacy.
Avoid places that handle a lot of cash transactions.
And soon, buy on Amazon with drone delivery to your door.

__________________
60-10,640-1,G30,G41MOS,1911

These are definitely tough scenarios to know for sure what to do. The problem is that once you've determined that there is a for-sure immediate threat (ie. BG starts executing people) then it may be too late (ie. you may be executed). I would think the presence of a bad guy with a weapon in hand (means) in your vicinity (opportunity), telling people to get on the floor or whatever (intent) would be enough to justify aggressive counter-measurements if you could do so. I'm not sure a "reasonable man" would be required (in my hypothetical scenario) to wait for the bad guy to take a shot or lead people to the back room. I'm in no way looking to take a life, but I think Jeff Cooper also suggested (paraphrasing) that the most likely way to survive armed aggression is with immediate, decisive, and yes violent, counter-aggression.

I hope I never have to make that sort of split second decision!

__________________
Brad

Other than to protect myself or somebody to whom I feel a duty of care, I'm going to be VERY circumspect about involving myself in a violent crime situation.

I'm going to have to be EXTREMELY confident that I know the players and where they are.

• I'm not a cop.
• I don't want to be a cop.
• I don't want people to think I'm a cop.

That having been said, I have ZERO expectation of being "protected" by the police as an individual. And NO plan I've ever had, have or will have in the future involves trusting in the mental stability, sound judgment or good character of armed robbers.

The solution to the credible, immediate threat of deadly force is the overwhelming application of deadly force until the threat is ended. That doesn't mean that I need to be as impulsive as the person who's presenting the threat.

Just like revenge, self-defense is a dish best served cold. I am nothing if not calculating.

^^ Exactly ^^. Federali, don't overthink this. Your CPL is for personal protection, not Defender of the Realm.

I generally agree with this post but the "duty to protect" question is continually misrepresented...not just in this thread. The SCOTUS decision was correct; LEO's simply cannot be everywhere. Or they could be and all of us would seriously complain about our taxes.

That said, most professional LEO's are obligated to take appropriate action(s)...particularly within their jurisdiction and particularly when a felony is being committed.

During the majority of my career it was mandatory that I be armed off-duty in a very, very large area geographically. Further, I was required to act in jurisdiction...an enormous area. That said, common sense dictates appropriate action(s.) We were not expected to bite off more than we could chew. FTR, I found myself involved in off-duty situations far more times than I wanted. In all cases there was no other option(s) immediately available.

Be safe.

Speaking of "slips", that one is possibly a Freudian slip on the part of Mr. Federali.

Perhaps a confusing combination of words on my part but absolutely no double-entendre was intended. I should have used "silver tongue" rather than "slick tongue" Instead, I was referring to all those scenes where the LEO, male or female, succeeds in talking the baddest looking guy since Attila-The-Hun into surrendering his weapons without firing a shot.

From Wikipedia: Silver tongue is an expression used to describe a person who has a clever way with words.

I'll bet that here in The PR of NY that an armed citizen that did foil a potential murder, killing spree, rape etc. it would be him or her that would be prosecuted and not the perp. While years ago I do believe that a legally armed citizen or off duty or retired LEO would and should have gotten involved to do their civic duty to prevent a tragedy, now there are lots who would simply look the other way just to avoid legal prosecution and public persecution. It pains me to say this, but I'll bet there are some off duty and retired local LEO's who will also turn their heads after what has happened across this Nation lately - they simply don't want THEIR lives ruined!

I blame the Press, the Politicians, and the brain dead Citizens who live here. I want to see how they react when tragedy strikes their families and friends - all of a sudden I'll bet they'll "call for action"!

Didn't mean to hi-jack your thread, but this is what came to mind after reading your post.

I would not live in a state like yours - - - sorry just the way I feel.

Here we are told that our primary obligation is in the county where I live and work but if I come across a problem elsewhere I must make a decision - - - If I make an arrest in another jurisdiction I will have to follow thru with court in the other jurisdiction with no pay and I will have to pay my own cost going to and from the court. I could lose a few days pay while I'm tied up with it as well.

If there is an misdemeanor I will normally look the other way or issue an oral or written warning. If it is a felony then I will take appropriate action and ( hopefully ) if a local officer responds quickly I will allow them to make the arrest.

