Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: Brandishing

  1. #1
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    245

    Brandishing

    A friend/co-worker called me and left a message the other day. He said there was a man open carrying on his motorcycle in Davenport that got pulled over, disarmed and yelled at for brandishing at the Shell gas station on Brady St(near AW/Long John Silver's). I haven't heard anything about this from anyone pro-liberty I've spoken with and was wondering if there was anyone who had any more information on this.

    Edit: Correction, it was on Brady St(one way north), not Harrison St(one way south). Not that it really matters because the only other Shell on those two streets is on Welcome Way, not Harrison, because it doesn't become Harrison St until much further south where Harrison and Welcome way merge near Lujack's.
    Last edited by Darkshadow62988; 04-01-2013 at 05:51 PM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Iowa Code 723A
    (1) "Brandishing a dangerous weapon" means the display or exhibition of a dangerous weapon, with the intent to use, intimidate,
    or threaten another person without justification, or the actual use of the dangerous weapon in a manner which is intended to or does cause serious injury or death without justification.

    (2) "Dangerous weapon" means either of the following:
    (a) An instrument or device designed primarily for use in inflicting death or injury upon a human being or animal, and that is
    capable of inflicting death upon a human being when used in the manner for which it was designed.
    (b) An instrument or device of any sort whatsoever that is actually used in a manner that indicates the defendant intends to
    inflict death or serious injury upon another person without justification, and that, when so used, is capable of inflicting death or serious injury upon a human being.


    Now, ask yourself it that fits the description you posted, or is someone reading more into the law than the law describes?
    Brandishing is a crime, and people get arrested for crimes. If getting yelled at is all that happens when someone commits a ""crime"" then it's quite likely it wasn't a crime to begin with.
    Last edited by Fallschirmjäger; 03-31-2013 at 11:20 AM.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa
    Posts
    306
    Sounds like another Officer Know-It-All trying to impose his beliefs on people. It there was any real issue, there would be a citation or arrest.
    File a FOIA/Sunshine demand?

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post
    Iowa Code 723A
    (1) "Brandishing a dangerous weapon" means the display or exhibition of a dangerous weapon, with the intent to use, intimidate,
    or threaten another person without justification, or the actual use of the dangerous weapon in a manner which is intended to or does cause serious injury or death without justification.

    (2) "Dangerous weapon" means either of the following:
    (a) An instrument or device designed primarily for use in inflicting death or injury upon a human being or animal, and that is
    capable of inflicting death upon a human being when used in the manner for which it was designed.
    (b) An instrument or device of any sort whatsoever that is actually used in a manner that indicates the defendant intends to
    inflict death or serious injury upon another person without justification, and that, when so used, is capable of inflicting death or serious injury upon a human being.


    Now, ask yourself it that fits the description you posted, or is someone reading more into the law than the law describes?
    Brandishing is a crime, and people get arrested for crimes. If getting yelled at is all that happens when someone commits a ""crime"" then it's quite likely it wasn't a crime to begin with.
    Yep. What the cops don't do can be just as important as what they do. Learned that from Supermoderator Mike a long time ago.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  5. #5
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    245
    I'm asking if anyone here has any information on the events that actually occurred. Nothing more, nothing less.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Not A Victim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Le Mars, Iowa
    Posts
    23
    If your friend was driving around pointing his gun at random people, the cops would have arrested him without question. Instead they pull him over and yell at him? Something is not right about your buddy's story. Tell him to buy some sort of recording device so he can record any future incidents and then we can make better judgements about what actually happened.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Kromwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Dubuque, Iowa
    Posts
    43
    knock on wood, had no issues with LEO, any of the countless times I've open carried in Dubuque, Waterloo, or any city I've stopped in along the HWY 20, HWY 52 or HWY 63 corridors.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Not A Victim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Le Mars, Iowa
    Posts
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by Kromwell View Post
    knock on wood, had no issues with LEO, any of the countless times I've open carried in Dubuque, Waterloo, or any city I've stopped in along the HWY 20, HWY 52 or HWY 63 corridors.
    Same here. The cops just drive right on by me when I'm out walking around in different areas. The only time they stop me is if some sheep calls 911 and says they saw a man with a gun. And when the cops stop me they just ask to see my permit, they don't yell, or try to disarm me. So I show them my permit and then we part ways with no issues.
    Last edited by Not A Victim; 03-31-2013 at 04:44 PM.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Tucker6900's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Iowa, USA
    Posts
    1,249
    Quote Originally Posted by Darkshadow62988 View Post
    A friend/co-worker called me and left a message the other day. He said there was a man open carrying on his motorcycle in Davenport that got pulled over, disarmed and yelled at for brandishing at the Shell gas station on Harrison St(near AW/Long John Silver's). I haven't heard anything about this from anyone pro-liberty I've spoken with and was wondering if there was anyone who had any more information on this.
    Talk to your friend and get more info. PM me with time and date. Ill submit a FOIA request.

