Why Are Range Officers Armed?

[Geronimo45]

Ridiculous. There is no justification in threatening to pull a gun for a silly rule. It's like the police firing on you for running a red light, or for not paying up your parking meter.

 

[beerslurpy]

Don't confuse brandishing with assault. Putting your hand on your gun/sword isnt assault because it doesnt create an imminent apprehension in the mind of the person. But it is still brandishing.

Assault is more like an "oh crap, that guy is about to hit me in the face if I dont duck/block/etc. " Assault consists of doing something that appears will result in great bodily harm or death unless something further happens and creating an apprehension of this in another person. It has to appear to be a real imminent danger to you, and you have to be aware of it to be assaulted.

Brandishing is a less immediate form of threat, where someone is displaying a weapon in a way designed to create fear.

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm getting better at pretending.

 

[.38 Special]

Putting your hand on your gun/sword isnt assault because it doesnt create an imminent apprehension in the mind of the person. (Tuberville v Savage)

Maybe I've read too much Bill Jordan, but if I see a hand move to a gun butt in response to something I've said/done, I assume I'm a half second away from a gun fight.

Which would make me a touch apprehensive.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

The Range Officer went to far when he unsnapped his holster, and placed his hand on his weapon. Doing so definitely held the implication that lethal force would be used if the shooter did not back down in a verbal confrontation. This is by definition brandishing.

Umm, exactly whose definition? It ain't brandishing under my state's laws.

It could, however, be made into "threatening," which is a worser offense than "brandishing" (in my state).

It may be brandishing under your state's laws, XB, but as is usually the case with firearms laws, one size does not fit all and general pronouncements should, ideally, be avoided.

 

[Huddog]

Jurisdictions differ as to the definition of assault. I agree it would not be a battery because no unwanted touching actually occurs but it "could" put a person in fear of said unwanted touching and a good case could be made that it is an assault. I also agree he is brandishing.

 

[beerslurpy]

Well there is obviously a fine line between assault and brandishing which only becomes relevant if you choose not to draw and instead argue about it in front of a judge. If you shot the guy, obviously you would argue that he was drawing on you and you had to defend yourself.

 

[mnrivrat]

No the RO wasn't the owner. I thought the holster thing was out of line too. Did the RO actually break any laws? He was openly carrying, and he didn't remove the pistol from the holster, so he didn't brandish it. I wondered about this also. I am debating about telling the management about the incident, but I'm not the party directly involved.

I wouldn't debate wether to tell the management - I would write them a letter explaining what you witnessed and tell them you will not return to this range until this RO is relieved of employment there. Tell them to send you a letter when that happens and then you may consider returning.

A threat of leathal force in this case was insane and dangerous. Will he threaten you next ?

 

[.38 Special]

Well there is obviously a fine line between assault and brandishing which only becomes relevant if you choose not to draw and instead argue about it in front of a judge.

Urg. Too much legaleze for me.

I know only that the RO's actions were utterly inapropriate and threatened imminent violence for absolutely no valid reason.

 

[Powderman]

Did the range nazi break any laws? In WA State:

"(1) A person is guilty of an attempt to commit a crime if, with intent to commit a specific crime, he or she does any act which is a substantial step toward the commission of that crime." - RCW 9A.28.020

Placing one's hand on a holstered firearm while speaking in a firm tone to another person would lead a reasonable person to believe that the person being talked to was in danger of being shot with the firearm, if they did not obey the commands of the person with the gun.

Considering:

" A person is guilty of assault in the first degree if he or she, with intent to inflict great bodily harm:

(a) Assaults another with a firearm or any deadly weapon or by any force or means likely to produce great bodily harm or death..." - RCW 9A.36.011

Since Assault 1 is a Class A felony in this State, if I were on the range and witnessed this, I would immediately command the range nazi to place his hands up, and this would most assuredly be at gunpoint. He would then be proned out, his firearm removed, and he would be then placed under custodial arrest for Assault in the First Degree. (A Felony). His attorney would more than likely get it knocked down to Assault 2nd (B Felony) or even Assault 3rd (C Felony)--but since the crime--and yes, it was most assuredly a crime against a person--involved a firearm, he would most likely be convicted of a felony. Thus, Mr. Range Nazi loses his ability to carry or own firearms permanently. Not that idiots like that need access to firearms in the first place.

What a moron. I would inform the store's owner ASAP. This guy can cost him his livelihood, his store and everything he owns.