But when we are sworn in we understand it is not a 9 to 5 job - - - we are to protect and serve at all times.

I cannot believe that off duty officers are not allowed to carry in NYC - - - what happens if you are off duty and run into someone that you have sent to jail and they know you are not armed - - - seems kind of one sided to me.

I live in MA, and as I understand the law, if a BG breaks into my house, my first duty is to leave. If that is not an option, I can only use equivalent force; meaning if the BG has a club, I can't use a knife, if he has a knife, I can't use a gun. You get the idea.
A man was recently indicted for aggravated assault because he punched a guy he caught trying to steal his truck from his driveway. I don't know if it will stick, but he's sure having to pay a lawyer to defend him.

I can only imagine the result if someone with an LTC got involved with a robbery under any circumstances.

With all this running through our minds, how can we possibly act in time, and legally correct?

This is as direct an assault on our 2nd Amendment rights as taking our guns away, isn't it?

Anyone else see a common denominator here, they all happened in NY where no one can carry except the crooks.

__________________
John

Where, pray tell, did you 'learn' that CLEARLY ERRONEOUS bit of information?

The points are that:

1. The odds are OVERWHELMING that there WON'T be a cop in your immediate vicinity if you're the victim of an unlawful deadly force attack.
2. If a cop IS there and he is either unable or unwilling to "protect" you as an individual, you have ZERO recourse. That's settled law and there's no debating it.
3. Unless you are either the beneficiary of a police protective detail, or INSANELY lucky, any IMMEDIATE deadly force attack from which the police "protect" you as an individual was either not serious or not immediate.
4. Depending upon where you live, the police might very well apprehend your assailant, but if you bled out hours previously, as my godsister did, that's simply no benefit to you.

In virtually every instance, protect yourself or don't get protected at all.

Yet, again, it is you who does not understand the law, PROFESSIONAL LEO policies, and/or the SCOTUS decision. You obviously are anti-police/government so I will no longer reply to your rants. Done.

Huh?? I didn't see anything in cmort's post that was even very debatable or controversial. I certainly don't see anything anti-cop! Is there a history here? I see no rant!

__________________
Brad

Don't feel bad, I missed it too

__________________
John

Like the OP says, having a gun isn't a guarantee of success. In most cases you are surprised, confused and scared ****less to boot and you may find your name in the obits rather than blazened across the headlines as a 'hero'.

Add to this the chance that you will shoot the wrong person and it suddenly doesn't sound very 'romantic'.

__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"

Apparently settled law and the laws of physics constitute a "rant".

Leaving aside the instances where police have simply declined to protect people as individuals, there are the laws of nature:

1. 1. Ask yourself how long it takes to strangle, beat, stab or shoot somebody to death (A).
   2. Determine the average police response time for your area (B).
   3. Subtract B from A. If the answer is a negative number, that's how long you've been dead before the police get there... assuming that your assailant is indulgent enough to LET you call the police. I've been told that some robbers, rapists and murderers can be quite "unhelpful" in this regard.
2. Police cars are not the TARDIS and cops are not Doctor Who. They don't get to keep doing it over until they get there in time and you DON'T end up dead.
3. If there are three available cops in your area, and FOUR deadly force incidents happening (or being perceived as happening) at the same time, even with a police response time of ***0***, somebody's going to have a VERY bad day.

Now if some people perceive that as a rant, they probably also perceive "Don't do drugs, stay in school, and obey the law" as a "rant" too.

On the other hand, NOT having a gun, is pretty much a guarantee of failure, depending upon your circumstances. The odds of an unarmed 110lb. woman prevailing against even an unarmed 210lb. man, especially a school trained predator from our prison systems are infinitesimal.

A fire extinguisher doesn't always put out the fire. A nonexistant one NEVER does.

Neither is being murdered execution style like those women in that Tinley Park, Illinois Lane Bryant store.

Coming out alive is "romantic" enough for me. If I can do that by not being involved in situations which make a gunfight likely, that's great. If I have to do that by shooting somebody until they're no longer an immediate and credible threat to life and limb, that's ok too.

Yes, it is. This is what becomes of electing progressives for decades.

