Bad guy at my door. Not hypothetical.

[JRH6856]

Why do some here think you should keep your gun hidden? Maybe Im missing something but it seems like a pretty good deterrent to me.

Perhaps because there are times when a deterrent isn't necessary and then it can seem downright unfriendly.

 

[Derry 1946]

Depending on the circumstances, the display of a weapon as a deterrent may be a form of unlawful brandishing. This is reason enough to exercise some discretion and prudence, even at your own front door. Plus, if it turns out to be a neighbor bringing you a pie, you may feel foolish greeting her with iron.

 

[Fred Fuller]

Why do some here think you should keep your gun hidden?

Sometimes it depends on what else you want to do that day ...

http://weaponsman.com/?p=14546

 

[JSH1]

Why do some here think you should keep your gun hidden? Maybe Im missing something but it seems like a pretty good deterrent to me.

Some of use were taught manners. Answering the door while holding a gun is not considered to be polite in most places.

 

[larryh1108]

Well, answering the door with a handgun visible, but not pointed at the guy, is not that bad of an idea after the 2 texts he received. Minus the texts, no need for a visible gun. After 2 texts of trouble on the way and I'll have one visible but not pointed at him. The texts escalated the ambience a bit.

 

[SnowBlaZeR2]

True. But walking to the door to meet someone with gun in hand and "happens to see" are likely to be interpreted very differently. Brandishing, menacing, assault, and aggravated assault are not trivial charges. indeed. And there is always the risk of being shot.

I just can't agree with you on this one. I'm not just referring to this post, but most that you've made in the thread on this particular point. I refuse to take actions based on how others might perceive them, or what someone might lie about in court. I'd rather take action based on my abilities, the law and what is necessary to protect those I care about. I've had people come through my fenced in back yard in the middle of the night, and you better believe that I went to meet them with gun in hand. If they saw me walking to the door/window with my weapon, claimed I pointed it at them and that got me into some trouble, so be it. I'll take my chances in a court before I take my chances being unprepared. I realize it's a different situation, but I got the feeling from your posts that you were generalizing maybe a little more than you should have.

In the middle of the day, I can't say I'd be in my back yard with my front door unlocked and my weapon inside. I agree with you on that one. If I had a neighbor I knew send me a text like that, I'd probably be ready to go as well. At that point, figuring out what the guy might say in court is extremely low on my list of priorities. Another thing you brought up is the guy in New Hampshire. I'm not really that familiar with that case, but didn't he admit that he did it? I believe he said she was trespassing and that was his right to act that way, which is incorrect. It wasn't really an issue of he said/she said, just an issue of him not understanding the law. Maybe I'm wrong on that though.

It's possible that I'm misinterpreting the point you're making, or reading too far into it. Either way, I look forward to your thoughts.

 

[stressed]

I think I would have dealt differently, and not let individual see a weapon. I would find out exactly who he was looking for and why, more courteous I guess, but that doesn't mean I'm not alert.

Most regrettable incident here would be in 1996, a couple 4 houses down from where I lived where murdered in a home invasion. The perps walked through our backyard to the woodline behind as they hid their van in the woods behind our house adjacent to the frontage road on other side of woods.

I has always wanted to be a Soldier when I was a boy, and being playful would be "alert" at times when I hear things with a Marlin Model 99M1 and jump up at port arms. That night I do so after hearing chatter and observed two individuals walking across law. Thought nothing of it after observing and went to bed. Turns out they most likely were the two men who killed said family.

Odd part was I was never questioned by the police. Maybe my parents were at the time, but I was not.

Had I shot them I could of saved two lives. But in the same respect, in the moment in time how do you know they were not just two individuals crossing the lawn drunk as I have seen before, and even thinking of doing so would be criminal.

You never know.

 

[Theohazard]

I refuse to take actions based on how others might perceive them, or what someone might lie about in court. I'd rather take action based on my abilities, the law and what is necessary to protect those I care about.

In an ideal world, this approach would make sense. But we don't live in an ideal world, and therefore this is a bad approach to take. The law is based on perceptions, so the key to staying out of jail is to control those perceptions while still managing to protect the people you care about. Because it's pretty hard to protect the people you care about when you're in jail.

