When looking to buy a carry pistol after getting my CHL while I was in school, the employee of the gun store I was in suggested I look up the "competing harms" or "necessity" legal defense when I told him I wouldn't be able to carry on a daily basis as a student.
Basically, it is a legal defense you could use to justify your actions when you intentionally break the law in order to avoid a greater harm. For example, even though you broke the law by carrying a weapon on campus, you were able to use your weapon to prevent a shooter from killing you and other students, so your harm prevented a greater harm.
In order for the defense to work, all of the following criteria have to be met:
1) that he was faced with a choice of evils and chose the lesser evil;
2) that he acted to prevent imminent harm;
3) that he reasonably anticipated a causal relation between his conduct and the harm to be avoided; and
4) that there were no other legal alternatives to violating the law
I think the biggest hangup would be on #1, as the choice is not an on-the-spot decision to break the law. Instead, you break the law repeatedly by carrying every day just in case you encounter a situation in which you need to use it.
I ended up not illegally carrying because I felt the chance of someone finding out about it and reporting me was a greater risk than potentially being a victim of a school shooter.
I could see the defense having some chance in a trial, and is something to at least consider for a student, especially if he has the "better to be judged by twelve than carried by six" mentality.
I did a brief online search for an instance where this or a similar situation had occurred, but couldn't find anything that dealt with illegal carrying of handguns. I'm sure Raptor will be along shortly with links if it has happened.
Basically, it is a legal defense you could use to justify your actions when you intentionally break the law in order to avoid a greater harm. For example, even though you broke the law by carrying a weapon on campus, you were able to use your weapon to prevent a shooter from killing you and other students, so your harm prevented a greater harm.
In order for the defense to work, all of the following criteria have to be met:
1) that he was faced with a choice of evils and chose the lesser evil;
2) that he acted to prevent imminent harm;
3) that he reasonably anticipated a causal relation between his conduct and the harm to be avoided; and
4) that there were no other legal alternatives to violating the law
I think the biggest hangup would be on #1, as the choice is not an on-the-spot decision to break the law. Instead, you break the law repeatedly by carrying every day just in case you encounter a situation in which you need to use it.
I ended up not illegally carrying because I felt the chance of someone finding out about it and reporting me was a greater risk than potentially being a victim of a school shooter.
I could see the defense having some chance in a trial, and is something to at least consider for a student, especially if he has the "better to be judged by twelve than carried by six" mentality.
I did a brief online search for an instance where this or a similar situation had occurred, but couldn't find anything that dealt with illegal carrying of handguns. I'm sure Raptor will be along shortly with links if it has happened.