That's amusing. Where I live, that would involve a 15-20 foot jump from a window. Yeah, I want to break a leg, back or neck to protect somebody trying to unlawfully do me harm.

Regardless of what the law says, I don't have a duty to die, and will never recognize such under ANY circumstances.

That having been said, I'd never live in any place where such a loathsome and illegitimate "duty" were attempted to be imposed upon me.

As long as someone doesn't think it would be a kick to get into a gunfight.

__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"

Very nice list of action plans. I'd like to add one.

15. Have a gun.

Often folks don't bother holstering up for a quick ride to the convenience store or.... wherever. While I can't predict what will happen or exactly how I might respond, I can predict with a high degree of certainty I will be armed.

Here's an small poll done on this Forum. How Often Do You Carry ?

It might BE a "kick"... after the fact.

But so might a plane crash.

I don't go seeking out either.

Kinda like Chicago where they have the strictest laws around, but the bad guys forgot to abide by the law..

I'll defer to the gentlemen who live in MA and are familiar with the laws up there. I find it beyond comprehension that you may not use a firearm to defend yourself against a knife wielder. I cannot possibly know the intricacies of our use-of-force laws throughout the 50 states, which, is why I said you must know the laws where you live and where you may have to use force.

Here is California you don't need as many reloads as elsewhere because the bad guys are restricted to 10 round magazines.

I hate to burst bubbles here, but it's NOT just NY & CA! Look across the entire Country and you can't deny the liberal (anti gun) swarm that has taken place over the last 50 years. Even though there are much friendlier places to live if you own a firearm than NY, CA or MA, the way the Anti's are doing it now is beyond legislation - they are using the Shame Game and pubic records disclosure tactics now. They are suspending grade school kids for drawing a picture of a gun, for pointing their hand like a gun etc. It is happening ALL OVER.

I therefore invite EVERY GUN OWNER to join the NRA or local Pro Gun Organizations instead of smugly setting in their (for the time being) gun friendly State and saying how they wouldn't live somewhere - because this is gonna be Nationwide NOT just in some places. We are al in the same boat Guys and Gals!

There's nothing romantic about drawing a gun on or shooting a person. I don't want to ever have to do either of those, but I want to live to see my family again more.

I suspected that a few well-meaning posters had responded with inaccurate information. Here's the Massachusetts law:

MA Castle Doctrine
The GOAL Staff receives many questions about Castle Doctrine in the state of MA. We hope this clears things up a bit. As always, GOAL Members are welcome to call the GOAL office with questions, 508-393-5333.

Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 278, Section 8(a): In the prosecution of a person who is an occupant of a dwelling charged with killing or injuring one who was unlawfully in said dwelling, it shall be a defense that the occupant was in his dwelling at the time of the offense and that he acted in the reasonable belief that the person unlawfully in said dwelling was about to inflict great bodily injury or death upon said occupant or upon another person lawfully in said dwelling, and that said occupant used reasonable means to defend himself or such other person lawfully in said dwelling. There shall be no duty on said occupant to retreat from such person unlawfully in said dwelling.
A couple of things to note:
Deadly Force: Force likely or intended to cause death or great bodily harm whether or not death actually occurs.
Self Defense: In general, the right to protect one’s person against an injury attempted by another. In MA the courts have taken the position that self defense using deadly force is justified only if the individual being attacked has a reasonable belief that he or she is in danger of death or serious bodily harm. Otherwise reasonable force (which is non lethal force such as fists) can be used to repel a non-lethal attack. However, as applies to castle doctrine, reasonable force is not protected and so therefore cannot be relied upon if someone enters your home and threatens you with only fists.
Dwelling: A place where an individual is temporarily or permanently residing. It has to be a permanent structure, your home, apartment, cottage, and under some circumstances can include a hotel/motel room. Note: a dwelling cannot be a motor home, tent, or boat because they are not permanent structures. Anyone using deadly force in one of these will not be protected by this law.
An ‘occupant’ is an individual who has some sort of possessory interest in the property, i.e. a tenant or owner.
If a criminal is unlawfully in your dwelling, and shows the intent to inflict serious bodily injury or death upon you or any other individual lawfully in your dwelling there is no duty of said occupant to retreat from the criminal unlawfully in that dwelling.
Please note: If the criminal intruder is not threatening death or serious bodily injury, the occupant will not be covered by this law and could be charged with murder or manslaughter for using deadly force against said criminal. To be protected by this law an occupant that is prosecuted for using deadly force has the burden of producing a claim of self-defense. Once the occupant shows proof it will be upon the prosecution to prove otherwise.