If they saw me walking to the door/window with my weapon, claimed I pointed it at them and that got me into some trouble, so be it. I'll take my chances in a court before I take my chances being unprepared.

Those two things aren't mutually exclusive. There are plenty of ways to minimize your chance of ending up in court without sacrificing your safety or readiness. And I would think that being in court would definitely sacrifice your readiness.

 

[SnowBlaZeR2]

In an ideal world, this approach would make sense. But we don't live in an ideal world, and therefore this is a bad approach to take. The law is based on perceptions, so the key to staying out of jail is to control those perceptions while still managing to protect the people you care about. Because it's pretty hard to protect the people you care about when you're in jail.

Those two things aren't mutually exclusive. There are plenty of ways to minimize your chance of ending up in court without sacrificing your safety or readiness. And I would think that being in court would definitely sacrifice your readiness.

You really cherry picked my post, and took what I said out of the original context, but I still wanted to respond.

I don't know where you live, so I won't pretend that I know the laws there. In Florida, nothing I have described would land me in jail. In the incident I described, the gentleman that illegally found his way into my back yard in the middle of the night could very well have had a pistol pointed at him, and I would have slept like a baby after the deputies removed him from my property. Luckily for all involved, I quickly recognized him as a drunk neighbor that hopped the wrong fence, and that's as far as it went for the night.

For what it's worth, open carry on my property is also legal, and there is no requirement for a holster. Unless one is threatening others or waving it around carelessly, it's perfectly legal. Notice I said legal, not smart. You're right, there are plenty of ways to minimize being dragged into court. One of them is to know your state's laws.

I'm not advocating answering the door with a pistol in hand if you see the UPS truck in your driveway at 2pm on a Saturday. It's reasonable to assume he is not there with malicious intent. I also feel safe in assuming someone banging around my house at 2am isn't there to drop off my new toys.

 

[SnowBlaZeR2]

I just can't agree with you on this one. I'm not just referring to this post, but most that you've made in the thread on this particular point. I refuse to take actions based on how others might perceive them, or what someone might lie about in court. I'd rather take action based on my abilities, the law and what is necessary to protect those I care about. I've had people come through my fenced in back yard in the middle of the night, and you better believe that I went to meet them with gun in hand. If they saw me walking to the door/window with my weapon, claimed I pointed it at them and that got me into some trouble, so be it. I'll take my chances in a court before I take my chances being unprepared. I realize it's a different situation, but I got the feeling from your posts that you were generalizing maybe a little more than you should have.

In the middle of the day, I can't say I'd be in my back yard with my front door unlocked and my weapon inside. I agree with you on that one. If I had a neighbor I knew send me a text like that, I'd probably be ready to go as well. At that point, figuring out what the guy might say in court is extremely low on my list of priorities. Another thing you brought up is the guy in New Hampshire. I'm not really that familiar with that case, but didn't he admit that he did it? I believe he said she was trespassing and that was his right to act that way, which is incorrect. It wasn't really an issue of he said/she said, just an issue of him not understanding the law. Maybe I'm wrong on that though.

It's possible that I'm misinterpreting the point you're making, or reading too far into it. Either way, I look forward to your thoughts.

Kleanbore, I just went back and read the link you posted on the first or second page of this topic about brandishing. I think I was misinterpreting what you were saying. We're probably good here.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by SnowBlaZeR2: I just can't agree with you on this one [(referring to "walking to the door to meet someone with gun in hand and "happens to see" are likely to be interpreted very differently.)].

You may disagree, but the law may say otherwise, depending upon the jurisdiction. Carefully study the link contained in Post #37.

I refuse to take actions based on how others might perceive them,...

When it comes to an imminent threat of force--either one pertaining to potential charges of such as something like aggravated assault, or one that would provide a basis for a reasonable belief to a lawful defender that presentation of a firearm is immediately necessary--perception by others can be everything.

...or what someone might lie about in court.

That's another issue.

I'd rather take action based on my abilities, the law and what is necessary to protect those I care about.

Good. It is a very good idea to understand the law before bringing out a firearm.

I've had people come through my fenced in back yard in the middle of the night, and you better believe that I went to meet them with gun in hand.

