Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Can anyone explain this to me?

  1. #1
    Guest

    Post imported post



  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Taylorsville, Utah, USA
    Posts
    194

    Post imported post

    It sounds like BCI is just making up rules again. I thought Utah did not have any brandishing laws.

  3. #3
    Guest

    Post imported post


  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Ogden, UT, ,
    Posts
    258

    Post imported post

    I've read the same law too, back a while ago

    and wondered the same thing as you, maybe the 2nd person is a witness and with out one what can you prove?

  5. #5
    State Researcher Kevin Jensen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Santaquin, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,313

    Post imported post

    I would guess that you qualify as the second person. Just go threaten yourself in the mirror, and you should be good! :P

    Francis Marionwrote:
    It sounds like BCI is just making up rules again. I thought Utah did not have any brandishing laws.

    BCI did not make this rule, it has been a Utah law for a while.

    76-10-506. Threatening with or using dangerous weapon in fight or quarrel.
    Every person, except those persons described in Section 76-10-503, who, not in necessary self defense in the presence of two or more persons, draws or exhibits any dangerous weapon in an angry and threatening manner or unlawfully uses the same in any fight or quarrel is guilty of a class A misdemeanor.



    It appears that if you threatened someone in self defense, and nobody else is witness, then it is your word agains his. The wording of this law leads me to believe that if you threaten someone with a firearm, you better have two witnesses to back up your story.

    "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." Robert A. Heinlein

  6. #6
    Guest

    Post imported post


  7. #7
    State Researcher Kevin Jensen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Santaquin, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,313

    Post imported post

    If you pulled a gun on me, first of all, you would owe me a new pair of skivvies. :shock:

    Second, I'm sure you already know this, but here goes... Pulling a gun on somebody is a third degree felony.


    76-5-102. Assault.
    (1) Assault is:
    (a) an attempt, with unlawful force or violence, to do bodily injury to another;
    (b) a threat, accompanied by a show of immediate force or violence, to do bodily injury to another; or
    (c) an act, committed with unlawful force or violence, that causes bodily injury to another or creates a substantial risk of bodily injury to another.
    (2) Assault is a class B misdemeanor.
    (3) Assault is a class A misdemeanor if:
    (a) the person causes substantial bodily injury to another; or
    (b) the victim is pregnant and the person has knowledge of the pregnancy.
    (4) It is not a defense against assault, that the accused caused serious bodily injury to another.
    76-5-103. Aggravated assault.
    (1) A person commits aggravated assault if he commits assault as defined in Section 76-5-102 and he:
    (a) intentionally causes serious bodily injury to another; or
    (b) under circumstances not amounting to a violation of Subsection (1)(a), uses a dangerous weapon as defined in Section 76-1-601 or other means or force likely to produce death or serious bodily injury.
    (2) A violation of Subsection (1)(a) is a second degree felony.
    (3) A violation of Subsection (1)(b) is a third degree felony.


    "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." Robert A. Heinlein

  8. #8
    Guest

    Post imported post


  9. #9
    State Researcher Kevin Jensen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Santaquin, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,313

    Post imported post

    thoughtpolice wrote:
    So what delineates those two from the first law I questioned? Is it so GD hard to make an easy, lay person law?
    WTF? Just know this...

    If somebody points a gun at me, and there are no witnesses, I am calling dispatch to report it. (Assuming that my brains are not splattered on an oak tree.)

    WhenI call dispatch, and for some reason ifI get you on the line,just send the god damn cops.

    I can hear it now...

    "Dispatch, what's the emergency?"

    "Some dickhead in the woods just put a Glock fo-tay to my head!!!"

    "Sir, calm down... Now, were theretwo or more witnesses to this alleged violation?"


    "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." Robert A. Heinlein

  10. #10
    Guest

    Post imported post


  11. #11
    State Researcher Kevin Jensen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Santaquin, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,313

    Post imported post

    I never said 911, I said dispatch.

    Don't you think you are asking a little much of our lawmakers?

    A law so easy to understand that a chimpanzee could write it?

    Ah sh!t, now I'm a racist dickhead! :P



    The difference may be this.

    The lesser charge of "Threatening with or using dangerous weapon in fight or quarrel" may be equated to a road rage incident where a gun is, for a lack of abetter term, "brandished".

    Whereas if you pointed a gun at a strangers face,for no reason, could be considered aggravated assault.
    "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." Robert A. Heinlein

  12. #12
    Guest

    Post imported post


  13. #13
    State Researcher Kevin Jensen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Santaquin, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,313

    Post imported post

    thoughtpolice wrote:
    I still dont get the "two or more" persons B.S. though. I want to know the reasoning behind that wording. I just dont get it.
    Hell if I know I was still huffing gasoline when that law was written.
    "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." Robert A. Heinlein

  14. #14
    Guest

    Post imported post


  15. #15
    State Researcher Kevin Jensen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Santaquin, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,313

    Post imported post

    "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." Robert A. Heinlein

  16. #16
    Guest

    Post imported post


  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Taylorsville, Utah, USA
    Posts
    194

    Post imported post

    SGT Jensen wrote:
    I would guess that you qualify as the second person. Just go threaten yourself in the mirror, and you should be good! :P

    Francis Marionwrote:
    It sounds like BCI is just making up rules again. I thought Utah did not have any brandishing laws.

    BCI did not make this rule, it has been a Utah law for a while.

    76-10-506. Threatening with or using dangerous weapon in fight or quarrel.
    Every person, except those persons described in Section 76-10-503, who, not in necessary self defense in the presence of two or more persons, draws or exhibits any dangerous weapon in an angry and threatening manner or unlawfully uses the same in any fight or quarrel is guilty of a class A misdemeanor.



    It appears that if you threatened someone in self defense, and nobody else is witness, then it is your word agains his. The wording of this law leads me to believe that if you threaten someone with a firearm, you better have two witnesses to back up your story.
    I stand corrected.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2

    Post imported post

    I read this as you are person 1 and the second person could be anyone else there including the person who is threatening or being threatened if you are the person holding the gun



  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Provo, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,076

    Post imported post

    thoughtpolice wrote:
    Im simply asking why cant the GOVERNMENT make an easy to understand law and why THEY cant clarify. Or put it in easy terms.
    That's easy, the laws are written by lawyers and as Cal Thomas once said, "The only thing lawyers produce is the need for more lawyers." I mean, think of how many lawyers would be out of work if the laws were written in a way that the average person could understand them.

Posting Permissions

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