About Drawing a Firearm....

[Kleanbore]

We have had quite a few threads on the subjects of when it is permissible to draw a firearm and when drawing a firearm may be the appropriate thing to do from the tactical standpoint.

Questions such a "would you draw", "when can I draw", and "would this be brandishing", along with "this happened to me" stories that involve drawing or "almost" drawing, come up frequently.

Just to recap the legal aspects: From the standpoint of legality, the fact is that, in all but a few jurisdictions, a civilian may not lawfully draw a gun, or in many jurisdictions even display one, unless he or she is engaged in a lawful act of self defense.--that is, unless he or she has reason to believe that it is immediately necessary to do so to defend against imminent danger of death or seriously bodily harm. There are some exceptions involving the prevention of a forcible felony, but the threshold of immediate necessity is the same for those.

To reduce that to plain English, one may not draw simply because someone is walking toward him or taunting him or appears to be following "threatening", or because someone ignores a "command" to not approach. The danger must be serious and imminent.

Drawing when it is not lawfully justified can lead to very serious criminal charges.

From the tactical standpoint, it is important to realize that, if one has drawn a firearm, one may appear to be threatening someone unlawfully, or to be otherwise engaged in the commission of a crime of violence. One may thus draw unwelcome attention from police officers, or even attract fire from an overzealous armed citizen.

As Lee Lapin said here, "No reasonable, responsible person WANTS to ever have to draw, or worse, fire their sidearm [emphasis added]". If that is not self-evident, think about it a little more.

I'm sure that in most cases it has not been intentional, but as Lee Lapin put it, there's some concern that some of those threads have a bit of an air of "I almost got a chance to draw my gun" instead of "OMG I almost had to draw." One thing we can do is think about how we title our new threads.

One last thing--if we have been involved in an incident, we must all realize that anything we post about it is permanent and discoverable. If the post does not contain admissible evidence, it may well lead investigators to something that does comprise admissible evidence. The fact that charges have not been filed is no indication that they may not be. Let's be careful.

 

[Loosedhorse]

One of the advantages of pocket carry (front pants or jacket) is that you can have the gun in your hand, out of its holster, and yet NOT displayed. Of course, pocket carry has disadvantages, too (gun can only be accessed by one of your hands, for example).

You could do the same, I suppose, with a holster under a jacket at kidney position, but that still looks like a gun-draw even if the gun is not visible.

I always use a pocket holster when I pocket carry.

 

[Flfiremedic]

Another thought is that as civilians, weapons presence is not a part of the force continuum...it can in many cases be considered assault.
Distraction, movement, or anything that can de-esculate the situation may be a better option than presenting a weapon, advising that you have a concealed weapon, or putting your hand on a concealed weapon. If the threat sees the weapon they may well escalate the confrontation and anatagonize you without leaving you in "immediate fear for your life or the life of another". With the weapon out or your hand on it, you have a lot fewer options than you would otherwise...and regardless of a previous poster's thoughts, one handed self defense while holding a firearm is NOT an easy or good thing.
Obviously these thoughts are situational, and one can always what if things for days, and tactics change in the presence of a true threat.
One might also want to remember in todays information age, old discussions of situations one may have been in, the type and number of weapons carried could all come up in court YEARS after a post. YMMV

 

[Rexster]

Good post, Kleanbore. I usually don't read the almost-drew-my-weapon threads, but the few times I have, I have seen posts indicating some folks seem to want to engage an adversary. We should keep in mind that proving one's skill at arms may have undesirable and unintended consequences. Some things are better left untested.

As for one's Internet activity being probed by prosecutors and plaintiff's attorneys, for
indications of prior intent, believe it! We all have the right to remain silent, but some lack the ability.

 

[Rexster]

One of the advantages of pocket carry (front pants or jacket) is that you can have the gun in your hand, out of its holster, and yet NOT displayed. Of course, pocket carry has disadvantages, too (gun can only be accessed by one of your hands, for example).

You could do the same, I suppose, with a holster under a jacket at kidney position, but that still looks like a gun-draw even if the gun is not visible.

I always use a pocket holster when I pocket carry.