 

[XavierBreath]

Umm, exactly whose definition? It ain't brandishing under my state's laws.
It could, however, be made into "threatening," which is a worser offense than "brandishing" (in my state).
It may be brandishing under your state's laws, XB, but as is usually the case with firearms laws, one size does not fit all and general pronouncements should, ideally, be avoided.

Excellent Point. Here is the best I could find concerning Texas law. Lets stick with Texas law, since the incident occured in Texas, OK? (Bold type is mine)

§ 22.01. ASSAULT. (a) A person commits an offense if the
person:
(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes
bodily injury to another, including the person's spouse;
(2) intentionally or knowingly threatens another with
imminent bodily injury, including the person's spouse; or
(3) intentionally or knowingly causes physical
contact with another when the person knows or should reasonably
believe that the other will regard the contact as offensive or
provocative.
(b) An offense under Subsection (a)(1) is a Class A
misdemeanor, except that the offense is a felony of the third degree
if the offense is committed against:
(1) a person the actor knows is a public servant while
the public servant is lawfully discharging an official duty, or in
retaliation or on account of an exercise of official power or
performance of an official duty as a public servant;
(2) a person whose relationship to or association with
the defendant is described by Section 71.0021(b), 71.003, or
71.005, Family Code, if it is shown on the trial of the offense that
the defendant has been previously convicted of an offense under
this chapter, Chapter 19, or Section 20.03, 20.04, or 21.11 against
a person whose relationship to or association with the defendant is
described by Section 71.0021(b), 71.003, or 71.005, Family Code;
(3) a person who contracts with government to perform
a service in a facility as defined by Section 1.07(a)(14), Penal
Code, or Section 51.02(13) or (14), Family Code, or an employee of
that person:
(A) while the person or employee is engaged in
performing a service within the scope of the contract, if the actor
knows the person or employee is authorized by government to provide
the service; or
(B) in retaliation for or on account of the
person's or employee's performance of a service within the scope of
the contract; or
(4) a person the actor knows is a security officer
while the officer is performing a duty as a security officer.
(c) An offense under Subsection (a)(2) or (3) is a Class C
misdemeanor, except that the offense is:
(1) a Class A misdemeanor if the offense is committed
under Subsection (a)(3) against an elderly individual or disabled
individual, as those terms are defined by Section 22.04; or
(2) a Class B misdemeanor if the offense is committed
by a person who is not a sports participant against a person the
actor knows is a sports participant either:
(A) while the participant is performing duties or
responsibilities in the participant's capacity as a sports
participant; or
(B) in retaliation for or on account of the
participant's performance of a duty or responsibility within the
participant's capacity as a sports participant.
(d) For purposes of Subsection (b), the actor is presumed to
have known the person assaulted was a public servant or a security
officer if the person was wearing a distinctive uniform or badge
indicating the person's employment as a public servant or status as
a security officer.
(e) In this section:
(1), (2) Repealed by Acts 2005, 79th Leg., ch. 788, § 6.
(3) "Security officer" means a commissioned security
officer as defined by Section 1702.002, Occupations Code, or a
noncommissioned security officer registered under Section
1702.221, Occupations Code. (4) "Sports participant" means a person who
participates in any official capacity with respect to an
interscholastic, intercollegiate, or other organized amateur or
professional athletic competition and includes an athlete,
referee, umpire, linesman, coach, instructor, administrator, or
staff member.
(f) For the purposes of Subsection (b)(2):
(1) a defendant has been previously convicted of an
offense listed in Subsection (b)(2) committed against a person
whose relationship to or association with the defendant is
described by Section 71.0021(b), 71.003, or 71.005, Family Code, if
the defendant was adjudged guilty of the offense or entered a plea
of guilty or nolo contendere in return for a grant of deferred
adjudication, regardless of whether the sentence for the offense
was ever imposed or whether the sentence was probated and the
defendant was subsequently discharged from community supervision;
and
(2) a conviction under the laws of another state for an
offense containing elements that are substantially similar to the
elements of an offense listed in Subsection (b)(2) is a conviction
of an offense listed in Subsection (b)(2).