    As has been stated, open carry is not considered brandishing. The law states the person must be seen intimidating, threatening, etc, before it becomes brandishing.
    The only terrorists I see nowadays are at the Capital.


    The statements made in this post do not necessarily reflect the views of OCDO or its members.

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran MSG Laigaie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Philipsburg, Montana
    Posts
    3,137
    Quote Originally Posted by Not A Victim View Post
    And when the cops stop me they just ask to see my permit, they don't yell, or try to disarm me. So I show them my permit and then we part ways with no issues.
    Are you required to "produce your papers" in your State? Are they required to investigate people obeying the law (OC)? Do you show to make it easy?
    "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference .When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." -- George Washington

  11. #11
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Quote Originally Posted by Not A Victim View Post
    "...And when the cops stop me they just ask to see my permit, they don't yell, or try to disarm me. So I show them my permit and then we part ways with no issues..."
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie View Post
    Are you required to "produce your papers" in your State? Are they required to investigate people obeying the law (OC)? Do you show to make it easy?
    You must admit though, they are training him to obey quite well.

    "Producing your papers" is an example of training you to be controlled, it doesn't prove or disprove that you did anything illegal. And it's very well known that giving physical possession of your papers to someone who wishes to control you is in No Way guaranteed to lessen the period that you have been seized.
    Last edited by Fallschirmjäger; 04-01-2013 at 02:46 PM.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Tucker6900's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Iowa, USA
    Posts
    1,249
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie View Post
    Are you required to "produce your papers" in your State? Are they required to investigate people obeying the law (OC)? Do you show to make it easy?
    Iowa is not a Stop and ID state. And Iowa Code 724 makes no mention of allowing officers to stop you just to check a permit. The only thing it says is
    i. A person who has in the person's possession and who
    displays to a peace officer on demand a valid permit to carry weapons
    which has been issued to the person...
    So, on one hand, we have a law that says we must show a permit to carry. However, we also have Deberry v. US. Which, in conclusion, states that a legally carried firearm cannot be a reason for detainment.
    In the OP's post, the person had every right, in my opinion, to refuse identification, as it appears, through the story told, that the only reason for the stop was his lawfully carried firearm. Again, if the story holds true, this person committed no traffic infractions. Therefore the stop was illegal.
    The only terrorists I see nowadays are at the Capital.


    The statements made in this post do not necessarily reflect the views of OCDO or its members.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Not A Victim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Le Mars, Iowa
    Posts
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie View Post
    Are you required to "produce your papers" in your State? Are they required to investigate people obeying the law (OC)? Do you show to make it easy?
    Section 724.4(3)(i) provides "A person who has in the person’s possession and who displays to a peace officer on demand a valid permit to carry weapons which has been issued to the person, and whose conduct is within the limits of that permit. A person shall not be convicted of a violation of this section if the person produces at the person’s trial a permit to carry weapons which was valid at the time of the alleged offense and which would have brought the person’s conduct within this exception if the permit had been produced at the time of the alleged offense."

  14. #14
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    245
    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker6900 View Post
    Talk to your friend and get more info. PM me with time and date. Ill submit a FOIA request.
    PM sent.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Tulsa
    Posts
    37

    OC Oklahoma

    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie View Post
    Are you required to "produce your papers" in your State? Are they required to investigate people obeying the law (OC)? Do you show to make it easy?
    In Oklahoma we do not have the choice. We are required to show the Carry License upon request when openly carrying a firearm.

