§ 19-202A(3): A person may stand his ground and defend himself or another person by the use of all force and means which would appear to be necessary to a reasonable person in a similar situation and with similar knowledge without the benefit of hindsight.

That "without the benefit of hindsight" language is doing serious work. A jury evaluates your decision from where you were standing — what you knew, what you saw, what was happening in that moment — not from a conference room six months later with full information. That's a meaningful protection, and most people carrying daily have never read that sentence.

§ 19-202A(4): The burden is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the use of force...was not justifiable.

The article makes a point worth repeating: that burden shift happens at trial, not at the scene. It doesn't stop you from getting arrested, charged, or spending a year grinding through the system before that provision ever does anything for you. Carry insurance or a legal plan if you're carrying — this is exactly why.

Per Schofield Young PLLC, if someone is stealing your property from your yard, reasonable non-deadly force to stop it may be lawful. Reaching for a firearm because someone took your lawn ornament is not.

Defense-of-property situations are where I've heard the worst takes at the range — and I've heard some real ones over the years. You cannot shoot someone for taking your stuff. The Castle Doctrine presumption in § 19-202A(5) is specifically tied to unlawful entry into an occupied space, not property theft in a parking lot or your front yard. Those are two completely different legal situations and a lot of people have them blurred together.

§ 19-202A(5): A person using force or deadly force in defense of a habitation, place of business or employment or occupied vehicle...is presumed to have acted reasonably...if the force is used against a person whose entry or attempted entry therein is unlawful and is made or attempted by use of force, or in a violent and tumultuous manner, or surreptitiously or by stealth, or for the purpose of committing a felony.

The occupied vehicle piece matters if you spend any time driving with a firearm. The presumption attaches to the occupied vehicle the same way it does to your home — but only if the entry is unlawful and meets one of those specific conditions. An invited passenger who turns violent is a different situation than someone forcing entry into your locked car.

When did you last actually read the statute your carry permit is supposed to operate under — and did anything in the actual text surprise you compared to what you thought you knew?

Read the full article in The Handbook →