Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: "Brandishing"

  1. #1
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234

    Post imported post

    Just wondering if there is and if so, where it is. Anyone know?
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    736

    Post imported post

    Yes, but it only makes it illegal to point a handgun at someone. Really move of an assault charge, but is it's own statute.

    166.190 Pointing firearm at another; courts having jurisdiction over offense.[/b] Any person over the age of 12 years who, with or without malice, purposely points or aims any loaded or empty pistol, gun, revolver or other firearm, at or toward any other person within range of the firearm, except in self-defense, shall be fined upon conviction in any sum not less than $10 nor more than $500, or be imprisoned in the county jail not less than 10 days nor more than six months, or both. Justice courts have jurisdiction concurrent with the circuit court of the trial of violations of this section. When any person is charged before a justice court with violation of this section, the court shall, upon motion of the district attorney, at any time before trial, act as a committing magistrate, and if probable cause be established, hold such person to the grand jury. [Formerly 163.320]

  3. #3
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234

    Post imported post

    grishnav wrote:
    Yes, but it only makes it illegal to point a handgun at someone. Really move of an assault charge, but is it's own statute.

    166.190 Pointing firearm at another; courts having jurisdiction over offense.[/b] Any person over the age of 12 years who, with or without malice, purposely points or aims any loaded or empty pistol, gun, revolver or other firearm, at or toward any other person within range of the firearm, except in self-defense, shall be fined upon conviction in any sum not less than $10 nor more than $500, or be imprisoned in the county jail not less than 10 days nor more than six months, or both. Justice courts have jurisdiction concurrent with the circuit court of the trial of violations of this section. When any person is charged before a justice court with violation of this section, the court shall, upon motion of the district attorney, at any time before trial, act as a committing magistrate, and if probable cause be established, hold such person to the grand jury. [Formerly 163.320]
    I knew of that one but thought there might be something else where a lesser action might be "brandishing". Couldn't find anything else and just thought I'd ask. Seems like as long as you don't point it at/toward someone it would be hard to be cited for this one. Of course any BG is going to say "he drew down on me" so it would be he said, he said.

    I don't envision ever drawing without it being serious enough to open fire but after some of the real life accounts that I've read across the nation I can see where there might be circumstances where drawing early and maintaining muzzle discipline could hopefully diffuse the situation. Say an irateorcriminally intent person approaching your vehicle with no chance to see that you're not helpless. On the other hand, does exposing early escalate things rather than de escalate. Fast decisions to make in a stressful time.

    A couple of the real life stories really blew me away, like these:

    Getting out of a locked vehicle to walk through a crowd of people fighting with bottles and sticks rather than sitting tight in a secure vehicle, calling 911, and being prepared to fire if anyone becam a threat personally.

    Coming out of a locked apartment with a shotgun to scare off a bunch of people fighting who were not at the door to the apartment but rather in the parking lot.

    Chasing after BG's as they're fleeing. Lot's of those apparently.



    Self DEFENSE is DEFENSE. In my home, yeah, I'm going to go offensive on a BG with malice towards me. But man, some of those stories people are off and chasing a BG who's fleeing into the darkness and you just do not know how many buddies he's got out there. Not to mention that you have now crossed the line from self defense and are "out there" legally in many jurisdictions.


    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , Oregon, USA
    Posts
    115

    Post imported post

    § 163.190 Menacing

    (1) A person commits the crime of menacing if by word or conduct the person intentionally attempts to place another person in fear of imminent serious physical injury.

    (2) Menacing is a Class A misdemeanor. [1971 c.743 §95]

    REF: https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/163.190.html
    Threatening to put bullet holes in a person would probably count as "serious physical injury". You wouldn't even have to draw or touch your firearm. Unfortunately, anti's could try to use this to counter Open Carry - "He had a gun on his hip! I just knew if I tried to talk to him about it he would draw down on me!!!".

    I would hope that if you were doing this in self-defense, it would not apply. Sadly, nothing in the statute provides an exception for self-defense.

    Then there's:

    § 166.220 Unlawful use of weapon

    (1) A person commits the crime of unlawful use of a weapon if the person:

    (a) Attempts to use unlawfully against another, or carries or possesses with intent to use unlawfully against another, any dangerous or deadly weapon as defined in ORS 161.015 (General definitions);

    ...

    (2) This section does not apply to:

    ...

    (b) Persons lawfully defending life or property as provided in ORS 161.219 (Limitations on use of deadly physical force in defense of a person);

    ...

    REF: https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/166.220.html
    The issue here is clearly defined as allowed by legal self-defense.

    What's interesting is that 166.220 used to be titled "Attempting to Use Unlawfully Dangerous Weapon; Carrying Dangerous Weapon With Intent to Use It Unlawfully."

    Thankfully that horrible title was cleaned up and clarified. I mean, what's an 'Unlawfully Dangerous Weapon'?

    The point I'm making, I suppose, is, we need to be careful about the "Menacing" bit.

    It's entirely subjective from the victim's point of view. Yes, it says "intentional". Did you intentionally wear a firearm on your hip, or did your MOMMY PUT IT THERE FOR YOU? The question then becomes "are you carrying a firearm to purposefully intimidate people?"

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , Oregon, USA
    Posts
    115

    Post imported post

    So with the above in mind, if I remove my pistol from my holster to insert or remove a magazine, check it for problems, or to show a person my firearm in a non-threatening manner ("Hey, check out my Glock...") I would guess that it doesn't fall under the Menacing statute.

    Personally, though... I'd leave it in the holster until GO TIME.

    The only other time it comes out of the holster is to unload it for those locales where I can't carry it loaded (yet).

  6. #6
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234

    Post imported post

    THAT'S what I was looking for. I knew there must be something, somewhere, in the ORS to cover it.

    Thanks
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , Oregon, USA
    Posts
    115

    Post imported post

    No problem man. Remember though... IANAL... (man, that acronym always cracks me up...)

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    160

    Post imported post

    Autonym wrote:
    ... Sadly, nothing in the statute provides an exception for self-defense. ...
    Actually, I know of this one that covers it if not covered by anything else:

    161.200 Choice of evils. (1) Unless inconsistent with other provisions of chapter 743, Oregon Laws 1971, defining justifiable use of physical force, or with some other provision of law, conduct which would otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable and not criminal when:[/b]

    (a) That conduct is necessary as an emergency measure to avoid an imminent public or private injury; and

    (b) The threatened injury is of such gravity that, according to ordinary standards of intelligence and morality, the desirability and urgency of avoiding the injury clearly outweigh the desirability of avoiding the injury sought to be prevented by the statute defining the offense in issue.

    (2) The necessity and justifiability of conduct under subsection (1) of this section shall not rest upon considerations pertaining only to the morality and advisability of the statute, either in its general application or with respect to its application to a particular class of cases arising thereunder. [1971 c.743 §20]

    This is another reason I like Oregon, they put a choice between evils law in our statutes :celebrate

    EDIT: ORS 743 covers health and life insurance, and insurance, just so everyone is on the same page


  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    50

    Post imported post

    no banishing law in oregon.

    you can show your gun to someone if you want to out of its holster

Posting Permissions

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