When is it legal to brandish a firearm?

[tattedupboy]

So I guess that the subject of this thread should be, "When is it legal to to point a firearm at someone?", since we all agree that "brandishing" is never legal, although pointing it to stop an attacker is.

[gdcleanfun]

So I guess that the subject of this thread should be, "When is it legal to to point a firearm at someone?", since we all agree that "brandishing" is never legal, although pointing it to stop an attacker is.

I do like that question. Yet, because the definitions probably differ by state, maybe we could further ask what the laws are state by state? I believe that this was Ishi's original thought. Brandishing is not legal. Using a weapon in self defense is. The law in my state does not say that I have to pull a trigger, or fire, or throw or send a projectile outward. It might be legal to hold someone at gunpoint in Nevada, but not in Montana. (I'm just picking states out of the air, IDK for certain.)

[tattedupboy]

I do like that question. Yet, because the definitions probably differ by state, maybe we could further ask what the laws are state by state? I believe that this was Ishi's original thought. Brandishing is not legal. Using a weapon in self defense is. The law in my state does not say that I have to pull a trigger, or fire, or throw or send a projectile outward. It might be legal to hold someone at gunpoint in Nevada, but not in Montana. (I'm just picking states out of the air, IDK for certain.)

Good point. Anyway, whether it's called brandishing or something else, what we do know is that the overwhelming majority of defensive firearm uses every year in the U.S. do not result in any shots being fired, according to John Lott, author of More Guns, Less Crime.

[Stratus41298]

In CT it's the same idea. Basically, if you brandish, it better be in the defense of life. If you reasonably suspect that your life or the lives of others are in danger of death or serious injury you have the right to draw. I like the idea of "serious injury" because it leaves it open to different ideas. Maybe the guy had a bottle in his hand or a bat? It also states that the mere threat of serious harm is legally enough to detain the person using a reasonable amount of force. So if the guy says, "I'm gonna get my bat and kill you!" but doesn't even own a bat, you still have the right to draw right there and detain him until the police arrive. Maybe not such a great case to prove, but i'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by six.

"I was in fear of my life" .......... A mantra a day will keep the lawyers away :)

[CathyInBlue]

I've searched the Indiana Code website and can't find anything with the word "brandish" at all, so I tried various searches on "display firearm", "show firearm", "visible firearm", "see firearm", and still got nothing, so I just started searching more genericly on the terms firearm, gun, weapon, "deadly thing", and as far as I can tell, Indiana has absolutely no law regarding the display of a firearm, whether justifiably as in self-defense, or unlawfully, as in the commission of a crime.

[Boomboy007]

In a professional capacity i've had to draw my weapon several times (Security not a LEO) once was while off duty but on a property contracted by the company. I was on property speaking with a guard about their schedule (salary sucks)...anywho I heard shots and figured it was off property but checked anyway and called on duty staff over

.well there it was in a populated metro city 2 men were shooting a rifle at cars passing on a very busy interstate. I was carrying and without thinking took them down at gun-point in plain clothes. I immediately called 9-1-1 and officers were there in about 10 minutes, by this time I had cleared the rifle- set it on top of my car, patted down the subjects and re-holstered my weapon.

When PD Arrived I got plenty of thank you's and ego-boosters not a single comment about "brandishing". I don't know if this is because I was Security for the property and just off duty or if it was because I possibly stopped them from killing someone. I also received commendation from my employer and the Police Dept.

In my experience the law varies from cop to cop, and if they don't write you a citation then you probably aren't going to be charged...

(I am not a lawyer, don't listen to me)

Sorry, but I have to doubt the veracity of this story. In my time on the force, the one thing that I HATED more than anything was someone ********** around with evidence. While I would be dubious of you sneaking up on two snipers, I am CERTAIN that putting your prints all over a piece of evidence, as well as removing a live cartridge from a weapon used in a crime, as well as MOVING a critical piece of evidence, would warrant arrest. Any DA worth his or her salt would have made a very unpleasant example of you. Thus, I call a big BS.

[seawolf]

Enjoyed reading this thread of posts --- 11 pages at this point. As many of you are probably well aware, many handgun owners are equipping their personal weapons with a trace laser. Many of these lasers are advertised as being a "deterrent" in and of themselves. Has anyone heard where a trace laser has been used **legally** and **effectively** in a self-defense situation? Isn't this brandishing, but at a higher level? Could this be considered assault in some states?

[Austin]

In Oklahoma it is almost never ok to brandish. I have always been trained that if you feel the need to pull a weapon you need to take the shot.

This does not include carrying at work, as I have had to brandish quite a few times on duty.

[Lanearas]

IMO this is a simple question. If you're going to draw on someone, you had better be planning on killing the BG. If, for some reason (we can't predict everything!) the BG sees you drawing and turns tail, you'd better be the first one calling the police to report the incident to avoid a brandishing charge. If the BG doesn't call, who knows who else witnessed the incident, or was caught on some surveillance camera, and might be making the call without the full story behind them.

[chroode]

Format Document

13-407. Justification; use of physical force in defense of premises

A. A person or his agent in lawful possession or control of premises is justified in threatening to use deadly physical force or in threatening or using physical force against another when and to the extent that a reasonable person would believe it immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of a criminal trespass by the other person in or upon the premises.

B. A person may use deadly physical force under subsection A only in the defense of himself or third persons as described in sections 13-405 and 13-406.

C. In this section, "premises" means any real property and any structure, movable or immovable, permanent or temporary, adapted for both human residence and lodging whether occupied or not.

I love Arizona.