The classic Jack Benny pose can also be used to have one's hand on a weapon, but still holstered, for those who use cross-draw or some shoulder rigs. For the more flexible among us, the hand can be rotated to surreptitiously cross-draw with from a strong-side rig, while in the Jack Benny pose. (I must credit SouthNarc, the first I noticed on-line to use the words "Jack Benny" in reference to the reaching across one's lower torso while appearing to adopt an innocent gesture.)

Regarding limitations of pocket carry, one need not carry his only weapon pocketed. (Once a fight starts, getting a hand into the pocket, and onto that gun, can be problematic.) A front pocket is a great place to carry ONE of my weapons.

 

[I_like_Guns]

too bad open carry isn't legal (in more places), I feel like a lot of possible BGs or just aggressive idiots that look like they might be a BG wouldn't even cause a problem if they saw the holstered gun. Of course on the other hand if anyone did decide they wanted to hurt you they would have perfect knowledge of your weapon and be able to plan their attack with that in mind.

might be a good idea to learn a martial art or carry a nonlethal (not sure about legality of brandishing non-lethal weapons though) so you can subdue a bg without causing serious injury, and just leave the gun for when they use weapons or its a group attack.

 

[Sam1911]

nonlethal (not sure about legality of brandishing non-lethal weapons though) so you can subdue a bg without causing serious injury, and just leave the gun for when they use weapons or its a group attack.

If you are legally justified in ASSAULTING someone with a weapon (even a "less lethal" device) -- and threatening or brandishing a weapon is generally an assault -- then you are in a position where you'd be legally justified in using lethal force.

(In most states. Some states do differentiate between "force" and "lethal force" may be applied. You'd better REALLY know your local laws on that though.)

Or said another way, if you don't have an articulable reason why you felt your life was in grave jeopardy from a specific person who has both the ability and opportunity to do you harm, you cannot shoot him. If you have insufficient legal justification for shooting someone (99% of the time), it is unlawful to kick them, punch them, stab them, strike them with a baton, Taze them, pepper-spray them, etc.

 

[Flfiremedic]

We need to remember that as armed citizens, we are there to stop an immediate and articulable threat to life safety...not to subdue or control another individual(s). OC and Tasers aside, the states I'm familiar with address most other less lethal (read impact) weapons directly as being illegal for carry.
I agree 100% with the right to open carry, but honestly feel that it brings about the additional obligation of weapons retention. I also agree that open carry weapons presence might figure into the force continuum but it might also open you up to some pretty aggressive harrassement by certain populations in order to illicit a response from you.

 

[MedWheeler]

Another concern once a firearm is drawn is whether or not there will be a need to "race back to the holster". If the threat remains, but suddenly becomes less-than-lethal (e.g.: suspect drops his tire iron, then charges full-speed at you with obvious intent to attack), you will need to "dispose" of your weapon to effectively engage in CQB defense. In some cases, it may appear likely he intends to disarm you and kill you with your own weapon, in which case, you may be able to legally defend and justify shooting him. However, if that does not appear to be his intent, you'd better be able to get that gun out of the equation quickly, and keep it out (unless its need returns.)
Bottom line in pretty much any scenario is if you draw, you should be intending to fire as well. If you're not ready to fire, you're not ready to draw. You just need to be aware that the need to fire might disappear as you draw, and you need to be able to recognize that change and adjust your response appropriately. Just because you did not fire doesn't mean the draw wasn't justified.

 

[Sam1911]

Another concern once a firearm is drawn is whether or not there will be a need to "race back to the holster". If the threat remains, but suddenly becomes less-than-lethal (e.g.: suspect drops his tire iron, then charges full-speed at you with obvious intent to attack), you will need to "dispose" of your weapon to effectively engage in CQB defense.

I don't believe I agree with that. Attacker had a weapon, sees my gun and CHARGES me? I'm in fear of my life. I have pretty articulable reasons to believe I have no choice left but to shoot. A punch or kick or severe beating can easily kill, and I'm obviously not dealing with a rational, clear thinking person likely to be warded off by my efforts to fist-fight.