That brings up two issues.

First, we have had numerous discussions here about the wisdom of going outside to investigate something. That's a very dangerous idea. We often bring up the case of the Texas airline mechanic who heard someone rifling his trailer at night, went out with a shotgun, and was ambushed, stabbed, disarmed, and shot.

Secondly, the fact that someone has entered your fenced yard does not, by itself, justify threatening with a firearm.

One must be very careful indeed when addressing trespass. I mentioned the case of a New Hampshire citizen who found that out the hard way. He too went out with gun in hand when someone unlawfully came upon his property. His name is Ward Bird. I do not know what his prisoner number was.

Quite some time ago, an appellate court in Virginia agreed to hear the case of a citizen who had been convicted of unlawful use of force in dealing with trespass. The court upheld the conviction; in explaining the law, which is by no means peculiar to Virginia, one of the superior court justices pointed out that, had the trespasser employed deadly force to defend himself against the landowner, he would have been justified under the law.

If they saw me walking to the door/window with my weapon, claimed I pointed it at them and that got me into some trouble, so be it.

Stop for a moment: there is a distinct difference between someone's having "seen you walking to the door with your weapon" and answering a door with firearm in hand. The latter pertains to your purpose in the interaction. And that purpose is paramount.

And depending upon the jurisdiction, "pointing" may not be necessary to make the presentation unlawful. In at least one "gun friendly" state, merely telling someone that you have a firearm with you can, absent lawful justification and under some circumstances, constitute aggravated assault, which is a felony. So could putting your hand on it.

I'll take my chances in a court before I take my chances being unprepared.

One can be prepared without putting oneself at legal risk, and I fail to see how standing directly in front of someone with a gun at one's side constitutes being very well prepared for a worst case scenario.

The OP in the is case, if he had been charged, may well have been able to win the case, perhaps before proceedings went very far at all, but that isn't something one wants to test.

If I had a neighbor I knew send me a text like that, I'd probably be ready to go as well. At that point, figuring out what the guy might say in court is extremely low on my list of priorities.

And on mine too of course, but one reason for that is that I would never have walked to the door to question him with a firearm in my hand. What would be the point? To make a point? If so, then what he will say in court, should it come to that, or to the police, should he report it, could become very important indeed.

 

[Kleanbore]

Kleanbore, I just went back and read the link you posted on the first or second page of this topic about brandishing. I think I was misinterpreting what you were saying. We're probably good here.

Good. Ships that pass in the night....

 

[Trunk Monkey]

Pure conjecture. Would the OP have ignored the text message to "lock and load"? Only he knows.

Might the "visitor" have come around back? There is no way to know, but that's another risk that is probably worth contemplating.

OK but I will say that had the OP simply made a habit of locking the front door he wouldn’t have had to rush through the house grabbing his gun to meet the guy at the front door.

 

[Kleanbore]

For those who haven't taken the time, there are a number of stickies, including some in a sticky library, at the top of the posts in ST&T that are intended to help our members.

Most of them arose from discussions that come up rather often here.

 

[SnowBlaZeR2]

You may disagree, but the law may say otherwise, depending upon the jurisdiction. Carefully study the link contained in Post #37.

I've lived in several different states, thanks to the Marine Corps, and becoming familiar with the self defense laws of that state was always high on my list when I moved.

When it comes to an imminent threat of force--either one pertaining to potential charges of such as something like aggravated assault, or one that would provide a basis for a reasonable belief to a lawful defender that presentation of a firearm is immediately necessary--perception by others can be everything.

As I said, I'm confident in my knowledge of our laws and my abilities. For me personally, I'll take my chances with perception versus an illegal intruder because I'm worried about what someone that is illegally on my property might say happened. We all have to live with our own decisions.

That's another issue.

It was brought up as a reason to dictate how someone handles their weapon, and that's why I made the point.

Good. It is a very good idea to understand the law before bringing out a firearm.

Agreed.

That brings up two issues.

First, we have had numerous discussions here about the wisdom of going outside to investigate something. That's a very dangerous idea. We often bring up the case of the Texas airline mechanic who heard someone rifling his trailer at night, went out with a shotgun, and was ambushed, stabbed, disarmed, and shot.

