• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Defending property in Virginia: Can I grip my gun?

toreador

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
14
Location
Northern Virginia
I often see officers grip their gun in their holster when in a situation that may require quick action. My question is can we do the same thing?

If we see our car getting stolen, can we approach the thief tell them to stop while griping our gun in our holster.
No threats, no mention of the gun, no pointing, just gripping it.

Normally, if you do things like lift your shirt and show your gun, you are making a threat. It seems like this would be the same thing...


Virginia Code
18.2-282.

It shall be unlawful for any person to point, hold or brandish any firearm or any air or gas operated weapon or any object similar in appearance, whether capable of being fired or not, in such manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another or hold a firearm or any air or gas operated weapon in a public place in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another of being shot or injured. However, this section shall not apply to any person engaged in excusable or justifiable self-defense.
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
I often see officers grip their gun in their holster when in a situation that may require quick action. My question is can we do the same thing?

If we see our car getting stolen, can we approach the thief tell them to stop while griping our gun in our holster.
No threats, no mention of the gun, no pointing, just gripping it.

Normally, if you do things like lift your shirt and show your gun, you are making a threat. It seems like this would be the same thing...


Virginia Code
18.2-282.

It shall be unlawful for any person to point, hold or brandish any firearm or any air or gas operated weapon or any object similar in appearance, whether capable of being fired or not, in such manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another or hold a firearm or any air or gas operated weapon in a public place in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another of being shot or injured. However, this section shall not apply to any person engaged in excusable or justifiable self-defense.

I always cringe when these questions come up.

Gripping your gun, pulling up your shirt, turning your hip to the person and doing a belly dance...are brandishing.

If someone is stealing your car, brandishing may or may not be illegal.

There is no simple answer.

Would I brandish if someone were stealing my car....try it sometime and you'll get the answer.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
You may never use deadly force to protect property. If you are in your house and see someone breaking into your car, call the police. Do not go out there, and certainly don't go out there gripping a pistol.

Cite, please.



Toreador,

Until the posters can quote actual court opinions forbidding lethal force to protect property in VA, my suggestion is to play it safe and assume the law forbids it.
 

mpguy

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2012
Messages
689
Location
Suffolk Virginia
Cite, please.



Toreador,

Until the posters can quote actual court opinions forbidding lethal force to protect property in VA, my suggestion is to play it safe and assume the law forbids it.


prev | next
§ 18.2-280. Willfully discharging firearms in public places.
A. If any person willfully discharges or causes to be discharged any firearm in any street in a city or town, or in any place of public business or place of public gathering, and such conduct results in bodily injury to another person, he shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony. If such conduct does not result in bodily injury to another person, he shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
B. If any person willfully discharges or causes to be discharged any firearm upon the buildings and grounds of any public, private or religious elementary, middle or high school, he shall be guilty of a Class 4 felony, unless he is engaged in a program or curriculum sponsored by or conducted with permission of a public, private or religious school.
C. If any person willfully discharges or causes to be discharged any firearm upon any public property within 1,000 feet of the property line of any public, private or religious elementary, middle or high school property he shall be guilty of a Class 4 felony, unless he is engaged in lawful hunting.
D. This section shall not apply to any law-enforcement officer in the performance of his official duties nor to any other person whose said willful act is otherwise justifiable or excusable at law in the protection of his life or property, or is otherwise specifically authorized by law.
E. Nothing in this statute shall preclude the Commonwealth from electing to prosecute under any other applicable provision of law instead of this section.
(Code 1950, § 18.1-69; 1960, c. 358; 1975, cc. 14, 15; 1992, c. 735; 1999, c. 996; 2001, c. 712; 2005, c. 928.)