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1977, 65th Leg., 1st C.S., p. 55, ch. 2, § 12, 13,
eff. July 22, 1977; Acts 1979, 66th Leg., p. 260, ch. 135, § 1,
2, eff. Aug. 27, 1979; Acts 1979, 66th Leg., p. 367, ch. 164, §
2, eff. Sept. 1, 1979; Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 5311, ch. 977, §
1, eff. Sept. 1, 1983; Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 1052, § 2.08,
eff. Sept. 1, 1987; Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 739, § 1 to 3, eff.
Sept. 1, 1989; Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 14, § 284(23) to (26),
eff. Sept. 1, 1991; Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 334, § 1, eff.
Sept. 1, 1991; Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 366, § 1, eff. Sept. 1,
1991; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994;
Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 165, § 27.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1997; Acts
1995, 74th Leg., ch. 318, § 5, eff. Sept. 1, 1995; Acts 1995,
74th Leg., ch. 659, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995; Acts 1997, 75th
Leg., ch. 165, § 27.01, 31.01(68), eff. Sept. 1, 1997; Acts
1999, 76th Leg., ch. 62, § 15.02(a), eff. Sept. 1, 1999; Acts
1999, 76th Leg., ch. 1158, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1999; Acts 2003,
78th Leg., ch. 294, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2003; Acts 2003, 78th
Leg., ch. 1019, § 1, 2, eff. Sept. 1, 2003; Acts 2003, 78th Leg.,
ch. 1028, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2003; Acts 2005, 79th Leg., ch. 728,
§ 16.001, 16.002, eff. Sept. 1, 2005, Acts 2005, 79th Leg., ch.
788, § 1, 2, 6, eff. Sept. 1, 2005.

§ 22.05. DEADLY CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense
if he recklessly engages in conduct that places another in imminent
danger of serious bodily injury.
(b) A person commits an offense if he knowingly discharges a
firearm at or in the direction of:
(1) one or more individuals; or
(2) a habitation, building, or vehicle and is reckless
as to whether the habitation, building, or vehicle is occupied.
(c) Recklessness and danger are presumed if the actor
knowingly pointed a firearm at or in the direction of another
whether or not the actor believed the firearm to be loaded.
(d) For purposes of this section, "building," "habitation,"
and "vehicle" have the meanings assigned those terms by Section
30.01.
(e) An offense under Subsection (a) is a Class A
misdemeanor. An offense under Subsection (b) is a felony of the
third degree.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.


§ 22.06. CONSENT AS DEFENSE TO ASSAULTIVE CONDUCT. The
victim's effective consent or the actor's reasonable belief that
the victim consented to the actor's conduct is a defense to
prosecution under Section 22.01 (Assault), 22.02 (Aggravated
Assault), or 22.05 (Deadly Conduct) if:
(1) the conduct did not threaten or inflict serious
bodily injury; or
(2) the victim knew the conduct was a risk of:
(A) his occupation;
(B) recognized medical treatment; or
(C) a scientific experiment conducted by
recognized methods.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.

 

[ctdonath]

Many - RO or not - at any given range are armed precisely to deal with exactly the situation of someone inappropriately/dangerously using a gun to force their will upon others, to wit: stopping armed assault.

Whether the Idiot RO's behavior constituted "assault" technically depends on definitions in the given jurisdiction. In some areas, it is considered assault ... and in some areas, may be justification for armed defense.

Depending on jurisdiction, the Idiot RO was legally either actively engaged in assault or threatening to do so. GET OUT NOW. You ARE carrying a CCW piece for such situations, regardless of location, right? While not Condition Red, the situation was certainly Condition Orange - act appropraitely. GET OUT NOW. Contact the Idiot RO's superiors immediately.

And when someone with a gun in a position of authority tells you "4 seconds between shots", do so. Stupid rule, yes ... but the rule nonetheless, backed up by an armed RO.

 

[XavierBreath]

Here it is

Aguila Blanca,
It seems the great state of Texas has a definition of what occured under § 42.01, Disorderly Conduct. Some places call it brandishing, others call it disorderly conduct. Either way, it is illegal.

