How does the law view the Gun Grab/Attempted Firearm Theft scenario?

Hello, I'm quite new here so sorry if this topic has been discussed at some length.

My question essentially is how does the law view the act of someone attempting to remove someones personal firearm without consent , either by force or by surprise? I suppose it might depend on state, but is there a general consensus? Note, I'm not including LEO or other types of legal authority based disarming.

The reason i ask is quite obvious to most, i would think, but just to be clear. The actual attempt to take the firearm by surprise (in and of itself) is theft, but it could be argued is not a direct threat of life. However, if that person manages to take that firearm, its anyone's guess how they plan to use. It and could very potentially become an immediate threat to me and everyone around me. However, again, I'm sure someone could ague that the event is nothing more then a theft scenario until i am explicitly threatened by the individual in some fashion.

Since Minnesota still has "duty to retreat" provision, its very important to understand what kind of "reasonable force" is allowed given a situation.

Does a "gun grab" constitute the use of physical force? deadly force?

I would consider anyone who trys to take my gun an act of deadly force. If they get the gun they will use it. Even if it's not on you, it allows them to conduct a crime with the use of deadly force.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Gary599 said:

I would consider anyone who trys to take my gun an act of deadly force. If they get the gun they will use it. Even if it's not on you, it allows them to conduct a crime with the use of deadly force.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Yes, I believe this is the case and the proper stance to take. I seem to recall this being discussed in deadly force seminars I have attended. A sudden attempt by someone to remove your gun should be viewed as a threat of deadly force and constitutes an appropriate response.

SouthernBoy said:

Gary599 said:

I would consider anyone who trys to take my gun an act of deadly force. If they get the gun they will use it. Even if it's not on you, it allows them to conduct a crime with the use of deadly force.

Click to expand...

Yes, I believe this is the case and the proper stance to take. I seem to recall this being discussed in deadly force seminars I have attended. A sudden attempt by someone to remove your gun should be viewed as a threat of deadly force and constitutes an appropriate response.

Click to expand...

Actually, that's not always the case. It really depends on circumstances. There was a recent thread started by sigrscu:

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?82594-Anyone-encounter-this-situation

which detailed a gun grab (possibly just a "gun touch") by a 13-14 year old kid. The kid was definitely NOT "a threat of deadly force."

As such, it would have been quite inappropriate to treat the kid as a threat to life and/or limb.

There are other instances, of course, where someone (non-LEO) taking a gun away from a (non-LEO) gun carrier is NOT "a threat of deadly force."

It really depends on the circumstances. So, proper reaction requires . . . discriimination. And judgment.

Gary599 said:

I would consider anyone who trys to take my gun an act of deadly force. If they get the gun they will use it. Even if it's not on you, it allows them to conduct a crime with the use of deadly force.

Click to expand...

And i agree with you 100%. But as i often find out, what i consider to be obvious, the state has found some way not see it differently, potentially. This type of event seems like one of those situations that, regardless of potential repercussions, someone would react based on instinct... And i know myself well enough to know that i would see it as a very real threat.

HankT said:

Actually, that's not always the case. It really depends on circumstances. There was a recent thread started by sigrscu:
...

As such, it would have been quite inappropriate to treat the kid as a threat to life and/or limb.

There are other instances, of course, where someone (non-LEO) taking a gun away from a (non-LEO) gun carrier is NOT "a threat of deadly force."

It really depends on the circumstances. So, proper reaction requires . . . discriimination. And judgment.

Click to expand...

This is true. Its never happened to me, or anyone i know, but i would assume that ill intent would be obvious (most theft on the street is). I could be wrong, but i hope i never find out.

My problem is, what if it happens when you are out on a walk. And along the way someone who you have never seen before walking the opposite direction makes a move and happens to get a grip on your firearm. (assume for this example that lack of situational awareness was not a factor). Anything you do from this point on is he said she said. Lethal force results in a a gun owner, and a body of a potentially unarmed person. Or perhaps a degree of "lesser" lethal force, and used a knife on the attackers arm to force him to disengage.

Both of those options result in what could very easily appear to be an assault (or murder) of an unarmed individual, at the hands of an evil gun toting extremest. :banghead:

Are there any cases of this that would present a history of rulings?

darkego said:

Hello, I'm quite new here so sorry if this topic has been discussed at some length.

