Odd it does not mention violating the brandishing statute. That is the issue we are all concerned with.
I'm not an attorney but in my unprofessional guess the charge was CCW, not "brandishing". The defense was only trying to defend their client from what the person was charged.
Since "Brandishing" is not defined in the statutes, one needs to look at the dictionary definition(s): either “to wave or flourish menacingly” or “to display ostentatiously, to exhibit in a showy manner”. In each of these definitions there is some sort of intent on the part of the carrier. If, as Raggs stated, the person carried the pistol in his hand in order to avoid a charge of CCW, and the person was traveling down a road, late at night, towards whom exactly would he be directing this behavior? However, walk into a busy restaurant doing the same, I think a person COULD make an argument that the carrier was brandishing.
Like most laws, the issue would have to be decided by a jury and if the jury could connect the behavior as being directed towards others in order to either "menace" or to "exhibit in a showy manner", there is a greater possibility of being convicted.
Like most laws, the issue would have to be decided by a jury and if the jury could connect the behavior as being directed towards others in order to either "menace" or to "exhibit in a showy manner", there is a greater possibility of being convicted.