§ 42.01. DISORDERLY CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an
offense if he intentionally or knowingly:
(1) uses abusive, indecent, profane, or vulgar
language in a public place, and the language by its very utterance
tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace;
(2) makes an offensive gesture or display in a public
place, and the gesture or display tends to incite an immediate
breach of the peace;
(3) creates, by chemical means, a noxious and
unreasonable odor in a public place;
(4) abuses or threatens[0] a person in a public place in
an obviously offensive manner;
(5) makes unreasonable noise in a public place other
than a sport shooting range, as defined by Section 250.001, Local
Government Code, or in or near a private residence that he has no
right to occupy;
(6) fights with another in a public place;
(7) discharges a firearm in a public place other than a
public road or a sport shooting range, as defined by Section
250.001, Local Government Code;
(8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon[0] in a
public place in a manner calculated to alarm;
(9) discharges a firearm on or across a public road;
(10) exposes his **** or genitals in a public place and
is reckless about whether another may be present who will be
offended or alarmed by his act; or
(11) for a lewd or unlawful purpose:
(A) enters on the property of another and looks
into a dwelling on the property through any window or other opening
in the dwelling;
(B) while on the premises of a hotel or
comparable establishment, looks into a guest room not the person's
own through a window or other opening in the room; or
(C) while on the premises of a public place,
looks into an area such as a restroom or shower stall or changing or
dressing room that is designed to provide privacy to a person using
the area.
(b) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(4)
that the actor had significant provocation for his abusive or
threatening conduct.
(c) For purposes of this section:
(1) an act is deemed to occur in a public place or near
a private residence if it produces its offensive or proscribed
consequences in the public place or near a private residence; and
(2) a noise is presumed to be unreasonable if the noise
exceeds a decibel level of 85 after the person making the noise
receives notice from a magistrate or peace officer that the noise is
a public nuisance.
(d) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor
unless committed under Subsection (a)(7) or (a)(8), in which event
it is a Class B misdemeanor.
(e) It is a defense to prosecution for an offense under
Subsection (a)(7) or (9) that the person who discharged the firearm
had a reasonable fear of bodily injury to the person or to another
by a dangerous wild animal as defined by Section 822.101, Health and
Safety Code.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1977, 65th Leg., p. 181, ch. 89, § 1, 2, eff. Aug.
29, 1977; Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 4641, ch. 800, § 1, eff. Sept.
1, 1983; Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 145, § 2, eff. Aug. 26, 1991;
Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts
1995, 74th Leg., ch. 318, § 14, eff. Sept. 1, 1995; Acts 2001,
77th Leg., ch. 54, § 4, eff. Sept. 1, 2001; Acts 2003, 78th Leg.,
ch. 389, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.

So, had the range officer drawn and pointed his firearm, it would be deadly conduct (§ 22.05) under Texas law. By using it to intimidate and cause alarm, he is guilty of disorderly conduct (§ 42.01). At least that's the way it looks to me.

 

[Cosmoline]

I'd unload my firearm and leave that range FOREVER, making a point of telling the owner exactly where to stick it. That's totally unacceptable behavior. The range officer is a dangerous loon.

It happened at my favorite range too, I go there 3 or 4 times a month.

Stop, and tell them why you're stopping. Idiots like that do enormous damage to the RKBA.

 

[OEF_VET]

In the state of TN, that Range Officer would have opened themselves up to a butt-whooping of major proportions.

Had I been the aggrieved individual, I'd have stepped back, dug out my cell phone, and reported the assault to the police, in front of the RO.

He could explain to the police why he felt threatened enough to place his hand on his gun. And, considering there were obviously witnesses who could back up the fact that there was no real or implied threat to the RO, I'd certainly be pressing charges. If the cops didn't want to arrest him, I'd affect a citizen's arrest and request the cops transport him to the local jail, in order for me to swear out a warrant against him.

People like him are the reason we have to constantly battle the image of gun-folks being hot-headed, knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing neandrathals who are simply looking for a chance to recreate the Gunfight at the OK Corral.

 

[Geronimo45]

ROs should be armed - there's the chance that a BG comes in to borrow a gun, and runs off to kill somebody. All sorts of things.

 

[RustyShackelford]

range rules/policy/laws-enforcement

This armed range officer seems like he went over-board, .

I posted a detailed incident that I had with members of the PA Game Commission on this board before. The short version is that I was cited with a $138.00 ticket, I pled not guilty and was cleared by a local disrict justice. My money was refunded but it was a major hassle. I considered filling a formal complaint with the PGC but I had more important things to do at the time.

Several years ago when I was an MP in Korea, a range control NCO/E-6 got upset with me and pulled the loaded mag out of his 1911a1 .45acp because he claimed I was unsafe on a M-60 range. A South Korean soldier(KATUSA) moved by me in a careless way as I was walking off the training range with a M-60 machine gun. I held the big M-60 with the muzzle downrange but had to move it away from the Korean soldier so I would not hit him as he got up. This ticked the range NCO off but I was like; "***?" Like many US Army NCOs in South Korea they would rather yell at US soldiers than put the blame on KATUSAs(even when the KATUSAs made mistakes or errors, :banghead: ).

