CCW  Home 

Student comments

Shasta Defense Blog 




When to Draw vs. When to Shoot

Tueller Drill / Reactionary Gap Drill Ė Range Record

Shooting Positions- photos 

How to Reload your revolver

Holster Draw - Reverse Retention Ready Position

How to Draw and Holster your firearm


Pistol Grip Illustrations - Photos  # 1   # 2

Pistol Grip and Stance  


California CCW Application Forms / Procedures


On Target Articles


Legal Assistance Considerations



Community service: Shingletown Emergency Radio






California Public Safety Legislative Proposal:

Requirement for Registration of all Non Gun Owners,


Do Not Protect Me safety zones.

By Nathan Zeliff,  Authorized CCW Instructor

Imagine being the victim of a violent home invasion. You are being beaten over the head with a tire iron as multiple attackers ransack your home. Your wife hides upstairs and dials 911. As a result, police officers race to the scene at high speed. They go through red lights with sirens blaring. When they arrive, their guns are drawn.

The scenario shows that with your call to 911, the danger has obviously been extended beyond just "you". Now consider, that police cars at high speed pose a foreseeable risk to the innocent public as they race at high speed to save your life. Although there is danger to the public, under the doctrine of competing harm, it is viewed that such harm is outweighed by the greater competing harm that someone will die (in this case you) if the police donít arrive in time. Thus, the legal justification for the high speed response.

But, in this age of "enlightenment", the issue is whether the police should endanger the lives of innocent third parties, including themselves, to save you?

In these types of situations, California legislation can increase the safety of the public in general, and the police responding to the above type situations. Under such a public safety proposal, the call from certain registered phones and locations (in this case possibly your home) would automatically receive a "low priority 911 response". Thus, no need for red lights or sirens, and the response to your call would be made after more immediate "real" emergencies were handled.

To accomplish this public safety measure, surveys would be distributed to your neighborhood in order to evaluate statutory risk / reward factors. Specifically, every person would be asked if they intentionally decided not to possess or allow on the premises any firearm for self defense based upon their moral beliefs or other grounds (e.g., they would not use deadly force, as a last resort, to protect themselves from a life threatening attack). The survey questions can be expanded to even cover persons who havenít really decided yet if they would protect themselves, their spouse, and/or children from deadly attack.

The perspective of this legislation is simple: if you donít place enough value on your life to defend it, then why should any other persons be subjected to any risk to save that which you yourself wouldnít defend?

Accordingly, it is deemed reasonable to advise law enforcement and your community of this vital information in advance, so that for those who have decided that they would allow themselves to be killed or suffer grave bodily harm (to avoid any harm to the attacker), can now actually do something to save the lives of truly innocent people who would otherwise be subjected to risk of harm that necessarily arises by any effort to save them.

Under this type of legislation, because these "Do Not Protect Me" registrants decided they would not defend by using lethal force, as a last resort, to defend their life (their life would be classified as of "no personal value"), the law would merely allow the "situation" at their home to take its natural course so that the lives and well being of the police officers and the public in general, would not be placed at risk because of their call. There would arise a statutory presumption, for the "Do Not Protect Me" registrants, that all police officers and the general public, presumptively place a higher value on their personal lives and safety than the "Do Not Protect Me" registrants.

This legislative concept could be extended to the registration of business locations, government buildings, legislative offices, Congressional offices, IRS offices, shopping centers, and church locations, etc... that donít allow firearms. Of course, the general public upon entering such locations, would need to have adequate warning. Large and conspicuous signs would be required at the entrance to all such buildings and homes (with bold print) which would read:

                   "No guns allowed on Premises.

                    This is a California Do Not Protect Me safety zone.

WARNING: Emergency calls for police assistance for robbery, rape, murder and other atrocious crimes from this location will receive LOW priority 911 response. Thus, response, if any, could take many hours. This is for the public safety of police officers and the general public who have NOT entered these premises and who are, under state law, statutorily presumed to have placed a higher value on their personal lives and safety than any who is present on these premises."

Such legislation is thus "updating" the doctrine of competing harm to adjust for those in our society who view themselves as having "evolved" and have decided that their life is not worth defending (i.e., they have decided they would not defend by use of firearm against an attacker who was going to kill or cause great bodily harm). This legislation thus avoids placing unnecessary risk on Police Officers and innocent persons who actually do value their lives and safety (that is to say the rest of the "not so evolved", or the normal people).

Ask people you know if they will register personally as a "Do Not Protect Me" registrant; and if they will register their home as a California Do Not Protect Me safety zone. Under the legislation, forms would be made available for filing with federal, state and local law enforcement, as well as the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; and IRS. Registration may be done by both mail and a secure internet connection. To cover the cost of this program, an annual $150.00 registration fee per person and annual $150.00 registration per location would be imposed. Such fee would be allocated to the states general slush fund.


Please note: author is not aware of any current pending proposal for the above type of legislation.


Nathan Zeliff, Attorney at Law, is an authorized instructor for Concealed Weapon Permit Courses in Shasta and Tehama Counties; and is a Certified NRA Instructor in the following disciplines: Pistol, Rifle, and Personal Protection in the Home.