I'm not a trained fighter and have no duty to engage in a "fair fight" with someone who's threatening me -- especially once they've shown a weapon. We don't have to wander up and down a force-continuum together, with me trying to match exactly the level of force he's exhibiting at that moment.

If they FLEE and/or desist at the sight of my weapon, I must stop my counter attack. If they charge me? No way!

However, if that does not appear to be his intent, you'd better be able to get that gun out of the equation quickly, and keep it out (unless its need returns.)

He's already displayed his intent. First he threatened me with a weapon, then he charged me trying to physically assault me. (Him dropping his weapon and then attacking me seems very unlikely, but even if it happens, I don't see it as any kind of deescalation of the situation.)

Bottom line in pretty much any scenario is if you draw, you should be intending to fire as well.

Yes, or perhaps, READY to fire. I'm going to be hoping and praying (very quickly) that he breaks off his attack before my hammer falls, but that's not a lot of time.

You just need to be aware that the need to fire might disappear as you draw, and you need to be able to recognize that change and adjust your response appropriately. Just because you did not fire doesn't mean the draw wasn't justified.

Absolutely.

 

[Loosedhorse]

most other less lethal (read impact) weapons

Another name for impact weapon is bludgeon; it is a per se deadly weapon. Police, when they have documented training with the PR-24 or other baton, can demonstrate that they can use the deadly weapon in a less-lethal way.

If you want a jury to believe you used your bludgeon in a less-lethal manner, you may wany to have documented training. Bludgeons do not have to be made-to-purpose: if you start whacking (or just threatening) someone with a baseball bat, a heavy cane, or a big rock, you are using a deadly weapon.

In contrast, pepper spray is recognized as a less-lethal weapon (and, as pointed out, often a lot easier to carry legally).

if you draw, you should be intending to fire as well

How does this concept apply to clearing a gun from a pocket holster, with the gun still remaining concealed in the pocket? Do we still consider the gun as "not drawn" at that point, or is it drawn?

suspect drops his tire iron, then charges full-speed at you

Why did he drop the tire-iron before attacking? Did the attacker go to law school?

When he started coming at you with a bludgeon, you were justified to draw. If he drops the bludgeon, but attacks--you claim that a defender is reasonably required to stop, expose himself to blows by using one hand to reholster, and only then may he defend himself?

No. The reasonable assumption is that he dropped the bludgeon because he saw a much better weapon to use--your gun--and he wanted both hands free to grab it. If he takes it away, it is reasonable to assume he will kill you.

So defend yourself, from someone who is trying to kill you with your own gun. At least I would defend myself. YMMV, IANAL.

 

[Dr_B]

The issue is pretty much black and white for me.

1. Don't draw it unless you have no other option.

2. If you draw it, you better be ready to use it because the situation has escalated as far as it can go.

 

[Flfiremedic]

Yeah I am in agreement with Sam on this...if you are in a legitimate "Life Safety" situation and are forced to present a weapon e.g. attacker in close proximatey with an impact weapon such as a tire iron, essentially they have assaulted you...at that point if they continue the attack with or without the weapon in hand, I am still in fear for my life...if anything, the encounter has escalated and the threatening behavior that caused you to present a weapon has not ceased.
In regards to Dr. B's post, I am in 100 % agreement. My goals are no encounters...if there is an encounter use tactics and common sense to de-escalate the encounter...and if it comes to me drawing a weapon, it is probably at a point of no return and unfortunatley, its probably become a lethal force encounter.

 

[Seanpcola]

Very interesting reading folks. All of this is new to me so watching with full attention. I will take my CCW class next weekend and assume a lot of this will be addressed there. It seems to me that for the most part common sense should come into play.

I know that once I made my mind up to start acquiring firearms my first thought was "This type of thing doesn't need to be broadcasted about". I would just as soon go along daily with the average person not knowing I am armed. That does seem to be the standard practice, at least with most of the folks I know that are gun owners. When I started trying to learn I asked a lot of questions and was truly surprised to find the amount of people, many I have know a long while, that carry. I think that is as it should be. I know it's also extremely comforting to know there are a lot of citizens walking around that not only ARE armed and know how to use it but also know how to show discipline and constraint. On the flip side I do know a few guys that love to brag and at least talk like they are waiting for the opportunity to either shoot someone or at least draw on them for the enjoyment of intimidation. Those are the types I intend to stay well clear of plus have my doubts on their reliability if a situation did arise.