Rusty

 

[Will Learn]

OEF_VET you took the words right out of my mouth, this guy needs to have some consequences for his irrational behavior. I'm sure that the owner wouldn't want the club represented in that manner. If he(the owner) doesn't get rid of this RO I'm sure his club will be in the newspaper before too long and we'll see where his buisness goes from there.

 

[Ryder]

Straps? Snaps? They ought to call them go buzzers. Don't use them myself.

 

[Hoppy590]

thats rediculous. this is a strange ranger if i ever heard of one. guy is probibly a wanna be cop and is far too irresponsible and irrational to be allowed to cary.

id go to this guys boss as suggested, and if he fails to remove the RO id go to the police. for the majority of places it IS BRANDISHING and it shouldnt be taken lightly especialy from some one whos supposed to be promoting safe arms use.

 

[AJAX22]

You need to inform the management of the employee's actions, preferably in writing, Its a bit far after the fact to get the law involved, but if I had an employee I would want to know that they were acting in a dangerous and or agressive manner. One bad employee can cost a buisness owner his entire livelyhood.

And yes, the gung ho jerk is lucky he didn't try that pistol move with a hothead or a punk lookin for a fight. (but cowards typically only try to bully the weak and the elderly)

Please post again letting the rest of us know that you've written to the managment, I for one will sleep better when I know that his actions have been addressed. An RO like that is a poor ambassador for the gun owning community, and he will be in contact with first time shooters and non gunnies who want to try the sport.

 

[Travis Lee]

XB, by my own reading of your above citation, I would view the RO's action as past brandishing to assault, since he is making an obvious deadly threat, whether verbally articulated or not.

If the owner of the range is not made aware of the situation, I think that RO is likely to either shoot someone, or get shot himself. Probably sooner, rather than later.

--Travis--

 

[kd7nqb]

My Range

I agree this guy way over reacted, serious big time. But two other questions come to mind. First, 4seconds is a LOOONG time between shots the most I have ever heard is 2. Also I have never understood the no rapid fire rule. The range I shoot at has a much more sensible yet subjective rule. "Act appropriatly" many times I have emptied my clip on my Astra-A60 or on a range glock as fast as I can pull the trigger to see what my grouping looks like at that speed. BUT I dont do it if the range is crowded and I dont act dumb about it. I few weeks back there was a guy "rapid firing" but actually slower than I was but he had his hand turned sideways and was more like gangsta UZI style. He was sternly warned that, his behavior was not appropriate. Also the RO's at this range are all family of each other and they own it. One of the ladies there has only one hand so she knows that if somebody ever went seriously wrong she would be at a disadvantage so she openly carries. OH YEA and I have seen her draw and fire at the firing line and she draws quicker than any of us. The other RO's all carry concealed. In addition there is a 12gauge mounted behind the counter.

 

[beerslurpy]

38, imminent means imminent in the sense that something is about to happen, unless some additional action occurs to prevent it.

A guy putting his hand on his gun is very close to the line, but barring some actual hint of intent to draw the gun and shoot someone, it isnt really assault.

Technically speaking, even drawing the gun wouldnt count as assault unless you beleived he was going to shoot you. If he is just holding the gun and talking in an angry voice, that is a whole bunch of things, but I dont think any of them are assault.

I certainly dont commit assault or even brandishing if I am out hunting and holding a gun while I argue with one of my hunting buddies- no intent to cause fear (brandishing) and no imminent threat of death or bodily harm (assault).

By the same token, a guy who fumbles with his holster and hasnt drawn the gun yet, but is clearly intending to do so and then kill you would be committing an assault. Imminent danger plus your apprehension thereof.

Legalese is fun!

 

[Frog48]

Is this particular "Range Officer" a licensed armed security guard or LEO? If not, he broke many Texas laws during the above confrontation with the range customer. He cannot state, nor imply, that he is carrying a firearm in an official capacity through employment. Nor can he open carry unless, regardless where he works.

Its no different than if a bank hired some Joe to work in a security or supervisory position, in which being armed is a requirement. He needs to be licensed as an armed guard, or be an off-duty sworn Texas peace officer.

The Texas Statutes are very clear on this subject.

 

[Powderman]

Regarding "rapid fire"

I am also the president of my gun club. Our rule concerning rapid fire? Simple. We don't give a rip if you shoot one round per minute, or fifty rounds per second, as long as they all hit the backstop. Period. End of story.

As a matter of fact, we have a Class II manufacturer who routinely trots out the goodies--MP5K, usually, and at least one suppressed rifle--and lets everyone on the range drool over them. The RSO's and club directors and trustees usually get to run a few rounds through them, too.