Secondly, the fact that someone has entered your fenced yard does not, by itself, justify threatening with a firearm.

One must be very careful indeed when addressing trespass. I mentioned the case of a New Hampshire citizen who found that out the hard way. He too went out with gun in hand when someone unlawfully came upon his property. His name is Ward Bird. I do not know what his prisoner number was.

Quite some time ago, an appellate court in Virginia agreed to hear the case of a citizen who had been convicted of unlawful use of force in dealing with trespass. The court upheld the conviction; in explaining the law, which is by no means peculiar to Virginia, one of the superior court justices pointed out that, had the trespasser employed deadly force to defend himself against the landowner, he would have been justified under the law.

That's another discussion, I think. Training, a clear head and awareness will dictate each situation. I'm not going to be calling the deputies out every time I hear a noise at night.

On the second point, I don't think I ever mentioned threatening anyone that entered my yard with a weapon. Going to the back door to turn the lights on with a pistol in my hand is not threatening anyone.

Stop for a moment: there is a distinct difference between someone's having "seen you walking to the door with your weapon" and answering a door with firearm in hand. The latter pertains to your purpose in the interaction. And that purpose is paramount.

And depending upon the jurisdiction, "pointing" may not be necessary to make the presentation unlawful. In at least one "gun friendly" state, merely telling someone that you have a firearm with you can, absent lawful justification and under some circumstances, constitute aggravated assault, which is a felony. So could putting your hand on it.

I think I expanded on my point in an earlier response. Quite obviously, there will be a difference in how you respond to the delivery man versus an unknown near your home in the middle of the night.

Yep, it's good not to live in one of those states.

One can be prepared without putting oneself at legal risk, and I fail to see how standing directly in front of someone with a gun at one's side constitutes being very well prepared for a worst case scenario.

The OP in the is case, if he had been charged, may well have been able to win the case, perhaps before proceedings went very far at all, but that isn't something one wants to test.

I'm not sure what your point is here. I don't think I ever advocated standing directly in front of someone with a weapon at my side. Reminds me of MCMAP actually, and how you're taught to fight someone standing with their arms at their sides. Made no sense.

I wouldn't have been in that situation. Grilling, mowing, building. Nearly every outdoor activity short of swimming involves a holstered pistol on my hip.

And on mine too of course, but one reason for that is that I would never have walked to the door to question him with a firearm in my hand. What would be the point? To make a point? If so, then what he will say in court, should it come to that, or to the police, should he report it, could become very important indeed.

I wouldn't have either. It would have been holstered, and what happened through my locked front door would have dictated my actions. I just don't really see much difference between a firearm in the hand and one in the holster, in this particular discussion. If someone plans to lie about what happened, they are just as likely to do it in either case.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by SnowBlaZeR2: Going to the back door to turn the lights on with a pistol in my hand is not threatening anyone.

Agree. That does paint a picture that differs from "I've had people come through my fenced in back yard in the middle of the night, and you better believe that I went to meet them with gun in hand." The difference resides in the fact that your purpose in having it in hand as you walk to the door to turn on the lights was not to show it to someone else in the course of a confrontation with him.

I just don't really see much difference between a firearm in the hand and one in the holster, in this particular discussion.

The difference is immense. The outcome of latter will hinge only upon whether having a firearm is lawful in the location in question. That of the former, unless the circumstance involves a discussion of or the shooting of firearms, will hinge entirely upon whether there was a basis for a reasonable belief that presenting the weapon was lawfully justified under the circumstances, because of the interaction with the other party. The threshold for justification varies, but in all jurisdictions of which I am knowledgeable, at least the use of force would have be justified. In all but a small handful of states, the threshold is much higher.

 

[larryh1108]

I'll still contend that the 2 texts he received, whether accurate or not, are enough of a mitigating circumstance to warrant having a firearm in your hand. The mindset is totally different when you are expecting trouble due to an alert versus greeting a doorbell pusher or lost soul.