 

[Flfiremedic]

Sean,

You are entirely correct...I do my best to prevent anyone from knowing I have a concealed weapon...this decreases odds of being a target for a weapons grab, being the first target in robbery or assault of another (take out the guy with the gun first), being the target of antagonism to attempt to get me to take some sort of action, and prevents cohorts from expecting or encourging an unsound idea during an "event".

 

[Seanpcola]

Wow, even more good points I hadn't considered Flfiremedic. It does seem entirely possible that someone not armed might decide how brave THEY are when you are.

 

[Flfiremedic]

When a buddy's kid was young they went to get gass and a soda. Walked in to pay, and as they waited a line a robbery of the store took place. Buddy had no radio, cuffs, or armor-just a CH snubnose 38. His 7-8 year old son was with him. Victiams were being compliant. My buddy chose to lay low and be a good wittness as there seemed to be no immediate life safety danger. His son then yelled at the suspect that he couldn't do that (rob the store) because his did was a cop, and for Dad to get him. At that point my Buddy had to intervene...fortunately safely.

On another occasion, my first wife and I were at a large gathering for her company...free drive-in movie...huge gathering we were all on blankets, lawn chairs etc...the wife of one of our friends started yelling at me and identifying me as a LEO when another large group next to us started smoking marijuna again no cuffs, no radio, and no intentions intervene in a property crime. I spoke to them and said just do me a favor and put it out...fortunately they left, but overall not a good situation.

And you are always gonna get friends that become bullet proof if they know you are armed.

 

[Losov]

too bad open carry isn't legal (in more places), I feel like a lot of possible BGs or just aggressive idiots that look like they might be a BG wouldn't even cause a problem if they saw the holstered gun. Of course on the other hand if anyone did decide they wanted to hurt you they would have perfect knowledge of your weapon and be able to plan their attack with that in mind.

might be a good idea to learn a martial art or carry a nonlethal (not sure about legality of brandishing non-lethal weapons though) so you can subdue a bg without causing serious injury, and just leave the gun for when they use weapons or its a group attack.

Open carry doesn't interest me for several reasons, one of which is loss of tactical advantage. As for non-lethal weapons, you do need to know your local laws. Where I am they are legal but must be carried openly. Inasmuch as many of them are not easily identifiable as being what they are, this doesn't necessarily present the problems that OC of firearms does. And since by law they must be in the open, it would hardly be brandishing. As for martial arts, that's in my past and I'd just as soon, for my own reasons, leave it there.

 

[JVaughn]

might be a good idea to learn a martial art or carry a nonlethal (not sure about legality of brandishing non-lethal weapons though) so you can subdue a bg without causing serious injury, and just leave the gun for when they use weapons or its a group attack.

I disagree. Unless you are a LEO on duty, subduing isn't your job. If you (or a 3rd party) are in danger, react with all you have (which might be your carry weapon depending on the situation.) If you aren't in danger, stay out of it. You have no duty or cause to subdue a bg with a non-lethal weapon.

 

[Rail Driver]

And you are always gonna get friends that become bullet proof if they know you are armed.