Note section D. Open for discussion?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
 

Glockster

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2010
Messages
786
Location
Houston
I'm sorry, but for sake of discussion and understanding the intent of your below cite, can I ask whether you were intending this to be a cite to support one of the above positions and if yes, which one? :confused:

prev | next
§ 18.2-280. Willfully discharging firearms in public places.
A. If any person willfully discharges or causes to be discharged any firearm in any street in a city or town, or in any place of public business or place of public gathering, and such conduct results in bodily injury to another person, he shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony. If such conduct does not result in bodily injury to another person, he shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
B. If any person willfully discharges or causes to be discharged any firearm upon the buildings and grounds of any public, private or religious elementary, middle or high school, he shall be guilty of a Class 4 felony, unless he is engaged in a program or curriculum sponsored by or conducted with permission of a public, private or religious school.
C. If any person willfully discharges or causes to be discharged any firearm upon any public property within 1,000 feet of the property line of any public, private or religious elementary, middle or high school property he shall be guilty of a Class 4 felony, unless he is engaged in lawful hunting.
D. This section shall not apply to any law-enforcement officer in the performance of his official duties nor to any other person whose said willful act is otherwise justifiable or excusable at law in the protection of his life or property, or is otherwise specifically authorized by law.
E. Nothing in this statute shall preclude the Commonwealth from electing to prosecute under any other applicable provision of law instead of this section.
(Code 1950, § 18.1-69; 1960, c. 358; 1975, cc. 14, 15; 1992, c. 735; 1999, c. 996; 2001, c. 712; 2005, c. 928.)

Note section D. Open for discussion?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
prev | next
§ 18.2-280. Willfully discharging firearms in public places.
A. If any person willfully discharges or causes to be discharged any firearm in any street in a city or town, or in any place of public business or place of public gathering, and such conduct results in bodily injury to another person, he shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony. If such conduct does not result in bodily injury to another person, he shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
B. If any person willfully discharges or causes to be discharged any firearm upon the buildings and grounds of any public, private or religious elementary, middle or high school, he shall be guilty of a Class 4 felony, unless he is engaged in a program or curriculum sponsored by or conducted with permission of a public, private or religious school.
C. If any person willfully discharges or causes to be discharged any firearm upon any public property within 1,000 feet of the property line of any public, private or religious elementary, middle or high school property he shall be guilty of a Class 4 felony, unless he is engaged in lawful hunting.
D. This section shall not apply to any law-enforcement officer in the performance of his official duties nor to any other person whose said willful act is otherwise justifiable or excusable at law in the protection of his life or property, or is otherwise specifically authorized by law.
E. Nothing in this statute shall preclude the Commonwealth from electing to prosecute under any other applicable provision of law instead of this section.
(Code 1950, § 18.1-69; 1960, c. 358; 1975, cc. 14, 15; 1992, c. 735; 1999, c. 996; 2001, c. 712; 2005, c. 928.)

Note section D. Open for discussion?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

In VA, you may use lethal force to protect a dwelling from right-now arson. My cite is User and the 2006 edition of Virginia Gun Laws by Bloomfield Press.

And, I am personally certain that lethal force may be neither used nor threatened to defend other property (but, I cannot cite the court opinions so I will not make a declaration of law.)

Thus, I truly believe that expanding the above-quoted statute to include all property beyond arson would be to misread the statute.


ETA: Many thanks to Rudy DiGiacinto--here are my cites against lethal force in defense of property outside of arson: http://www.virginia1774.org/Page5.html
 
Last edited:

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
Cite, please.

....

Easy-peasy.

More, Citizen. Harder ones, Citizen.

stay safe.

Brandishing a Deadly Weapon In Defense of Personal Property is A Criminal Act

Commonwealth v. Alexander, 260 Va. 238, 531 S.E.2d 567 (2000).


"In this appeal, we decide whether a deadly weapon may be brandished in defense of personal property.
Jon Douglas Alexander was charged with attempted murder in Rockbridge County. At a preliminary hearing on that charge, the general district court reduced the charge to that of brandishing a firearm in violation of Code §18.2-282 and convicted defendant Alexander of that charge.

Michael T. Eustler, an agent of the lien holder of the defendant's vehicle, sought to repossess the vehicle. When Eustler arrived at the defendant's home, the defendant agreed to its repossession provided he could remove certain papers and tools valuable to him and having nothing to do with the vehicle being repossessed.

