I don't have a cite, but I remember reading a summary of one case where a conviction was upheld for brandishing when the guy just pulled back a shirt or jacket to reveal his previously concealed handgun.Since the internal memo from the parks service says a firearm (rifle, shotgun or hadgun) carried in your hand is brandishing....
I'd like to know if anyone has case law that would support it ?
If I remember that case correctly, he was in an altrication at the time and pulled the shirt to show he was armed.Somebody got charged with brandishing for doing the VA tuck?!?! :X
Sure! That's why every hunter carrying a rifle or shotgun out in the field gets charged with brandishing!...the parks service says a firearm (rifle, shotgun or hadgun) carried in your hand is brandishing....
Yes, it was definitely something that happened well into an "incident", not just tucking as someone entered a restaurant.wylde007 wrote:If I remember that case correctly, he was in an altrication at the time and pulled the shirt to show he was armed.Somebody got charged with brandishing for doing the VA tuck?!?! :X
Saber rattling is the definition I recall from what little case law I've seen.
That's silly. I always carry my rifle in a holster:uhoh:peter nap wrote:Sure! That's why every hunter carrying a rifle or shotgun out in the field gets charged with brandishing!...the parks service says a firearm (rifle, shotgun or hadgun) carried in your hand is brandishing....
Oh, wait a minute...
:uhoh:
People get charged with carrying concealed when clearly OC too.. that should not surprise you. That's what lawyers are for.Somebody got charged with brandishing for doing the VA tuck?!?! :X
No.I call BS on the "carrying a long gun is brandishing" statement.
Does the law require you to use a sling?
That's just confusing, and why I won't ever open carry. They made the explanations/requirements too ambiguous.Since the internal memo from the parks service says a firearm (rifle, shotgun or hadgun) carried in your hand is brandishing....
I'd like to know if anyone has case law that would support it ?
Your premise is incorrect. They didn't "make" anything, except a terribly embarrassing mistake in their memo. They will learn, either the easy way or the hard way.peter nap wrote:Since the internal memo from the parks service says a firearm (rifle, shotgun or hadgun) carried in your hand is brandishing....
I'd like to know if anyone has case law that would support it ?
That's just confusing, and why I won't ever open carry. They made the explanations/requirements too ambiguous.
As I understand what you are saying, there is no middle ground - no allowable action between nothing and shooting. How can this be fixed?snip.....
The NRA book that goes with the "Personal Protection Outside the Home" course contains a photograph of an older, well dressed, man, standing beside what appears to be his car, as he's being approached by "young toughs". He has his jacket swept back with his right hand uncovering his holster, and has his left hand in a "stop" gesture. That's brandishing a firearm in Virginia.
Unless you're a cop with a responsibility for covering multiple felons to prevent escape, or serving a search warrant in a dangerous house at oh-dark-hundred a.m., you have no legal excuse for showing anyone a gun or making reference to a gun or touching a gun. When you are in a situation in which you or an innocent third party is faced with the imminent threat of serious bodily injury, such that you reasonably believe, based on objective fact, that deadly force is required, then pull the gun out and shoot to kill. In all other cases, make no reference to the gun at all.
Would that have been a slip of the fingers, and what you were intending to say would have been along the lines of "shooting to stop the threat"?When you are in a situation in which you or an innocent third party is faced with the imminent threat of serious bodily injury, such that you reasonably believe, based on objective fact, that deadly force is required, then pull the gun out and shoot to kill.
The commercial for Hardee's Home Baked Buscuits ("... just not in your home...")comes to mindA handy source for some of the case law on firearms can be accessed here:
http://www.virginia1774.org/Page5.html
Follow the pages to get your basic education. Not the be-all and end-all, but a decent place to begin learning.
User: You wroteWould that have been a slip of the fingers, and what you were intending to say would have been along the lines of "shooting to stop the threat"?When you are in a situation in which you or an innocent third party is faced with the imminent threat of serious bodily injury, such that you reasonably believe, based on objective fact, that deadly force is required, then pull the gun out and shoot to kill.
We all recognize that justifiable/excusable homicide is merely the affirmative defense to the killing of another human being, but is there not some legal import to taking the stance that one's intent was to stop the threat ofserious bodily injury or death and that the actual killing of the assailing party was merely a not altogether unexpected consequence?
Else the old saw "If you need to pull it you need to shoot it" would be an absolute that does not take into consideration the possibility that the assailant could in a split second decide to call off his/her attack when faced with the possibility of lethal force. While anecdote is not the plural of data, there are more than enough reports of assailants working the OODA loop and ceasing during thev mythical 1.5 seconds it takes to draw after recognizing the imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death. Should the assailant pull up short, or veer off, during the 1.5 seconds you no longer are faced with imminent threat, but may not be able to stop your body's movements instantaneously. Shooting at the end of the draw stroke when the threat no longer exists would not be excusable nor justified.
stay safe.
skidmark