I can relate to both of your stories... Not long ago, my next door neighbor had an altercation with another individual, which I didn't know the particulars of. The neighbor's gf banged on my door to get me to come outside, knowing I'm a gun owner &etc and apparently thinking I was going to involve myself in her mess. When I got outside, I observed the neighbor (22yr old male) and some old (late 50's early 60's) man fist fighting outside in front of my house. Now to put my reaction in perspective, I have a 2 year old son that likes to stand at the window and watch outside ( mostly for trucks ) who happened to be watching at the time. Once I evaluated the situation (about the time my neighbor had knocked the guy down and delivered the first of 3 kicks to the man's face) my G26 was in hand, at low ready. I still wasn't 100% on what was going on or why my neighbor was beating on an old man like that. After the second kick to the man's face, I decided that I wasn't going to let my son watch the neighbor beat a man to death and I raised my pistol and gave the neighbor a clear, loud command to stop and step back. Obviously he was confused, thinking I was out there to back him up and he gave me a stupid look for a second then he and his gf got in their car and left. I reholstered and approached the victim of the beating (he was unconscious, bleeding from mouth and nose) and checked his vitals. Strong pulse and starting to come around, though still VERY confused... obvious concussion or other closed head wound (no bleeding other than the bloody nose and broken teeth). By the time the ambulance and police showed up (15 minutes later or so) the victim had left, the neighbors had left, and there was basically nothing going on. All the other witnesses to the incident (at least 10 people) made sure to be scarce when the police showed up as well. I was the only person to make a statement. I think this "not my business" crap is why things are so bad with crime. It *IS* our business when crime happens in our neighborhoods. The police certainly don't do much to lower crime... The only thing they do in my neighborhood (poor black community mostly) is hand out traffic and parking tickets, harass people and when you call them, they don't bother showing up in time, if they show at all. (as an aside, after I called the police and ambulance but before they showed up I saw 3 police cars drive past in two different directions, no lights or anything just cruising around, yet still not responding to an emergency call even though there were at least 3 cars in the area if not more)

(the previous incident relates to the bulletproof friends comment, though not necessarily in the way it was intended when posted).

In regards to your child outing you during the robbery, my son (same 2 year old) likes to lift my shirt and say "Glock, Glock!" because I'm working with him on his vocabulary and am teaching him about guns (he knows Glock, Gun, Grip, Barrel, 9mm, ammo, trigger, and some others, and can tell the difference between a glock and other types of guns)

**Edit to add**

You have no duty or cause to subdue a bg with a non-lethal weapon.

So if someone is attacking you or another and you don't think it warrants deadly force, you're just going to let them continue to beat on you or someone else? Sorry, but I keep several less lethal impact weapons on my person (flashlight, keychain, steel toe boots....) in the event that I'm presented with a situation requiring self defense or defense of another, that doesn't require deadly force. Not every self defense situation requires *OR authorizes* the use of deadly force. Look up the use of deadly force laws in your state before something bad happens due to your theory.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Rail Driver (in response to "You have no duty or cause to subdue a bg with a non-lethal weapon): So if someone is attacking you or another and you don't think it warrants deadly force, you're just going to let them continue to beat on you or someone else?

The comment referred to bringing the attacker under control, and no, a civilian has not business attempting that. Using reasonable force to defeat the attack, to cause the attacker to cease and desist, would be lawful, but that would not be the same as "subduing".

Sorry, but I keep several less lethal impact weapons on my person (flashlight, keychain, steel toe boots....) in the event that I'm presented with a situation requiring self defense or defense of another, that doesn't require deadly force.

Careful! You have apparently not read the above post by Loosedhorse. Most impact weapons (large flashlights, bats, bludgeons, walking sticks etc.) are considered deadly weapons, and the use of one would likely be considered to constitute the use of deadly force unless one has been properly trained as a law enforcement officer in the use of certain ones (say, an approved baton) in a non-lethal manner.

Not every self defense situation requires *OR authorizes* the use of deadly force.

True.

The lawful use of an OC dispenser would serve as an altrnative to deadly force

Look up the use of deadly force laws in your state before something bad happens due to your theory.

Good idea!

 

[shootingthebreeze]

My instructor basically emphasized situational awareness, avoiding potentially dangerous areas and presenting a side target to a potential aggressor.
Obviously this is a very tricky puzzle-how would one defend against several muscular attackers like the incident involving a man who was severely beaten up after attending a ball game. We know of that incident: no weapons were bradished just that the individual was severely beaten to the point of sending him to the ICU.
Do you draw against such an attack?
In Michigan, it is clear that one can defend against imminent deadly danger or rape; I think that if gang attacked that would be deadly danger.
One has the right to defend oneself-against deadly danger or rape. Use common sense, avoid bad areas, use situational awareness, be invisible.
If that fails defend against deadly attack.
A side note: post game a person with a CPL would be unarmed only because having a firearm in a stadium like setting is not permitted. However, if gang attacked by fists in another setting then defend yourself-you are in grave danger.