My question essentially is how does the law view the act of someone attempting to remove someones personal firearm without consent , either by force or by surprise? I suppose it might depend on state, but is there a general consensus? Note, I'm not including LEO or other types of legal authority based disarming.
The reason i ask is quite obvious to most, i would think, but just to be clear. The actual attempt to take the firearm by surprise (in and of itself) is theft, but it could be argued is not a direct threat of life. However, if that person manages to take that firearm, its anyone's guess how they plan to use. It and could very potentially become an immediate threat to me and everyone around me. However, again, I'm sure someone could ague that the event is nothing more then a theft scenario until i am explicitly threatened by the individual in some fashion.

Since Minnesota still has "duty to retreat" provision, its very important to understand what kind of "reasonable force" is allowed given a situation.

Does a "gun grab" constitute the use of physical force? deadly force?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what the laws are like in your state, but in GA, LEO's have NO legal right to disarm someone unless a crime has been commited while in possesion of said firearm. If an LEO performs a traffic stop and asks you to render your firearm for a serial number check, your rights are being violated.

COMMANDER1911 said:

I'm not sure what the laws are like in your state, but in GA, LEO's have NO legal right to disarm someone unless a crime has been commited while in possesion of said firearm. If an LEO performs a traffic stop and asks you to render your firearm for a serial number check, your rights are being violated.

Click to expand...

What about asking you to surrender it for "officer safety" during a lawful stop (such as a traffic stop)?

eye95 said:

What about asking you to surrender it for "officer safety" during a lawful stop (such as a traffic stop)?

Click to expand...

He has no more right to take my firearm than I do his. Unless my firearm was used in the commision of a crime, or I am commiting a crime while carrying, My sidearm will not leave my body. See amendment number 4.

HankT said:

Actually, that's not always the case. It really depends on circumstances. There was a recent thread started by sigrscu:

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?82594-Anyone-encounter-this-situation

which detailed a gun grab (possibly just a "gun touch") by a 13-14 year old kid. The kid was definitely NOT "a threat of deadly force."

As such, it would have been quite inappropriate to treat the kid as a threat to life and/or limb.

There are other instances, of course, where someone (non-LEO) taking a gun away from a (non-LEO) gun carrier is NOT "a threat of deadly force."

It really depends on the circumstances. So, proper reaction requires . . . discriimination. And judgment.

Click to expand...

Your points are correct. I must rest my response upon the context of the thread. However, a 14-year old could be a deadly threat.. but like you mentioned, it would depend upon the circumstances at the time.

Don't derail the topic, please...

darkego said:

Note, I'm not including LEO or other types of legal authority based disarming.

Click to expand...

COMMANDER1911 said:

LEO's have NO legal right to disarm someone unless a crime has been commited

Click to expand...

I think i made it quite clear that that issue, and my scenario, are not related within the context of the question. While i agree that police searching and Innocent and seizing their property based on their own twisted agenda (or out of shear ignorance) is a HUGE problem, its not this problem.

I would appreciate it if you would leave law enforcement out of the initial assailant role. I don't think a LEO disarming you illegally serve the same IMMEDIATE risks to your lively hood as my scenario, IE: Murdered yourself, or guilty of Murder for death of another, in the eyes of the courts. And if you disagree with that, then this is not the place for it.

Last question asked: Are there any cases of this type of event happening that would present a history of rulings or decisions? Just curious what angle they might have taken in court and how they fought any charges.

darkego said:

I think i made it quite clear that that issue, and my scenario, are not related within the context of the question. While i agree that police searching and Innocent and seizing their property based on their own twisted agenda (or out of shear ignorance) is a HUGE problem, its not this problem.

I would appreciate it if you would leave law enforcement out of the initial assailant role. I don't think a LEO disarming you illegally serve the same IMMEDIATE risks to your lively hood as my scenario, IE: Murdered yourself, or guilty of Murder for death of another, in the eyes of the courts. And if you disagree with that, then this is not the place for it.

Last question asked: Are there any cases of this type of event happening that would present a history of rulings or decisions? Just curious what angle they might have taken in court and how they fought any charges.

Click to expand...