 

[PabloJ]

Tonight at sunset I was outside lighting my grill and I heard one of my neighbors yelling. Not unusual as he and his wife are having issues, so I dismissed it which was a big mistake. A couple minutes later my army neighbor sent me 2 texts back to back. First said "locknload" second said "lock front door NOW". So I don't hesitate. To hell with the grill. As I run through my back door and grab my m9 from the table I head to the door. M9 just reassembled from cleaning, empty gun mag on table. I slam the mag home and as I rack the slide I see the bad guy walking up to my door. He is obviously out of place as western Kentucky has very few people of Indian (continent not Native American) descent and none of them wear bright purple sashes around their necks. He sees me chambering but he's already committed. Through the door I ask what he is doing on my porch and he responded in a very fidgety manner he was looking for Michael applegate. I know my neighbors and applegate ain't any of them. I say he's not here or anywhere on this street and you need to move along. He does...presumably because he saw me armed and at this point I'm cocked and locked safety off gun at my side. He heads next door and I tell him again applegate doesn't live on this street. At this point he looks up the street and gets in his van and leaves but 3 city cops block the road. Apparently he saw them turn in. They search the driver, my guy, and the van, cuff my guy and send the van on its way.

So, my mistake was ignoring my neighbor as the guy asked him for applegate and then for gas money to help find applegate...and got pushy when he was told no. My army neighbor answered the door with his Rottweiler and saw what was up, delayed the guy and texted me and the other neighbors while he was "seeing if he had cash". That rott stood guard on the front door guaranteed. I'm not sure what the pd found but they did arrest and it was on the radio as "an arrest following an altercation". I got lucky I guess, but I'm glad I have good neighbors who look out for each other.

The best advice I can offer you based on description given is for you NOT to open the door next time. It will help both you and the person trying to talk to you.

 

[SnowBlaZeR2]

Agree. That does paint a picture that differs from "I've had people come through my fenced in back yard in the middle of the night, and you better believe that I went to meet them with gun in hand." The difference resides in the fact that your purpose in having it in hand as you walk to the door to turn on the lights was not to show it to someone else in the course of a confrontation with him.

Perhaps my wording was a little aggressive, and interpreted differently than intended. The one time anyone even knew I had a weapon, it was because they were physically trying to enter my home.

The difference is immense. The outcome of latter will hinge only upon whether having a firearm is lawful in the location in question. That of the former, unless the circumstance involves a discussion of or the shooting of firearms, will hinge entirely upon whether there was a basis for a reasonable belief that presenting the weapon was lawfully justified under the circumstances, because of the interaction with the other party. The threshold for justification varies, but in all jurisdictions of which I am knowledgeable, at least the use of force would have be justified. In all but a small handful of states, the threshold is much higher.

For the purpose of this discussion, we are talking about someone making a false statement against you. Letting them know you have a weapon in any manner, including legally carrying holstered, opens you up to their mercy, in the opinions of some here.

In Florida, we don't have a law that specifically calls it "brandishing". We have this:

"790.10 Improper exhibition of dangerous weapons or firearms.—If any person having or carrying any dirk, sword, sword cane, firearm, electric weapon or device, or other weapon shall, in the presence of one or more persons, exhibit the same in a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense, the person so offending shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083."

More or less, the same concept I think, but some might interpret brandishing to mean simply allowing a weapon to be seen. The use of force is not necessary for displaying a weapon. I think it would also be beneficial to have a clear definition of what you mean by "presenting the weapon". In my interpretation, that would be presenting it to a target, or aiming it at someone. Is that what you meant, or simply displaying it?

One thing I do want to make clear, is that I'm only making discussion here. I think everyone knows they need to do their own research for their own areas and make their own decisions. I have spoken at length with a neighbor who is also a deputy, and I trust what he says. That doesn't mean that he would be the responding officer if something were to happen, or that others in the law enforcement community interpret things the same way that he does. I trust what I have learned, and my actions. I trust him as well, but not enough to bet my freedom or life on it.

 

[WNTFW]

If I wanted to alert a friend I would not text I would call. That way I know they heard me.

I would rather not have a gun visible. Always ask what does introducing a gun into this situation help you accomplish. If you don't see my gun you are less likely to accuse me of threatening you with a gun. If you describe it wrong that may also help me.

A gun won't necessarily have the effect you want. BG may not back down or he may escalate, now what.

