What does and does not constitute brandishing?

Drjones · Dec 17, 2003

Hi all.

I've been debating in This Thread Here about what does and does not constitute "brandishing."

Specifically, the situation is this: the thread starter knows a "milita commander" (whatever the heck that is) who has a CCW and has a habit of frequently exposing his holstered pistol when in public, particularly when engaged in political debates. He also apparently sometimes does this with public officials when arguing about permits.

I, as many others in the thread, say that that is very clearly brandishing, if not assault w/deadly weapon.

There are one or two folks in there who are adamant that its not brandishing and we're all a bunch of HCI-controlled blissninnies.

My argument isn't from a legal standpoint; I could care less what the specific laws say in the area, but just from a common-sense standpoint, what that "gentleman" is doing, and the fact that he has a HABIT of doing it, is very clearly brandishing, possibly assault, and he needs to have his permit revoked. That he has a habit of doing this very clearly indicates to me what his intentions are and that they are deliberate.

Check out the thread above and tell me what you think... Feel free to jump in on the GT thread too...

Drjones

El Tejon · Dec 17, 2003

It depends.

Sometimes the statute specifies out of holster, sometimes not.

Could be lots of things, Dr., including "brandishing" if your state has that. Here it could be considered "Intimidation."

"Common sense" [I don't need education, I got common sense

] would entail not getting in fights. However, one cannot tell militia boys anything.

armoredman · Dec 17, 2003

I know of one individual who is in prison for laying his hand on his weapon without drawing it, but was charged with ag assault.

Sunray · Dec 17, 2003

I'm not sure if 'brandishing' is the right word. 'Stupid' comes to mind though. The description leads me to believe that this guy sees his firearm as an extention of his genitalia. His permit should be revoked( I thought better of saying 'pulled') for that reason alone. If he doesn't have sense enough to understand the term 'concealed' he shouldn't have the licence to carry in the first place. If he gets to keep the permit he's going to get shot sooner or later. Nature has a way of weeding out the truely inept.

P95Carry · Dec 17, 2003

Haven't gone over to the other thread yet DRJ ... but whilst here just mention that there seems to me to be a sorta ''three stage'' deal.

Stage#1, pure exposure of the piece thru pulling aside clothing - or ''allowing'' a glimpse. NOT IMO brandishing.

Stage#2 is where the definition becomes harder - in as much as - how it is interpretted by any observer ......... this would be hand on piece, but in holster. This is thin ice .... because there is suggested threat and intent ..... to others merely an ''I am armed'' signal.

Stage #3 is definitely brandishing - where piece is in hand ... and OUT of holster, whether pointed safe or not.

Justin · Dec 17, 2003

This guy is begging for a karmic backlash.

Whether or not what he is doing is legal doesn't really much matter in my book. What he is doing is meant to be a deliberate act of 'I'm the Alpha Male.'

Some day he *will* meet an Alpha who's bigger and badder than he is.

:fire:

ysr_racer · Dec 17, 2003

I could care less what the specific laws say in the area, but just from a common-sense standpoint

When / if you ever go to court, it's the laws that matter not what's common sense.

TarpleyG · Dec 17, 2003

I would say that brandishing is showing your weapon (or otherwise indicationg you are armed) with INTENT. Sounds like this guy INTENDS to do so. If it happened by accident, that's another story.

GT

MrPink · Dec 17, 2003

I didn't surf the link to the original discussion, not a big fan of Glocktalk. So I don't know if this "gentleman" lives in a state that permits open carry. IF that is the case and the guy isn't making verbal threats then it might not be "brandishing", per se.

Either way, it certianly is stupid. But since when is stupidity against the law?

mete · Dec 17, 2003

State laws differ but the basis for 'brandishing' or 'reckless endangerment' or other terms involves improper use of a gun to threaten a person. It may be taken as a serious threat with legal consequences. In other cases it may just be poor manners with people who we call 'flashers' who show their gun for the same reason other types of flashers show other things. When you carry a gun leave your macho at home . Do not verbally or physically threaten with the gun. Avoid confrontation and before doing anything think of the legal consequences.

Majic · Dec 17, 2003

If he is carrying concealed then purposely exposes the firearm without a real or perceived need of the firearm, then the permit should be revolked. He has violated the purpose of the permit which is to have the firearm concealed.

Werewolf · Dec 17, 2003

The guy is not only stupid he is asking for trouble.

If while in the middle of an argument he shows the weapon and then places his hand on it he has:

Shown intent
Displayed the means
Displayed threat

If he did that to another armed individual and that individual pulled his gun and shot the stupid SOB I'm of the opinion that he could make a very good self defense case depending upon the state he lived in.

Personally if that happened to me I'd calmly tell the guy to get his hand off of his dick, cover it up and stop being an a-s-s. No one here's impressed and you're frightening the sheep.

TallPine · Dec 17, 2003

"Situation ethics" have to apply here ...

If you are having a supposedly rational discussion with someone, and intentionally display a weapon in order to intimidate, that would be brandishing (actually, it should be assault!)

If you are standing on your own property and have told someone three times that they are trespassing and to leave, then you ought to be justified to display a weapon.

