Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Brandishing question...

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Lehi, Utah, USA
    Posts
    202

    Post imported post

    So I was watching the news the other day and it talked about some proposed changes up on the hill, i believe in reference to HB 78, it was talking about brandishing... saying that it would allow permit holders to open their jackets etc...

    so i'm just curious can someone clarify brandishing? I've always understood it as drawing your weapon and waving it around menacingly, or driving down the road & waving it at passing cars. So the act oflifting ones shirt or jacket could be considered brandishing? (What happens if my jacket falls open accidentlyam I quilty? or is it more for situations that are threatening?)

    Maybe some of you can clarify this a little for me...

    bran·dish (brndsh)
    tr.v. bran·dished, bran·dish·ing, bran·dish·es
    1. To wave or flourish (a weapon, for example) menacingly.
    2. To display ostentatiously. See Synonyms at flourish.
    n.
    A menacing or defiant wave or flourish.


    Utah Code
    Title 76 Utah Criminal Code
    Chapter 10 Offenses Against Public Health, Safety, Welfare, and Morals
    Section 506 Threatening with or using dangerous weapon in fight or quarrel.

    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.


  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    West Jordan, Utah, USA
    Posts
    65

    Post imported post

    bmeldrum wrote:
    So I was watching the news the other day and it talked about some proposed changes up on the hill, i believe in reference to HB 78, it was talking about brandishing... saying that it would allow permit holders to open their jackets etc...

    so i'm just curious can someone clarify brandishing? I've always understood it as drawing your weapon and waving it around menacingly, or driving down the road & waving it at passing cars. So the act oflifting ones shirt or jacket could be considered brandishing? (What happens if my jacket falls open accidentlyam I quilty? or is it more for situations that are threatening?)

    Maybe some of you can clarify this a little for me...

    bran·dish (brndsh)
    tr.v. bran·dished, bran·dish·ing, bran·dish·es
    1. To wave or flourish (a weapon, for example) menacingly.
    2. To display ostentatiously. See Synonyms at flourish.
    n.
    A menacing or defiant wave or flourish.


    Utah Code
    Title 76 Utah Criminal Code
    Chapter 10 Offenses Against Public Health, Safety, Welfare, and Morals
    Section 506 Threatening with or using dangerous weapon in fight or quarrel.

    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.
    The news, as usual, seems to get it's facts on the law by asking everyone but an expert or lawyer. The original version of the bill specifically distinguished that open carry was legal (of course it already is but I guess some cops and schools need it spelled out for them). The substitute seems to just make some grammar changes and in whole I think does next to nothing.

    You are still legally okay if your weapon becomes unconcealed and you aren't threatening with it.... however why are you concealing... it's all about open man :P

  3. #3
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795

    Post imported post

    As currently amended, HB78 S1 (first substitute) does a couple of things:

    1-It affirmatively declares that in the absence of some other behavior, openly carrying a gun is not "Threatening";

    2-It clarifies that it is legal to threaten to use force if one reasonably believes that such threat is necessary to prevent harm.

    In other words, it is currently legal to use force. Interestingly, it is not currently, explicitly legal to THREATEN to use force. So while you are technically justified in shooting someone, you may not be technically justified in warning that you are prepared to shoot.

    The primary intent of the bill is to provide a specific legal ability for a middle ground between:

    1-"Back off!"; and
    2-Bang, bang.

    Under this bill the following would be explicitly legal if you believed you were in danger:

    1-"Back off!"
    2-"Back off or I will shoot!"
    3-Access the gun
    4-Display the gun
    5-Bang, Bang.

    1 through 4 would also be legal even if at 4, the bad guy runs away and you never actually have to pull the trigger.

    I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

Posting Permissions

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