Having a gun on you is entirely different than having one visible. You can even have one in your hand and not have it visible.

The problems with internet discussions of scenarios is we don't know all the OP's experiences and environment. He did what he did to his best ability with what he had to work with in the situation. We can interject a million variables. Being negative is one way to go. Giving a fair assessment is another.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by SnowBlaZeR2: For the purpose of this discussion, we are talking about someone making a false statement against you.

How so? "He came to the door and spoke to me with a gun in his hand" is not a false accusation.

Letting them know you have a weapon in any manner, including legally carrying holstered, opens you up to their mercy, in the opinions of some here.

I don't see that.

In Florida, we don't have a law that specifically calls it "brandishing". We have this:

"790.10 Improper exhibition of dangerous weapons or firearms.—If any person having or carrying any dirk, sword, sword cane, firearm, electric weapon or device, or other weapon shall, in the presence of one or more persons, exhibit the same in a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense, the person so offending shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083."

That's a rather minor offense. You also have assault, which is any unlawful threat, made by word or act, to do violence against someone, coupled with a well founded fear on the part of that person that said violence was imminent; and aggravated assault, which involves a firearm. Those are the important ones.

Now, will the charging authority or the triers of fact believe that having a gun in your hand when you approached someone to talk to him constituted a threatening act? That will depend upon the totality of the evidence. If you are hunting with a long arm carried safely, probably not. If you are walking toward someone with a pistol in hand, you had better have a really, really good explanation.

That brings us to whether it was unlawful. Well, an immediate threat made without lawful justification is unlawful.

So, what constitutes lawful justification? In a handful of states, a basis for a reasonable belief that physical, non-deadly force was immediately necessary would suffice. By the way, Florida is not one of them.

In the others, the threshold for justification goes to the level of an immediate need to employ deadly force.

Let's change moccasins here for a moment. Suppose that you are acting lawfully, except perhaps to the extent that you may be trespassing inadvertently or in a manner that is excusable under the criminal code. Someone appears and comes toward you with a handgun in his hand.

He has the ability and the opportunity to cause death or serious bodily harm. Unless you have the ability or get to cover or concealment or to escape with perfect safety, the only thing left to you is to judge his intent, in an instant, and to decide how to act instantly.

Not a good place for either person to be.

 

[SnowBlaZeR2]

How so? "He came to the door and spoke to me with a gun in his hand" is not a false accusation.

It was mentioned by some in this thread that they might make a statement that you had pointed the weapon at them, and you having it in your hand somehow might contribute to that.

No, it wouldn't be a false accusation in that case, if that was their statement. As it turns out, it also wouldn't be illegal where I live.

That's a rather minor offense. You also have assault, which is any unlawful threat, made by word or act, to do violence against someone, coupled with a well founded fear on the part of that person that said violence was imminent; and aggravated assault, which involves a firearm. Those are the important ones.

Now, will the charging authority or the triers of fact believe that having a gun in your hand when you approached someone to talk to him constituted a threatening act? That will depend upon the totality of the evidence. If you are hunting with a long arm carried safely, probably not. If you are walking toward someone with a pistol in hand, you had better have a really, really good explanation.

That brings us to whether it was unlawful. Well, an immediate threat made without lawful justification is unlawful.

So, what constitutes lawful justification? In a handful of states, a basis for a reasonable belief that physical, non-deadly force was immediately necessary would suffice. By the way, Florida is not one of them.

In the others, the threshold for justification goes to the level of an immediate need to employ deadly force.

Do you have anything to support that this applies to Florida? Everything I know about my state's laws says otherwise. The only explanation necessary is that I didn't threaten anyone, I'm on my property and open carry is legal without a requirement for it to be holstered.

On that note, what says opening the door with a holstered weapon isn't viewed as a threatening act? What if someone comes up and sees a recently cleaned, fully assembled and scary "assault rifle" on my table? If we want to nitpick and what if the laws and say this might potentially happen if you come across someone that got cold coffee this morning, we could go on all day. The fact of the matter is that the law is on the side of those that obey it, at least most of the time.