I was merely responding to eye95, and to make a point that an LEO disarming you could also put your life in danger. Anyway, sorry for not answering your question.

COMMANDER1911 said:

He has no more right to take my firearm than I do his. Unless my firearm was used in the commision of a crime, or I am commiting a crime while carrying, My sidearm will not leave my body. See amendment number 4.

Click to expand...

I thought that court rulings specifically allowed for an officer, during a lawful stop, to take your weapon for his safety. Am I wrong?

eye95, as the OP stated, this thread is NOT about that scenario. Quit trying to hijack the thread! Start your own if you want to discuss the LEO angle and leave this thread alone. To do otherwise is rude.

Ruby said:

eye95, as the OP stated, this thread is NOT about that scenario. Quit trying to hijack the thread! Start your own if you want to discuss the LEO angle and leave this thread alone. To do otherwise is rude.

Click to expand...

Someone has made a statement that I believe to be false. I will challenge him on it, lest some poor schlub think he is right and tell a LEO that he cannot disarm the schlub during a lawful stop, getting the schlub's butt arrested.

I think correcting dangerous misinformation trumps trying not to be rude.

eye95 said:

I thought that court rulings specifically allowed for an officer, during a lawful stop, to take your weapon for his safety. Am I wrong?

Click to expand...

I never said it was unlawful. I said he has no RIGHT. Just because something is lawful doesn't mean it's constitutional. Unless I'm being suspected of a crime, don't disarm me. Sorry for putting this thread off track.

Has anyone ever actually been able to document a gun grab from an OC-er?

No, not the BG getting the drop on you and taking it away at gunpoint.

Actually walking by, past, up to, around an OC-er and grabbing the gun (or attempting to) out of the holster.

Anybody?

Last I heard there was a cash reward out there for the first verified report.

stay safe.

skidmark said:

Has anyone ever actually been able to document a gun grab from an OC-er?

Click to expand...

I've read about one, but only one. I couldn't find a reference.

since9 said:

I've read about one, but only one. I couldn't find a reference.

Click to expand...

Are you sure it was a gun-grab? Several stories have been posted here purporting to be a gun-grab, but turned out to be something entirely different.

I am not a lawyer.

Has this ever come up in court? I'm certainly not aware of any civilian cases on this issue, but there are plenty of LEO cases on the issue.

From the LEO standpoint a gun-grab IS deadly force assault (at least it is with most use of force continuums) which warrants the use of deadly force by the LEO. At least that's what has been my experience from having been military police and talking with local LEOs.

So the question to be asked is this: If it's Deadly Force Assault if someone attempts the gun-grab on a LEO, then why should the same action upon a lawfully carrying civilian be treated any different? The intent to remove that firearm from the individual is clear, the intent to do harm or kill with that same firearm is clear...if it weren't the intent they wouldn't go for the gun-grab.

Gun-grab occurs and I'm going to put someone down immediately either by physical force or by deadly force. The deadly force side of the issue means you had better be 100% sure of your intended target and clearly be able to identify and dictate that individual(s) as a threat. Of course, I have the advantage of having had weapon retention training, so my reactions will be dramatically different than the general carrying populous.

Head-on, you can prevent the gun-grab in most cases. From the rear, it's an impossible thing to prevent. Of course, if they want it bad enough they'll find a way to get it.

heresyourdipstickjimmy said:

So the question to be asked is this: If it's Deadly Force Assault if someone attempts the gun-grab on a LEO, then why should the same action upon a lawfully carrying civilian be treated any different? The intent to remove that firearm from the individual is clear, the intent to do harm or kill with that same firearm is clear...if it weren't the intent they wouldn't go for the gun-grab.

Click to expand...

This kinda reflects one of the reasons i question this issue and that's that law enforcement personnel will always have an easier time defending their actions then any joe-schmo off the street who happens to be packing.

Whenever i have gone onto police forms to ask defense related questions, somehow the conversation leads to if I as a civilian end up in a situation that should have been avoided in the first place "I.E. why are you in a bad place in town at night" then the law is going to look unfavorable upon any actions, however a police officer never come under such observations, and has his law enforcement history to defend him in court.

And since it looks like there is no legal history of this yet, i would like to see how the first case involving such a reaction will be treated. Murphy's can guarantee its only a matter of time.