    When the legislature adopted the amendments to the Concealed Carry Statute, they added the following language to the notification statute applicable to Permit holders who are carrying:

    The person shall display the handgun license on demand of a law enforcement officer; provided, however, that in the absence of reasonable and articulable suspicion of other criminal activity, an individual carrying an unconcealed handgun shall not be disarmed or physically restrained unless the individual fails to display a valid handgun license in response to that demand.

    In adopting Open Carry, the Legislature included language requiring individuals to produce their SDA licenses upon demand from a law enforcement officer. For individuals who are OPEN carrying only, the statute provides that the officer may not disarm the individual or physically restrain the person unless either
    1) the individual fails to produce an SDA license upon demand from the officer, or
    2) the officer has reasonable suspicion of other criminal activity. Simply put, if an officer happens upon an individual who is openly carrying a firearm, and the officer has no reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, then the officer may not disarm that individual if the person produces an SDA card for inspection.

    http://okoca.org/wp-content/uploads/...Paper-2012.pdf - Pages 11 and 12 of this paper. He is citing the actual law. This was the closest I could find to the actual Statute.
    Last edited by TulsaDan; 04-01-2013 at 06:54 PM.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Tucker6900's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Iowa, USA
    Posts
    1,249
    Quote Originally Posted by TulsaDan View Post
    In Oklahoma we do not have the choice. We are required to show the Carry License upon request when openly carrying a firearm.

    When the legislature adopted the amendments to the Concealed Carry Statute, they added the following language to the notification statute applicable to Permit holders who are carrying:

    The person shall display the handgun license on demand of a law enforcement officer; provided, however, that in the absence of reasonable and articulable suspicion of other criminal activity, an individual carrying an unconcealed handgun shall not be disarmed or physically restrained unless the individual fails to display a valid handgun license in response to that demand.

    In adopting Open Carry, the Legislature included language requiring individuals to produce their SDA licenses upon demand from a law enforcement officer. For individuals who are OPEN carrying only, the statute provides that the officer may not disarm the individual or physically restrain the person unless either
    1) the individual fails to produce an SDA license upon demand from the officer, or
    2) the officer has reasonable suspicion of other criminal activity. Simply put, if an officer happens upon an individual who is openly carrying a firearm, and the officer has no reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, then the officer may not disarm that individual if the person produces an SDA card for inspection.

    http://okoca.org/wp-content/uploads/...Paper-2012.pdf - Pages 11 and 12 of this paper. He is citing the actual law. This was the closest I could find to the actual Statute.
    Sounds like they put a law in place that supersedes your 4th amendment rights. I know some will say that its the way it is, but its the wrong way.
    The only terrorists I see nowadays are at the Capital.


    The statements made in this post do not necessarily reflect the views of OCDO or its members.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Tucker6900's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Iowa, USA
    Posts
    1,249
    Quote Originally Posted by Not A Victim View Post
    Section 724.4(3)(i) provides "A person who has in the person’s possession and who displays to a peace officer on demand a valid permit to carry weapons which has been issued to the person, and whose conduct is within the limits of that permit. A person shall not be convicted of a violation of this section if the person produces at the person’s trial a permit to carry weapons which was valid at the time of the alleged offense and which would have brought the person’s conduct within this exception if the permit had been produced at the time of the alleged offense."
    Again, there is nothing in that law that allows for a stop to check a permit. This falls dangerously close to Stop and ID. You need a drivers license to drive, but they cannot legally stop you just to check your license. And as the previously cited Deberry v US, they cannot legally stop you for the open carry of a firearm alone. Now, the problem lies with the lack of case law. The only way to enforce this on LE is to refuse, get arrested (or charged) take it to court and win on the "the law does not allow them to stop and check." Any volunteers? :-)
    Last edited by Tucker6900; 04-01-2013 at 07:38 PM.
    The only terrorists I see nowadays are at the Capital.