Although Eustler agreed to permit the defendant to retrieve the items, Eustler "jacked up" the vehicle as the defendant was partially in the front seat. Eustler approached the defendant in a belligerent manner, and demanded the keys to the vehicle. Feeling threatened, the defendant entered his house and emerged with the keys as well as an unloaded rifle which he placed in a flower bed that was close to the vehicle. When Eustler again approached in a belligerent manner, the defendant retrieved the rifle and held it at his side. The defendant felt compelled to raise the rifle to his shoulder when he thought that Eustler was going to assault him. However, the defendant did not point the gun at Eustler until Eustler kept coming at him, at which time, Eustler "finally backed off." Eustler later called the police.

We need not resolve the defendant's claim that Eustler's actions were "unwarranted and illegal . . . in attempting, by other than peaceful means, to unlawfully take [defendant's] personal property." Even if Eutsler's actions were unwarranted or illegal, the defendant, as an owner of personal property, did not have the right to assert or defend his possessory rights thereto by the use of deadly force. In Montgomery v. Commonwealth, 98 Va. 840, 842-43, 36 S.E. 371, 372 (1900), we said:

The law is clearly stated by a learned judge in State v. Morgan, 3 Ired. 186, 38 Am. Dec. 714, as follows: "When it is said that a man may rightfully use as much force as is necessary for the protection of his person and property, it should be recollected that this rule is subject to this most important modification, that he shall not, except in extreme cases, endanger human life or do great bodily harm. It is not every right of person, and still less of property, that can lawfully be asserted, or every wrong that may rightfully be redressed by extreme remedies.

There is a recklessness-a wanton disregard of humanity and social duty in taking or endeavoring to take, the life of a fellow-being, in order to save one's self from a comparatively slight wrong, which is essentially wicked, and the law abhors. You may not kill, because you cannot otherwise effect your object, although the object sought to be effected is right. You can only kill to save life or limb, or prevent a great crime, or to accomplish a necessary public duty." See, also, 1 Bishop on New C. L., secs. 839, 841, 850. However, the defendant contends, and the Court of Appeals held, that these principles do not apply when there is a mere threat to use deadly force in protection of personal property. We do not agree.

The threat to use deadly force by brandishing a deadly weapon has long been considered an assault. Harper v. Commonwealth, 196 Va. 723, 733, 85 S.E.2d 249, 255 (1955). In Merritt v. Commonwealth, 164 Va. 653, 658-59, 180 S.E. 395, 398 (1935), we said:

Judge Moncure, in the Hardy Case, 17 Gratt. (58 Va.) 592, 600, [1867] quoted with approval from an old English case, thus: "An assault is any attempt or offer with force or violence to do a corporeal hurt to another, whether from malice or wantonness, as by striking at him in a threatening or insulting manner, or with such other circumstances as denote at the time an intention, coupled with a present ability, of actual violence against his person, as by pointing a weapon at him when he is within reach of it."Such a threat may give the threatened person a right to defend himself by the use of a deadly weapon. McGhee v. Commonwealth, 219 Va. 560, 562, 248 S.E.2d 808, 810 (1978). Further, as the dissenting opinion of the Court of Appeals notes, "[p]ermitting one to threaten to use deadly force leads in dangerous progression to an unacceptable conclusion. Here, the victim would have been entitled to use deadly force to repel the perceived threat." 28 Va. App. at 780, 508 S.E.2d at 916 (Judge Bumgardner, dissenting); 30 Va. App. at 153, 515 S.E.2d at 808 (en banc) (Judge Bumgardner, with whom Chief Judge Fitzpatrick joins, dissenting). Moreover, the owner of land has no right to assault a mere trespasser with a deadly weapon. Montgomery, 98 Va. at 844, 36 S.E. at 373. Indeed, in Montgomery, it was the landowner's brandishing of a sharpened corn-cutter that provoked the defendant's physical assertion of his right of self-defense. 98 Va. at 841-43, 36 S.E. at 372-73. For these reasons, we agree with the trial court that a deadly weapon may not be brandished solely in defense of personal property. Therefore, we conclude that the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial court's judgment. "

See Also: Morris v. Commonwealth, 269 Va. 127, 607 S.E.2d 110 (2005).