But that's just my $0.02 and won't buy you anything anywhere.

Majic · Dec 17, 2003

If he did that to another armed individual and that individual pulled his gun and shot the stupid SOB I'm of the opinion that he could make a very good self defense case depending upon the state he lived in.

If he died with the handgun still in the holster I don't think use of deadly force in self-defense would apply. A little hard to sell fearing for your life from a holstered firearm.

Smoke · Dec 17, 2003

If he was talking (arguing) with someone and purposly placed his hand on his weapon or made a move to expose the weapon, the other person would be completely within his rights to perceive this as a threat and close in to take the guy down. The way he is acting is basically bullying. If someone were to knock him on his butt and call police, they would have my admiration...and probably the admiration of the cops too.

Smoke

Edited to add:

After rading further into the Glocktalk thread; it seems a lot of people didn't consider the action to be brandishing. In TX it is...despite what ProGLock says.

I'd suggest avoiding Glocktalk in the future DrJones.

just my $.02

Werewolf · Dec 17, 2003

Magic said:

If he died with the handgun still in the holster I don't think use of deadly force in self-defense would apply. A little hard to sell fearing for your life from a holstered firearm.

NOT if he was trying to draw the weapon and you were quicker. But I see your point. It could indeed be a hard sell to convince a jury you were just faster on the draw than he was.

Standing Wolf · Dec 17, 2003

I'm unfamiliar with the relevant state law, if any, but would distinguish between showing off or flashing on the one hand, and brandishing on the other. I believe brandishing would necessarily involve unholstering and handling a firearm in a threatening manner.

That saidâ„¢, I'd consider deliberate showing off and flashing, if done to intimidate people, a variant form of brandishing. I'd bust him, revoke his permit, and let him talk it over with twelve good men and true.

Andrew Rothman · Dec 17, 2003

My argument isn't from a legal standpoint...and he needs to have his permit revoked.

Well, which is it? His permit wopuld be revoked for legal reasons, not "common sense."

The jerk in question is in New Hampshire, which permits open carry.

Nonetheless, dramatically revealing a pistol in the heat of an argument certainly qualifies as a threatening gesture. Only a jury can determine whether it is assault.

What can be determined is that the guy is a flippin' idiot. Need any more be said?

Drjones · Dec 17, 2003

Mpayne:

What I meant with that statement is that every state and locality has a different definition of "brandishing," and on the GT thread, many were arguing what is and isn't defined as brandishing in different areas.

My point is that, legal definitions aside, what this man did is not only stupid, but also a threatening act.

I fail to see how anyone can not see that, as some do on GT. :banghead:

Ukraine Train · Dec 17, 2003

If someone is threatening bodily injury to you but not to the point of where your life is threatened or you feel that you are about to get robbed, like if a group of guys confront you in a dark street or something, can you expose the gun just as a deterrent, without actually pulling it? Or should the only way they know you have the gun be if you pull it to defend your life?

Pilgrim · Dec 17, 2003

In California, the crime of brandishing a deadly weapon is defined as displaying a deadly weapon in an angry and threatening manner except when done in lawful self-defense. A firearm does not have to be loaded for brandishing to be charged.

Pilgrim

spacemanspiff · Dec 17, 2003

same up here. pushing your coattails to the side to reveal your weapon is verboten. only time your weapon should be exposed is when putting on/taking off, and when used in self defense.

King · Dec 17, 2003

I think TarplyG covered it. Showing your gun with intent. Intent means to elicit a desired response. If you brandish a weapon on me, I would consider it a threat and that you expect me to comply with your expectations.

You brandish, you better be prepared to use it (in my view).

Showing or failing to conceal (by accident or otherwise) makes me think that someone isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer.

Byron Quick · Dec 17, 2003

Brandishing or brandish cannot be found in the Georgia Code. The only relevant statute I have found is one forbidding the pointing of a gun at another without lawful cause.

The guy's stupid. As Mr. Heinlein once noted,"Stupidity is a capital crime. There is no appeal and the universe carries out the sentence without mercy."

papercut · Dec 17, 2003

If the police wanted to arrest me if my concealed firearm became visible (e.g., accident when my sweater rode up or something) and charge me with "brandishing," then I'd make sure my lawyer had fun pointing out all the bailiffs in the courtroom who were "brandishing" too and if the judge had a rule against firearms being "brandished" in his courtroom. (Don't know how far I'd get, but it's worth a try.)

Majic opined:
If he is carrying concealed then purposely exposes the firearm without a real or perceived need of the firearm, then the permit should be revolked. He has violated the purpose of the permit which is to have the firearm concealed.

CCW permits give you permission to conceal a firearm. In Georgia, AFAIK it is not illegal to wear an unconcealed firearm, and the Georgia CCW laws don't say that I give up my right to wear it exposed just because I have a CCW. Therefore, it wouldn't be illegal if my handgun was exposed. (Byron, want to chime in here?)

What does and does not constitute brandishing?

member

Member

Member

Member

Moderator Emeritus

Moderator Emeritus

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member in memoriam

Member

member

Member

Member

Senior Member

Member

Moderator In Memoriam

Member

Similar threads