 

[Madcap_Magician]

Do that many of you really live in states where there is no difference between the threat of deadly force and the use of deadly force?

Honest question.

In my state (Minnesota), which is by far not the best state to defend yourself in, but also by far not the worst, there's a clear legal difference between the requirements for use of force (which includes drawing a firearm and pointing a firearm) and the requirements for the use of deadly force (obviously, which includes discharging a firearm).

For example, in Minnesota, if I were to hear a crash in the middle of the night, and go downstairs to see a person stealing my TV, I would be justified in attempting to hold that person at gunpoint, as my use of force constitutes reasonable force in resisting an offense against my person and property.

I would not be justified in using deadly force, i.e., actually shooting or shooting at the thief, because I am not in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm (as far as I know at this point). I would not be justified in using deadly force to prevent the thief's escape, even if he still has my TV, because again, I am not in imminent danger.

The reason my use of force (drawing and holding at gunpoint) is reasonable is because I am resisting an offense against my person or property, and have no way of knowing if the burglar is armed.

 

[rhodco]

#1). My dad was a Virginia State Trooper during the early 1960's. They were not trained to draw their weapons as a precaution and "hold" a suspect at gun point in order to control him. That's what we see in modern day videos, but back then you did not draw unless you intended to shoot. He had no tazer, no vest, no OC spray, and patrolled the highways alone. The mere presence of a state trooper was deemed intimidating enough to control a suspect because of their reputation. He had one occasion where he had to use his 6-cell flashlight as a baton against a disorderly drunk that wanted to fight, but he said he never felt the need to draw because his life was not in danger. Once you draw your weapon, you set a chain of events into motion that you may not be able to stop. So, you better have a good reason.

#2). During my own encounter with a road rage maniac, he jumped out of his car at the light and approached my truck. I drew my weapon and held it against my chest to let him see it. He only paused for a second, then started dancing and waving his arms while yelling "shoot me, go ahead and shoot me!" Now, what do you do? He has demonstrated anger and intent to give me a severe thrashing, but has displayed no weapon. When I showed mine, he called my bluff. Or, he actually had a death wish. We'll never know for sure, but I narrowly escaped that encounter without firing a shot.

I think the lesson here is that you really need to have just cause before you draw your weapon, or even let it be seen. Because once you play that card, the next move is his. And, it may not be the move you were expecting.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Madcap_Magician: Do that many of you really live in states where there is no difference between the threat of deadly force and the use of deadly force?

That's not really the issue. In Florida, just to cite one example, pointing a firearm at someone does not constitute the use of deadly force, according to case law, but one may not do so lawfully unless the use of deadly force is justified.

In my state (Minnesota), which is by far not the best state to defend yourself in, but also by far not the worst, there's a clear legal difference between the requirements for use of force (which includes drawing a firearm and pointing a firearm) and the requirements for the use of deadly force (obviously, which includes discharging a firearm).

In Minnesota and in Texas, one may draw and point a firearm when force is justified. That is not true in most states.

For example, in Minnesota, if I were to hear a crash in the middle of the night, and go downstairs to see a person stealing my TV, I would be justified in attempting to hold that person at gunpoint, as my use of force constitutes reasonable force in resisting an offense against my person and property.

Not exactly; should the person choose to leave, you have no offense to resist, because the threat to your person and property would no linger exist. Therefore, attempting to hold the offender cannot be considered to constitute resisting the original offense.

You may choose to effect a citizen's arrest, but there is significant civil liability attendant to such an action.

Holding someone at gunpoint is also risky from the standpoint of personal safety. Ambush by the burglar's partner and being mistaken for an armed criminal by arriving officers (that has happened, with tragic results) are among the risks.

I would not be justified in using deadly force, i.e., actually shooting or shooting at the thief, because I am not in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm (as far as I know at this point). I would not be justified in using deadly force to prevent the thief's escape, even if he still has my TV, because again, I am not in imminent danger.

Very true.