"We disagree with Morris. "Brandish" means "to exhibit or expose in an ostentatious, shameless, or aggressive manner." Webster's Third New International Dictionary, 268 (1993). When Morris looked at Ms. Molina, said "[he'd] like that," and then pulled up his shirt to uncover the flare gun, he exhibited or exposed the weapon in a shameless or aggressive manner. And Morris brandished the weapon in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of Peter Molina. Although Molina may not have said he was in fear for his own safety, he stated unequivocally that he feared for the safety of his wife, and that is sufficient to prove the "induced fear" element of a conviction for brandishing a firearm under Code 18.2-282."

See Also: Huffman v. Commonwealth, 51 Va. App. 469, 658 S.E.2d 713, (2008).

"This Court has held, in connection with robbery, that "'the word "fear" . . . does not so much mean "fright" as it means "apprehension"; one too brave to be frightened may yet be apprehensive of bodily harm.'" Seaton, 42 Va. App. at 749, 595 S.E.2d at 14 (quoting 3 Wayne R. LaFave, Substantive Criminal Law § 20.3(d), at 187-88 (2d ed. 2003)) (emphasis in original).

In other words, "'[w]hen the pertinent test is cast in terms of a victim being put in "fear" of injury, it is not necessary that the victim be frightened; it is necessary merely that he be reasonably apprehensive of injury.'" Id. (quoting Charles E. Torcia, 4 Wharton's Criminal Law § 462, at 21 (15th ed. 1996)) (emphasis in original). The dispositive issue in this case, therefore, is whether there was sufficient evidence for a rational trier of fact to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Moon was reasonably apprehensive of bodily harm induced by Huffman brandishing the gun in her presence. This familiar standard gives full play to the responsibility of the trier of fact fairly to resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts. It also ensures that we remain faithful to our duty not to substitute our judgment for that of the trier of fact, even were our opinion to differ.Seaton, 42 Va. App. at 747-48, 595 S.E.2d at 13 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). In light of the totality of the circumstances, we conclude that Moon's request of Huffman to put his gun away was sufficient evidence of Moon's requisite apprehension of bodily harm."
 

mpguy

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2012
Messages
689
Location
Suffolk Virginia
Apologies if I over indulged in the cite. Thanks for not pulling my chain to hard either. :)

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
 
Last edited:

Marco

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2007
Messages
3,905
Location
Greene County
I often see officers grip their gun in their holster when in a situation that may require quick action. My question is can we do the same thing?

If we see our car getting stolen, can we approach the thief tell them to stop while griping our gun in our holster.
No threats, no mention of the gun, no pointing, just gripping it.

Normally, if you do things like lift your shirt and show your gun, you are making a threat. It seems like this would be the same thing...


Virginia Code
18.2-282.

It shall be unlawful for any person to point, hold or brandish any firearm or any air or gas operated weapon or any object similar in appearance, whether capable of being fired or not, in such manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another or hold a firearm or any air or gas operated weapon in a public place in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another of being shot or injured. However, this section shall not apply to any person engaged in excusable or justifiable self-defense.



Depending on your living situation/conditions free roaming dogs are more effective.
 

nuc65

Activist Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2009
Messages
1,121
Location
Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
Pepper spray, firehoses, or other less than lethal means should be ok. Maybe a territorial dog that would get right upset if someone tried taking his vehicle. Although I am not a lawyer so should ask one before acting on it...