Another interesting note is that there is a potential for Florida to pass legislation allowing for "brandishing" and even a warning shot. While I'm not saying that it is necessarily a good idea, it would make this conversation an entirely moot point from my perspective. I'm not sure where that HB currently sits, but I'll have to look into it more at some point.

Let's change moccasins here for a moment. Suppose that you are acting lawfully, except perhaps to the extent that you may be trespassing inadvertently or in a manner that is excusable under the criminal code. Someone appears and comes toward you with a handgun in his hand.

He has the ability and the opportunity to cause death or serious bodily harm. Unless you have the ability or get to cover or concealment or to escape with perfect safety, the only thing left to you is to judge his intent, in an instant, and to decide how to act instantly.

Not a good place for either person to be.

Define "comes toward you". Walking to the front door or opening with a pistol in his hand is most definitely not the same thing as running out of the house waving it around and screaming at me to get off his land. One is legal under Florida law, and one is not.

*edit*

I also want to point out that it's completely possible to answer your door with an un-holstered pistol while keeping it hidden from whoever is at the door. Some keep insinuating that the only way to do this is to answer it with your shoulders squared facing your visitor. I can think of two occasions that I might answer the door with an un-holstered pistol, and that'd be if I was swimming or sleeping. In either case, I'm not going to concern myself with how the person at the door feels about me being armed in my own home. If it's not practical, I'll do my best to keep it hidden. Not necessarily because I'm worried about them "feeling" threatened, but because I don't particularly want everyone to know I'm armed.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by SnowBlaZeR2: Do you have anything to support that this applies to Florida?

For assault, see 784.011; for aggravated assault, see 784.021. Also see the firearms enhancement provision under penalties.

For defense of justification, see 776.

Everything I know about my state's laws says otherwise.

I'm afraid you have some homework to do. It is best to not rely upon a layman's interpretation of dictionary definitions of individual statutes taken in isolation, or to base one's beliefs solely on the words contained in codes enacted by the legislature. Case law can make a all of the difference in the world.

The best thing to do is to consult an experienced criminal defense attorney who practices in the field of use of force law.

If you have the time, you might find it enlightening to sit through two or three jury trials involving relevant cases--assault cases, self defense claims, and so on. Fred Fuller makes that recommendation from time to time.

The only explanation necessary is that I didn't threaten anyone,...

That may be your assertion, but it would not explain what you were intending to do or to communicate by exhibiting your firearm, nor would it substantiate a claim that did you not knowingly and willfully threaten someone by your actions.

I'm on my property and open carry is legal without a requirement for it to be holstered.

True, but that does not make threatening someone with your actions lawful.

If you are carrying your gun in hand down to the creek to shoot it, or carrying it in pursuit of a rodent or reptile, you would be justified, not that it would necessarily be the wisest way to carry it. The potential problem arises when you are carrying it in your hand toward a confrontation without sufficient justification.

The potential complications there are manifold. Legal risks may be the least of them.

On that note, what says opening the door with a holstered weapon isn't viewed as a threatening act?

Years of precedence say that you would be on safe ground, provided that you did not say or do something (such as pointing to the firearm) that could be seen as a threat.

What if someone comes up and sees a recently cleaned, fully assembled and scary "assault rifle" on my table? If we want to nitpick and what if the laws and say this might potentially happen if you come across someone that got cold coffee this morning, we could go on all day.

That's getting a little silly, don't you think?

The fact of the matter is that the law is on the side of those that obey it, at least most of the time.

Yes, of course, by definition.

Another interesting note is that there is a potential for Florida to pass legislation allowing for "brandishing" and even a warning shot. While I'm not saying that it is necessarily a good idea, it would make this conversation an entirely moot point from my perspective. I'm not sure where that HB currently sits, but I'll have to look into it more at some point.

I think it is moribund, but unless the OP had a lawful justification, the conversation would not be moot even if HB 89 were enacted; it would come into play only when actual physical force is justified.

Of course, the conversation started about an incident in Kentucky.

Define "comes toward you". Walking to the front door or opening with a pistol in his hand is most definitely not the same thing as running out of the house waving it around and screaming at me to get off his land. One is legal under Florida law, and one is not.

"Comes toward you" means "comes toward you".

