Ah, I see how you're reading it. Again, he didn't *show* them a gun, he allowed them to see his holster his gun which I contend is not the same thing at all. My "original post" is way back at the bottom of page one.
Back to the topic:
Let's look at it from a different angle. Imagine you're sitting in your car with your wife at a rest stop late at night- you've pulled in to make a cell phone call because you're such a law abiding citizen. Now you notice me pull in and I park away from you. I take two dogs out of the back seat on leads, then I open the trunk. You see me holster a handgun, pull my sweatshirt over it and walk with the dogs away from where you're parked. At no time do I even so much as look your way. Do these actions frighten or intimidate you? More importantly, do these actions present to a reasonable man that my intention was to intimidate you?
I say no. If you called the police and reported those actions it’s unlikely they’d send a car. None of those actions are unlawful on their face, and a reasonable man would not find them to be threatening.
First of all, if the police get a report of a "man with gun", don't bet a single red cent on them NOT coming to check it out.
When I receive a report of a problem in engineering in the shipyard where I work, the true scope of the problem cannot reliably be ascertained until the engineer (myself) actually visits the site of the problem and investigates for himself. Likewise, the true scope of a report to the police of a problem cannot be accurately ascertained until the police actually show up and investigate for themselves.
So, if the police get a report of a man with a gun you can almost certainly bet they will send somebody to investigate...and they'll be investigating from the starting point of the information they received over the phone by whomever reported it, whatever that may be. (And YOU certainly will not know what these people have reported to the police about your actions.)
Second, with respect to what a
"reasonable man would not find them to be threatening"; once the authorities are involved, your say in this matter rapidly declines and it increasingly becomes what OTHER people have to say on the matter.
Once the investigating officer has checked things out to his/her satisfaction, the immediate decision on the matter rests with him/her. Not you. And if an arrest is made, or some legal citation issued, then the matter moves on to what the DA has to say and, very possibly, what the court has to say. If it boils down to your word against theirs, then it gets very murky indeed.
The point here being that
the only thing you really have full control over is how you decide to comport yourself during the process of obtaining/arming yourself with any kind of firearm. Once other people are involved in this, THEIR opinion,
right or wrong, becomes a very significant issue the first time somebody opens their mouth to complain.
Show your gun or do not show your gun...the decision is yours, along with all the potential risks, whatever they may be and however serious they may become. But DON'T blow those risks off as warrantless, or somehow not actionable. That's not part of good Operational Risk Management.