---Use OC/pepper spray?
§ 18.2-312. Illegal use of tear gas, phosgene and other gases.
If any person maliciously release or cause or procure to be released in any private home, place of business or place of public gathering any tear gas, mustard gas, phosgene gas or other noxious or nauseating gases or mixtures of chemicals designed to, and capable of, producing vile or injurious or nauseating odors or gases, and bodily injury results to any person from such gas or odor, the offending person shall be guilty of a Class 3 felony.
If such act be done unlawfully, but not maliciously, the offending person shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony.
Nothing herein contained shall prevent the use of tear gas or other gases by police officers or other peace officers in the proper performance of their duties, or by any person or persons in the protection of person, life or property.

(Code 1950, § 18.1-70; 1960, c. 358; 1975, cc. 14, 15.)




---other
"... The use of deadly force to prevent threatened harm to property is never justified except in defense of habitation; ..." [ref footnote #2, which states, "The use of deadly force,in defense of “property” can also be justifiable, but the classic formulation lists only arson or burglary as crimes against property which can justify the use of deadly force. . . . Even then the use of deadly force must have been necessary.

Defense of habitation and justifiable self-defense overlap in the “castle doctrine” which states that one may, without retreating, use force, to include deadly force if necessary, to keep aggressors out of his own house. This part of the castle doctrine is one aspect of defense of habitation. . . . [T]he justification exists in the curtilage as well as the castle.

Roger D. Groot, Criminal Offenses and Defenses in Virginia 114 (3rd ed. 1994). The defense of habitation and the castle doctrine have not been raised in this case."]

Alexander v. Commonwealth, 28 Va. App. 771, 780, 508 S.E.2d 912(1999)

" Finding an attached garage a portion of the dwelling comports with the purpose underlying the burglary statutes of protecting the sanctity of the home. Compton, 190 Va. at 55, 55 S.E.2d at 449. Since the burglary statutes aim to protect a person's place of habitation and an attached garage is structurally and functionally part of the habitation, the burglary statutes naturally protect the garage. See Rash v. Commonwealth, 9 Va. App. 22, 25, 383 S.E.2d 749, 751 (1989) (noting [Page 44] that “[t]he theoretical basis of common law burglary was the ancient notion that a man's home was his castle and that he had the right to feel safe therein”). As just another room of the dwelling, an attached garage receives the same protection as every other room."

Lacey v. Commonwealth, 54 Va. App. 32, 43-44, 675 S.E.2d 846, ___ (2009)




What is interesting you won't be charge with discharging a firearm in public if you are acting in protection of property (18.2-280) but probably something else.

The other from:
§ 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 or any air or gas operated weapon or any object similar in appearance, whether capable of being fired or not, in such manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another or hold a firearm or any air or gas operated weapon in a public place in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another of being shot or injured. However, this section shall not apply to any person engaged in excusable or justifiable self-defense. Persons violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor or, if the violation occurs upon any public, private or religious elementary, middle or high school, including buildings and grounds or upon public property within 1,000 feet of such school property, he shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony.
B. Any police officer in the performance of his duty, in making an arrest under the provisions of this section, shall not be civilly liable in damages for injuries or death resulting to the person being arrested if he had reason to believe that the person being arrested was pointing, holding, or brandishing such firearm or air or gas operated weapon, or object that was similar in appearance, with intent to induce fear in the mind of another.
C. For purposes of this section, the word "firearm" means any weapon that will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel single or multiple projectiles by the action of an explosion of a combustible material. The word "ammunition," as used herein, shall mean a cartridge, pellet, ball, missile or projectile adapted for use in a firearm.
(Code 1950, § 18.1-69.2; 1968, c. 513; 1975, cc. 14, 15; 1990, cc. 588, 599; 1992, c. 735; 2003, c. 976; 2005, c. 928.)
 

HearseGuy

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2013
Messages
172
Location
VA
What if I feel like my life may be in danger?

A for instance. Bob accidently cuts someone off in traffic. Bob turns into his destination. As Bob is walking through the parking lot he doesn't realize that the man he cut off has followed him. The man Bob cut off slams on brakes and gets out of his vehicle yelling, cussing and aggressively coming toward Bob. In his rage, he has not yet realized Bob is OCing. Bob puts his hand on his still holstered firearm and tells him to STOP. Bob apologizes and diffuses the situation.

