Thoreau
Regular Member
imported post
Klown wrote:
Klown wrote:
The OP doesn't specify, but I very much doubt the timing matches up for the above law to apply since it didn't go into effect until 42 days ago (September 30th.) Prior to that, there was no such thing as justified defensive display. If you so much as touched the weapon, you sure as hell better have shot the person, otherwise there was no justification.Grapeshot wrote:Not in Arizona where the OP is from:In Virginia making a deliberate show of your CCd gun may bring you a brandishing charge - same if putting your hand on it.
Reaching inside you coat or behind your back with non-dominate hand (no weapon there) wont - leaving dominate hand free to move if needed.
OC avoids all of these particular problems.
Yata hey
A.R.S. §13-421. Justification; defensive display of a firearm; definition
A. The defensive display of a firearm by a person against another is justified when and to the extent a reasonable person would believe that physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the use or attempted use of unlawful physical force or deadly physical force.
B. This section does not apply to a person who:
1. Intentionally provokes another person to use or attempt to use unlawful physical force.
2. Uses a firearm during the commission of a serious offense as defined in section 13-706 or violent crime as defined in section 13-901.03.
C. This section does not require the defensive display of a firearm before the use of physical force or the threat of physical force by a person who is otherwise justified in the use or threatened use of physical force.
D. For the purposes of this section, "defensive display of a firearm" includes:
1. Verbally informing another person that the person possesses or has available a firearm.
2. Exposing or displaying a firearm in a manner that a reasonable person would understand was meant to protect the person against another's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force or deadly physical force.
3. Placing the person's hand on a firearm while the firearm is contained in a pocket, purse or other means of containment or transport.
IANAL but I dont think road rage would be a justifiable cause for this. I dont believe there is a road rage law only the violations that come with it (i.e reckless driving). Although one could argue on the whole vehicular aggravated assault thing. But I dont have the funds to be a test case so I probably won't be trying this one on road rage incidents. Glad all went well Dragon