Firearm Carry Theory: Is it brandishing?

[ezkl2230]

You're preaching to the choir in this forum. I would say that most of the folks here - including me - would agree with you, that this is the way things should be.

Not trying to start an argument over semantics, but I'm not sure that everyone IS on the same page with reference to the Second Amendment. I know that most folks here would believe that the FED truly has little to no Constitutional jurisdiction where this amendment is concerned, but I have read many more remarks that seem to indicate that many believe Second Amendment rights are reserved to the STATE to control. Yet, the wording in the Bill of Rights indicates that even THAT understanding is not really correct. Vermont is probably the closest to the intent of the Bill of Rights with regard to the Second Amendment, as it has what appear to be some of the least restrictive laws relating to firearm carry of any state in the union - enough to insure that firearms don't end up in the wrong hands, but otherwise keeping their hands off. I would love to see Michigan reach that kind of balance, although the lack of state certification does play havoc with federal GFSZA compliance. But, then, the fed overstepped its Constitutional authority by implementing the GFSZA in the first place!

[billwot]

According to other sites (though still not necassarily from a lawyer)...GATTTOTP has to meet all 3 criteria.

1. Having any unusual and dangerous weapon
2. For the purpose of terrifying others (in a manner to cause terror to others)
3. go about on public highways

If any one of those three criteria are not met, you can not be charged (or the charges must be dropped) for GATTTOTP. I am not saying that is how the NC court systems work, nothing is absolute...but that's how a large number of people believe it to mean, if the courts don't see it that way, well it's a lame law and lame court system.

You are correct that all 3 criteria must be met (at least here in NC. And obviously the key item in the list is "For the purpose of terrifying others". Unless it was your intent to terrify others, you are not guilty of GATTTOTP.

BTW, the only place in NC I have ever heard of anyone being arrested got GATTTOTP is Chapel Hill.

[dragon6]

I'm sure things in NC have changed since my experience in 1990. I was driving home in Charlotte from my work at a gun range. My Colt Gold Cup on the seat next to me as was the law at the time. The hammer was back, safety on, one in the chamber and a full magazine. Stopped by Charlotte PD for a burned out tail light. The rookie officer arrested me for brandishing because the hammer back represented carrying in a dangerous or threatening manner. Thankfully, his Sergeant arrived and instructed him to release me. (The Sergeant was a regular customer of ours). Bottom line, people who are not familiar, or are afraid of firearms can be unreasonably alarmed by your or my handgun. Some of these people even become cops. Propper legal concealed carry reduces, if not eliminates, the risk of brandishing issues.
Romans 8:37

[Wyldekard]

I both like and can appreciate that Iowans don't care that your ammo isn't showing. I think is speaks volumes of the civility of it's citizens and your state. However, I just did a Google search and found OpenCarry.org, and they claim - "Iowa is not a traditional open carry state, but no permit is required to open carry except when in vehicles or when inside city limits. Open carry in cities is technically legal with an Iowa permit to carry weapons, however Iowa is a may-issue state, and some sheriffs have indicated that they will revoke your permit for open carrying."

If they are correct, I would argue that discretion is perhaps a better and wiser course. Also one could argue that the point of carrying concealed is primarily to give yourself a tactical advantage. While open carry allows you to keep a firearm handy, this doesn't seem to be a viable option in Iowa without some potential repercussions.

Kind regards,

- SB

Iowa has been a "will issue" state since January 1, 2011. One of "those" sheriffs got taught a lesson months before the change in the law went into effect last January.

"It was wrong for Osceola County Sheriff Douglas Weber to deny Paul Dorr of Ocheyedan a permit to carry a concealed weapon three years ago, according to a court ruling issued Wednesday.

U.S. District Judge Mark Bennett also ordered Weber to successfully complete a court-approved course on the U.S. Constitution within five months."

[Wyldekard]

Having the gun in the holster is legal whether its concealed or in view.
Don't try to carry at a COE lake, that is not legal yet. State parks at the COE lakes are a grey area as the park is usually on leased ground from the Corps. I have carried in several state parks owned by the state without a problem.
Leave it in the holster and carry on as usual.

Thanks for the tip about COE! I don't have to deal with that normally as anything they own or lease out is a long way away from me. I will certainly do the research in case the situation occurs.

I do pass through a state park 98% of the time I leave my property because I'm headed there or use it as a shortcut. Of course you are free to conduct yourself anyway you see fit. I'm just respectfully suggesting that you may not be giving sufficient consideration to the combination of running into a prick from the DNR, the legal definition of "display", (display)display: legal definition of display)display:. display)display: synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary. verb, brandish, bring to light, demonstrate, disclose, divulge, evidence, evince, exhibit, express, flaunt, flourish, illustrate, indicate, parade, present, reveal, show, wave)), and a prick prosecuting attorney. I made the ones that could happen by accident and still be prosecuted in bold.

Hopefully, someday soon the Legislature will slap the DNR and the Attorney Generals Office (that issued the bad opinion that let certain groups think they don't have to follow a clearly worded law) in line.

Crap! I'm way off subject in my own thread.

[Phillip Gain]

You entirely missed my point.

My comment was meant not as jest, but as a sarcastic comment on Florida law that seems to indicate that pulling a weapon...AND THEN not discharging it, IS brandishing. If this is so then the law leaves you no options, draw and shoot, even if the aggressor breaks off, or DON'T draw and perhaps suffer injury or death. If the law requires me to discharge the weapon once drawn and the aggressor is retreating, am I to kill him in order to avoid being charged or do the humane thing and discharge it away from him? Of course there is your suggestion, take the rap of brandishing and go to jail.

I hope I dont have to deal with this and I probably wont as I use my permit in Texas where the law is much more precise and allows me to shoot if he is on my property and has not yet crossed the property line in retreat. I doubt that I would, but then again, unlike Florida law that says I must shoot if I draw the weapon, Texas allows me to re holster my weapon with no threat to my liberty.

Please cite the statute that says you have to fire if you pull. I am willing to bet that you are misinterpreting the law. No state that I know of has this kind of insane stipulation.

I never said "take the rap of brandishing and go to jail." I'd appreciate it if you did not put words in my mouth. This is what I said, and I stand by it. If you feel I'm incorrect, you should check with an attorney in your state who specializes in firearms law:

The standard for DISPLAYING deadly force is the same as the standard for USING deadly force. Reasonable belieft there is an imminent threat to your life or safety. Factual knowledge there is an imminent threat to the life or safety of another.

If you pull, under those conditions, and the bad guy is lucky enough to stop his attack and run off before you have to shoot, then you ARE NOT GUILTY OF A CRIME OF BRANDISHING OR MENACING. You must, however, call 911 and report the incident (because the bad guy is on the phone calling them saying some crazy guy pulled a gun on him). Hopefully you'll have witnesses.

"Throwing a shot over his retreading [retreating?] frame" is a really stupid move. You never know where that shot fired high is going to land. Good chance you could be cited for destruction of property, malicious wounding, manslaughter, or any number of other things for not knowing or caring what is beyond your intended target. (Which was what? The air over his shoulder?)

[rdc2co]

Slightly relevant, but slightly irrelevant; Florida once had a plain English pamphlet addressing concealed weapons permits. There was a section that said something like "Where can I have my concealed weapon?" and another section that said something like "Where is my weapon prohibited?" Does Florida still print this pamphlet? Do any other states have a similar pamphlet or guide?
I ask this because I wish Colorado lawmakers had enough IQ to print something like this, along with plain English translations of the laws. Do any of these brochures address 'menacing', 'brandishing', 'improper display', and things similar to it?
I wonder how many states could avoid major problems by clarifying the laws....

My apologies to all the attorneys who might be reading this....

[wiesket]

When and if I carry an extra magazine I put in one of my extra multi-tool holders. Fits in there very nice, and is pretty much accepted by most people so it doesn't set off alarms.....