    The statements made in this post do not necessarily reflect the views of OCDO or its members.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker6900 View Post
    Sounds like they put a law in place that supersedes your 4th amendment rights. I know some will say that its the way it is, but its the wrong way.
    Indeed. And people here have stated as much along with the court cases showing how it has been ruled that cops can't simply pull over a car to only check the license and showing how the ruling wiuld also apply here.

  19. #19
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    245
    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker6900 View Post
    SNIP...as the previously cited Deberry v US, they cannot legally stop you for the open carry of a firearm alone...SNIP
    I wouldn't go as far as to say that for a couple reasons.

    But a number of cases hold[citations omitted] that if the tip, though only weakly corroborated in the sense just explained, is that a person is armed, the police are entitled to stop the person and search him for the gun. Armed persons are so dangerous to the peace of the community that the police should not be forbidden to follow up a tip that a person is armed, and as a realistic matter this will require a stop in all cases. For suppose DeBerry had made no threatening gesture but had simply denied in answer to the officer's question that he had a gun. Could the officer have left it at that? Or should he have asked for consent to frisk DeBerry and if DeBerry refused, insisted?   The answers implicitly given by the cases we have cited are “no” and “yes,” respectively. We think these answers strike the proper balance between the right of the people to be let alone and their right to be protected from armed predators.
    That's pretty damning to our cause. In that, the court basically said you don't have a 4th amendment right if you possess a gun(their word not mine) and that once stopped and spoken to that LE should not take a person's word but rather detain and frisk the person. It then goes on to contradict itself:

    The only fact that saves the officer's stop of DeBerry, in my opinion, is the fact that it is unlawful in Illinois to carry a concealed weapon. The tipster informed the police that DeBerry was armed, and it appears from the facts before us that the weapon was not in plain view. I do not agree that this case would necessarily come out the same way if Illinois law, like the law of many states, authorized the carrying of concealed weapons. At that point, the entire content of the anonymous tip would be a physical description of the individual, his location, and an allegation that he was carrying something lawful (a cellular telephone? a beeper? a firearm?).   This kind of non-incriminatory allegation, in my view, would not be enough to justify the kind of investigatory stop that took place here. It would mean, in states that permit carrying concealed weapons, that the police no longer need any reason to stop citizens on the street to search them. However, we do not have that situation. Because I therefore consider the Court's comments on lawful concealed weapons to be dicta, I concur in the result reached today.

    The issue the courts have yet to rule on has to deal with whether or not there is a right to carry outside the home. United States v. DeBerry is a good start, but United States v. Black leans a little bit more to our side. Even with both of these cases we don't have a ruling in a state regarding open carry where a license is required to do so. There may be something interesting to see what comes out of Denver, but there hasn't been a ruling on this issue in our circuit for those decisions to be binding.



    Either we get lucky enough to have fair and just magistrates in our circuit or this is going to have to go all the way to SCOTUS again. Even so, just within Florida there are conflicting cases on the issue because of state districts not agreeing with one another, so the battle for this will be long and hard.

  20. #20
    Regular Member Tucker6900's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Iowa, USA
    Posts
    1,249
    The uncertain part of Deberry is the fact that it is based in Illinois. The court did mention other states where the carrying is legal, but failed to rule on all states.

    I just read Black, and you are right. That is a much stronger case for our cause. That case proved that our rights are still strongly applied in the higher courts. And while I disagree with Black being a felon in possession, the court upheld his right to be secure in his person, and that is what makes me think we still have a fighting chance.
    The only terrorists I see nowadays are at the Capital.


    The statements made in this post do not necessarily reflect the views of OCDO or its members.

  21. #21
    Regular Member RugarRev's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Des Moines
    Posts
    62

    So basically...

    here in Iowa if someone see's my (legally carried ) pistol because my shirt happens to be flappin' in the breeze I'm good. Right?

  22. #22
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    245
    Quote Originally Posted by RugarRev View Post
    here in Iowa if someone see's my (legally carried ) pistol because my shirt happens to be flappin' in the breeze I'm good. Right?
    So long as you have a permit to carry, yes.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •