Un-holstering a firearm in public

[2k05gt]

A guy at work last week was arrested for un-holstering his open carry sidearm in public to show someone his new Glock..

According to the officer, when a firearm is removed from it's holster in view of others (public setting) the intent is that the firearm will be used.
I have always viewed intent as defined as Defensive or offensive use, if he were defending himself he would be on the right side of the law, if he removed the firearm for offensive use, he would be on the wrong side and is classified as a criminal act. Now I don't agree with him removing his firearm in public view to show it to someone, I see that as a poor judgment but no intent as the officer claims. where do you stand on this issue..
If someone wants to show me their open or concealed carry firearm, I would have to say "can we do this later in a more private setting" So many people are afraid of non-Leo's with firearms and frankly I have seen some who are afraid of LEO's with them as well, for instance the Uniformed Cop shopping at Ikea in Md..
http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local ... 05531.html

I hope the co-worker of mine can resolve his legal issue, he may loose his job over it..

[Wolvee]

The cop was a Moron, that is not a law but the guy will still need to throw money at it to go away. The problem here is people take the easy way and Plead to a lesser offense in fear of the cost and risk involved with defending a criminal case, so the "Man" still wins.

The guy was still a dumbass.

[skeeterss0]

unless there is a law i don't know the cop is a moron. the law is brandishing. which means he intended to create fear by unholsfering. that doesnt happen in this case.

[allingeneral]

The cop was a Moron, that is not a law but the guy will still need to throw money at it to go away. The problem here is people take the easy way and Plead to a lesser offense in fear of the cost and risk involved with defending a criminal case, so the "Man" still wins.

The guy was still a dumbass.

+1 That sums up my side of the argument.

[MarcSpaz]

That law...

https://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp50 ... d+18.2-282

§ 18.2-282. Pointing, holding, or brandishing firearm, air or gas operated weapon or object similar in appearance; penalty.

A. It shall be unlawful for any person to point, hold or brandish any firearm... in such manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another or hold a firearm ... in a public place in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another of being shot or injured.

The problem is, the law is 100% opinion based.

Based on this law, you could be arrested for brandishing if your holstered weapon scares someone into believing they are at risk of being shot.

God forbid you are yelling at you kid because they did something wrong. I can see it now... "All I saw was this crazy guy with a gun yell incoherently. I thought we were all dead!"

I have unholstered to show people my weapon in public before. It made such a huge commotion and spread all over the the internet, to the point were I lost friends over it.

Do I think its a big deal? No. Do I think people overreact and make a big deal out of it for reasons that seem to elude me? Yes. Would I do it again even though I think its fine? Not unless I'm about to kill someone.

[bluedog46]

I don't know about illegal, but I think it is really stupid to the way the anti's are.

[2k05gt]

unless there is a law i don't know the cop is a moron. the law is brandishing. which means he intended to create fear by unholsfering. that doesnt happen in this case.

Thats what they got him on, brandishing.. apparently it only takes one or two people to complain or act like they were in fear, this was in Arlington and they are what 80% Liberal there?

I remember a few years ago in Chantilly at Hooters near the Capital Expo Center (Gun Show Weekend) an guy with his holstered pistol were dining there after the show and the bombshell waitress asked the guy about his gun, she asked if she could see it, when he removed it from the holster the gun fired and hit the waitress in the stomach, wounding her but not fatally. This is why so many restaurants do not want firearms inside.. it only takes a mishap like this and everyone goes anti-gun. So best to keep it holstered and show your friends your new purchase later in private..

[dmharvey]

Who pulls out a pistol in public and doesn't expect there to be some sort of an issue (justified or otherwise), especially in Northern Virginia? Not the brightest thing to do IMO...

[screwedbygoogle]

I have always been taught that my gun stays holstered in public unless there is a need to use it.
At that point, pull it and use it. No flashing it, no waving it, no threats!

If you have been trained different you should reconsider your training and look for a real expert.

Since there are no laws against stupidity your friend can, and has been, charged with something he is almost guilty of and he will learn from it no matter which way it goes.

If he continues with this behavior the very least he can expect is someone sticking their concealed-carry in his ear and telling him to "Drop it, buttwipe!"

I am not a curmudgeon, I am THE Curmudgeon!

[ShotgunBlast]

Sounds like brandishing is the catch-all law and in this case it worked. Whether or not you like how the law is written, I hope your friend learns a valuable lesson.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[wittmeba]

Looking for opinions.

Possible scenario here.

You are in your vehicle in traffic.
Everyone is tense as traffic is stopped.
You need to get into another lane to make a turn.
You edge into the lane and some tough-guy gets upset.
He approaches your vehicle and bangs on your window trying to get at you.
He breaks the window.
You draw your gun.
He backs off.

Is that brandishing? Threatening with a gun?

It seems the law encourages you that if you need to draw your gun then you should shoot the perp.

I'm not one to quickly shoot someone if they back off, but I don't want to have the situation turned on me as the bad guy.

[WRW]

Was his intent merely to break the window or did he break the window to get to you and cause you harm?

I can see the possibility that you feared for life or limb and prepared for self defense. He saw your preparations and backed off. If he backed off sufficiently to no longer be a threat you re holstered your sidearm. But, that is me and IANAL.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Palladin]

Looking for opinions.

Possible scenario here.

You are in your vehicle in traffic.
Everyone is tense as traffic is stopped.
You need to get into another lane to make a turn.
You edge into the lane and some tough-guy gets upset.
He approaches your vehicle and bangs on your window trying to get at you.
He breaks the window.
Hmmm... not much of an avenue for retreat for you in the car, and obviously traffic has your car impeded. - you are cornered.
You draw your gun.
I would too, this could end badly for you.
He backs off.
His mental capacity to reason is not totally impaired.
Is that brandishing? Threatening with a gun?
No, to me this is employing your resources at hand in justifiable preparation of lethal self defense.
It seems the law encourages you that if you need to draw your gun then you should shoot the perp.
I don't think so. The weapon is to preserve your life, not avenge damage to your property (the car). The property damage and circumstances demand immediate involvement of the law, though, and I would certainly press charges. The dude has issues.
I am not a lawyer, but I did read a book about the law of self defense once.


I'm not one to quickly shoot someone if they back off, but I don't want to have the situation turned on me as the bad guy.

Like it or not, you were (hypothetically) thrust into the situation when the window broke, and that entails being involved in "the system". And "the system" means that judges and juries and what not will determine if you acted appropriately. It works great when it applies to everybody, and everybody follows the rules.

Seems like there's a lot of folks these days that could give a rip about the rules...

[MarcSpaz]

Look at my post above. Based on the law, you could literally have a holstered weapon and still get arrested and found guilty because of the way the law is written.

The problem is, its not illegal to handle a weapon in public. BUT, if you do handle a firearm in public and someone "feels" afraid or threatened, now YOU are guilty of a crime. Its worse than that. You don't even need to actually touch it. You could have it holstered under you shirt, reach for something and it becomes exposed, and someone could say you did it on purpose to threaten them, and now you are in trouble.

Why the hell should I go to jail or lose my firearm rights because of how someone else "feels"?

That is the biggest problem with this country. There are way too many laws based on peoples feelings, not fact and/or actions. I don't give a rats ass if you are afraid of an inanimate object. Me simply holding a pistol or rifle is not a crime. Funny thing about the expression "open carry". The word carry is in it. the most common way to carry anything is with your hands.

It would not be too bad if the law worked the way it was supposed to, where you are innocent until proven guilty beyond reason of a doubt. But you're assumed guilty and the burden of proof of innocents falls on the suspect. And if there is even a slightest chance you are guilty... then you're guilty. Its like we live in opposite world.

[WRW]

Define reasonable.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[SHMIV]

Define reasonable? By whose standards?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[MarcSpaz]

Like anything else, its open to interpretation. You ever here the expression "It depends what the definition of "is" is."?

[WRW]

Like anything else, its open to interpretation. You ever here the expression "It depends what the definition of "is" is."?

Yes, that's where I got it. What I was getting at was, "having the faculty of reason". Irrational fears or feelings do not have that faculty of reason.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[SHMIV]

With some of these anti-gun people, that "irrational fear" thing is a put on.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[MarcSpaz]

I got an update from the OP on this. His co-worker was convicted of a class 2 misdemeanour including a fine. And community service.

Also, the original woman who phoned in the complaint is trying to sue him in civil court for mental distress for both her and her daughter.

Also, a different person was detained by VSP for OC'ing an AR slung at the low ready. VSP told him muzzle down slung on your back or its a problem. No charges, but the guy was lectured for awhile.

I would have to have my rep ask the AG about that one. I have never seen a law that states the proper way to carry a rifle when not actively shooting. What if low ready is appropriate for the situation?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]