Is Bob justified in his actions. Does the aggressor have legal footing for a charge of some sort against Bob?
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
What if I feel like my life may be in danger?

A for instance. Bob accidently cuts someone off in traffic. Bob turns into his destination. As Bob is walking through the parking lot he doesn't realize that the man he cut off has followed him. The man Bob cut off slams on brakes and gets out of his vehicle yelling, cussing and aggressively coming toward Bob. In his rage, he has not yet realized Bob is OCing. Bob puts his hand on his still holstered firearm and tells him to STOP. Bob apologizes and diffuses the situation.

Is Bob justified in his actions. Does the aggressor have legal footing for a charge of some sort against Bob?

This is why I hate it when these questions come up.

Yes, no, maybe, I doubt it!

If Bob is a whimpy little fellow with a broken arm and a heart condition...yeah, maybe he's justified.

Otherwise, flip a coin. There is no across the board answer.

Apologizing doesn't enter into it. Either he was in danger of death or serious injury or he wasn't.
Yelling and cussing is protected speech and coming toward him aggressively only becomes assault when there is a reasonable fear that he could be hurt. Even then, simple assault in itself doesn't justify use of a firearm. There has to be a little more.

That gun is NOT a magic wand that cures every situation. When it comes out there's a good chance that another soul's going a winging.

If you want to scare people, get a naked picture of Janet Napolanato.
 
Last edited:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
This is why I hate it when these questions come up.

Yes, no, maybe, I doubt it!

If Bob is a whimpy little fellow with a broken arm and a heart condition...yeah, maybe he's justified.

Otherwise, flip a coin. There is no across the board answer.

Apologizing doesn't enter into it. Either he was in danger of death or serious injury or he wasn't.
Yelling and cussing is protected speech and coming toward him aggressively only becomes assault when there is a reasonable fear that he could be hurt. Even then, simple assault in itself doesn't justify use of a firearm. There has to be a little more.

Ummm, check out the law on disorderly conduct relative to speech intended to cause a disturbance.


I agree about these types of questions. Now were getting into posing scenarios and this can go on all day. If someone wants to know where to look, I'm happy to point. But, it gets a little tiresome being a personal research assistant or library for askers.
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
Ummm, check out the law on disorderly conduct relative to speech intended to cause a disturbance.

That wasn't what he asked Citizen. The issue is cussing and yelling. The intent isn't to create a disturbance, rather convey a message in understandable terms. I learned that form of public speaking in the 2nd grade and just kept getting better.:p

Even if it were disturbing the peace, it's a relatively mild misdemeanor. Putting your hand on your gun is a threatening gesture and if I were explaining the traffic laws to someone and he grabbed for his gun, it would be very bad.

We have cases on this board of people being charged with brandishing for pointing a finger and saying "You weren't there" others who didn't even have a gun and someone saw it in the car.

Putting your hand on it would not be looked at favorably, especially in gun unfriendly areas.
 
Last edited:

mpguy

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2012
Messages
689
Location
Suffolk Virginia
That wasn't what he asked Citizen. The issue is cussing and yelling. The intent isn't to create a disturbance, rather convey a message in understandable terms. I learned that form of public speaking in the 2nd grade and just kept getting better.:p

Even if it were disturbing the peace, it's a relatively mild misdemeanor. Putting your hand on your gun is a threatening gesture and if I were explaining the traffic laws to someone and he grabbed for his gun, it would be very bad.

We have cases on this board of people being charged with brandishing for pointing a finger and saying "You weren't there" others who didn't even have a gun and someone saw it in the car.

Putting your hand on it would not be looked at favorably, especially in gun unfriendly areas.

Speaking of all this got me thinking. I watched a fellow officer put his hand on the top of his pistol, like as using it as a rest. I take because he or she is a officer that is OK? The gun was holstered the entire time

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
 
Last edited:
Top