Now if going to the door to answer it took you "toward" someone ringing the bell, that action would likely fall far short of constituting a threat, not to mention giving someone reason to believe that deadly force was necessary for his own lawful self defense.

My example referred to somewhere out of doors, as in the case of Ward Bird.

But once you have opened the door so that your firearm can be seen by the visitor, and to the extent that it is clear that having him see it was your intent, you are likely on shaky ground. You might well get by OK, or not, but it could be costly and unpleasant ether way.

I also want to point out that it's completely possible to answer your door with an un-holstered pistol while keeping it hidden from whoever is at the door.

Absolutely. There is no possibility of being accused of having threatened someone under those circumstances.

 

[SnowBlaZeR2]

For assault, see 784.011; for aggravated assault, see 784.021. Also see the firearms enhancement provision under penalties.

For defense of justification, see 776.

784.011 Assault.—
(1) An “assault” is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.
(2) Whoever commits an assault shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

784.021 Aggravated assault.—
(1) An “aggravated assault” is an assault:
(a) With a deadly weapon without intent to kill; or
(b) With an intent to commit a felony.
(2) Whoever commits an aggravated assault shall be guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

I still don't see anywhere that would make me believe carrying a firearm in my hands in my own home would land me in jail.

I'm afraid you have some homework to do. It is best to not rely upon a layman's interpretation of dictionary definitions of individual statutes taken in isolation, or to base one's beliefs solely on the words contained in codes enacted by the legislature. Case law can make a all of the difference in the world.

The best thing to do is to consult an experienced criminal defense attorney who practices in the field of use of force law.

If you have the time, you might find it enlightening to sit through two or three jury trials involving relevant cases--assault cases, self defense claims, and so on. Fred Fuller makes that recommendation from time to time.

I'm not trying to be insulting here, but I also don't think it's best to rely on the interpretations of someone I don't know on an Internet forum. Suffice it to say, my personal experience and knowledge leaves me comfortable with my views on this topic.

That may be your assertion, but it would not explain what you were intending to do or to communicate by exhibiting your firearm, nor would it substantiate a claim that did you not knowingly and willfully threaten someone by your actions.

So essentially, it comes down to my version of events versus someone that violated the law during the incident. It appears that we're back where we started. Nothing prevents them from making any claims they like.

True, but that does not make threatening someone with your actions lawful.

If you are carrying your gun in hand down to the creek to shoot it, or carrying it in pursuit of a rodent or reptile, you would be justified, not that it would necessarily be the wisest way to carry it. The potential problem arises when you are carrying it in your hand toward a confrontation without sufficient justification.

The potential complications there are manifold. Legal risks may be the least of them.

I don't believe I said anything about threatening anyone with my actions.

I'm perfectly within the law when carrying a firearm to a "confrontation" with someone that is making an attempt at entering my home illegally.

Years of precedence say that you would be on safe ground, provided that you did not say or do something (such as pointing to the firearm) that could be seen as a threat.

That we can I agree on. I haven't come across anything about someone being charged for simply holding a pistol in their home, either.

That's getting a little silly, don't you think?

In this thread, no I don't.

I think it is moribund, but unless the OP had a lawful justification, the conversation would not be moot even if HB 89 were enacted; it would come into play only when actual physical force is justified.

Of course, the conversation started about an incident in Kentucky.

Entirely why I stated "from my perspective".

"Comes toward you" means "comes toward you".

Now if going to the door to answer it took you "toward" someone ringing the bell, that action would likely fall far short of constituting a threat, not to mention giving someone reason to believe that deadly force was necessary for his own lawful self defense.

My example referred to somewhere out of doors, as in the case of Ward Bird.

But once you have opened the door so that your firearm can be seen by the visitor, and to the extent that it is clear that having him see it was your intent, you are likely on shaky ground. You might well get by OK, or not, but it could be costly and unpleasant ether way.

As I said, "comes toward you" can mean very different things. There are too many reactions one could have if someone "comes toward you", and I don't think it wise to speculate what that would be without being more specific.

 

[SnowBlaZeR2]

I think I'm going to call it a day on this topic. Kleanbore, thanks for the discussion and for giving me a different perspective along with a few things to consider.