With so many stores having security cameras we (in Wisconsin) have been able to see entire events. I think they are instructive for the armed person.

1. most transpire quickly. Time to think is very short. Many clerks are taught to open the cash register drawer and immediately leave, sometimes to a safe room.
2. defenders, such as the store clerk, often fire without significant - or any - effect on the robber. If the robber is armed, s/he fires to the rear while running. A very few actually face the clerk and aim. Hits are rare or not fatal.
3. most robbers want to get out quickly.

My - unofficial - observation is that how the robber dresses is not a good indication. Everyone, it seems, wears hoodies these days. Many robbers do not hide their faces.
Body language seems the most reliable, where the robber goes directly to the cash register without buying anything and appears agitated.

The first shooting in Wisconsin by a CCW-holder after the Wisconsin law was enacted, occurred very soon after passage. A young man and his wife were in an Aldi grocery store that was posted with anti-self-defense signs the young man said he did not see. The robbers went straight to a cash register, armed with a shotgun and handgun. They jumped the counter and screamed for people to submit. I don't know what caused one of the robbers to turn, but as he did he perceived the young man as a threat and began to swing his gun toward the man and his wife. Witnesses agree the young man THEN drew his gun and fired at the robbers, hitting one in the leg and ending the robbery.
The young man was not prosecuted and Aldi took down the anti-self-defense signs, at least for a while.

The wounded robbers' "family" then complained that he didn't deserve to be shot.

I'm retired everything. My plan is to 1: run; if unable, 2: hide; if unable, 3: shoot until the threat is over. Seeing as how the fascist Left wants to punish anyone brash enough to defend their lives against deadly criminals, I'm hoping to never put that plan to use.

To the people who say they are always in "condition yellow" when they go out, be sure to have a full stress test every couple years so you can see your heart attack coming.

I was a lousy runner as a twenty one year old Infantry second lieutenant. At fifty six, I'm not one SECOND faster.

I'm not running, because all that will get me is dying tired.

One thing I learned in the Army was that NOBODY can outrun a bullet. That's why they tell you to charge an ambush rather than run from it.

I may get shot, but it's not going to be in the back, and it's DEFINITELY not going to be in the back of the head, while on my knees.

+1
You have to have it entrained in your brain, if you stop and think about taking a life, it'll get ya killed damn near every time.

As far as the stats where you can't use deadly force to protect yourself, tough S***, I'm going to prevail in a gun fight, rather the rule makers like it or not.

__________________
John

Thank you Sir, for the info. I'm a member of GOAL and have been for years. I'll check into their resources more carefully.

My thoughts after reading are:
I guess I can't assume that someone who has broken into my home is intending to do me and my family great bodily harm or death, and if I use deadly force to protect myself and my family, I'll have to somehow prove to the court and maybe a jury what his/her intent was. If the BG didn't have a weapon but was intending to beat me and my family to death with his fists, I could be SOL. What if the BG survives and testifies that he never intended to hurt anyone? What a load of ****.
This is really a sad state of affairs.

Never heard of anyone kicking down your door to invite you to a picnic.
If they enter by breaking, they go out flat on their back.

I'll deal with the consequences, at least I'll be here to do so.

__________________
John

One thing that the readers must understand about LEO's carrying off duty about their responsibility to take action when off duty. Each department has it's own policies to which the officer must adhere to. When the off duty officer takes action, it is as a police officer and he has full force of the law to act. He is also given some protection against civil court action because of his department policies.

When the LEO is retired, department policies may vary. I am required to read and understand my department shooting policies and must qualify each year to continue to have the right to carry CCW. There is one problem, the department is not required to protect by getting a lawyer for me in case of civil action or criminal investigation by the District Attorney (however I could fight it and protection). That is probably why most retired LEO's do not want to get involved.