Brandishing on my own property?

TFred · Dec 20, 2011

45acpForMe said:
I support its repeal.

Why should it be a crime to show a gun under any circumstances. It simply makes it clear that the person is armed. I would actually prefer a bad guy show me that he is armed before engaging. It removes any doubt of whether I will use deadly force.

Now I would support reckless endangerment for someone waving a gun around sweeping people with a muzzle.

I think the answer is that there are definitely times when one can display a gun in a criminal fashion. But the question that needs to be answered is what User posted earlier:

user said:
The problem arises when you get charged with "brandishing" for merely "holding" the shotgun, while approaching the thief. The prosecutor will argue that the mere fact that you're armed and apparently willing to use the gun "induces fear". I'm telling you, we really need to just get rid of that statute. It's being used as a substitute for a charge of assault, but because it's so whacked-out both by being badly written and "interpreted", one can find himself convicted of "brandishing" even where there was no assault. I'm really serious about this, we have to get this statute repealed, entirely.

This falls into a category of a law that is not needed, but was probably instigated by people who hate guns, and because nobody was able to convincingly sell the point to enough legislators that it was already against the law to commit assault, the bill became law. In that regard, it is by no means alone, there are many "gun crimes" that are not really crimes, or are already crimes without regard to the gun. We need to work to clean up all these types of laws.

TFred

45acpForMe · Dec 20, 2011

Mayhem said:
I hear ya!! If someone is armed.. I WANT to know! And if you are dumb enough to threaten someone else who happens to also be armed.... you deserve what you get.

But should it be OK for someone to pull up his shirt and cause an unarmed family to fear they could be shot and killed by the gun tucked in his pants? It would be no different than someone making a fist and walking up to you making you think you would be hit you even if it it was not going to really happen. Just so they could enjoy watching you flinch and laugh at you.

So I agree in part that there should be two charges... One to simply show it and make an implied threat. And another if you sweep people with the business end.

I disagree with the bolded statement. If someone implies a threat you should have the right to deal with it proactively rather than charge them with a crime. It would go a long way toward waking people up to their own responsibility to defend themselves. I say let people threaten all they want just make their threat a waiver to being sued if they get dealt to them what they threatened to others.

Old Virginia Joe · Dec 20, 2011

OK, Skidmark asked me to tell my story. I did, and asked for your opinions. So far, no takers, in almost 24 hours. What, no opinions forthcoming on OCDO?! Must be the holidays . . . . . .

Old Virginia Joe · Dec 20, 2011

PT111 said:
The problem with any brandishing law is there is no real way to determine what it is and what is in the minds of the parties involved. In the old westerns you always saw one person would pull back his coat to expose their gun to show that they meant business.

I thought they pulled back the coat to get it out of the way, so the duster flaps did not slow them down in the draw.......not so much as a warning. By the time they pulled the coat back (Virginia Tuck?) they were past the point of choosing whether there would be gunsmoke issued or not.

Click to expand...

Mayhem · Dec 20, 2011

45acpForMe said:
I disagree with the bolded statement. If someone implies a threat you should have the right to deal with it proactively rather than charge them with a crime. It would go a long way toward waking people up to their own responsibility to defend themselves. I say let people threaten all they want just make their threat a waiver to being sued if they get dealt to them what they threatened to others.

While I understand what you are saying and agree that people should be in a position to defend their own lives... What do we do with people who flash their gun to scare people knowing they are not going to do anything with it?

Most people on the street are not armed. So someone can walk around all day scaring the crap out of people. How do you even justify shooting them? After all... it would not even be a crime and legal to do.

peter nap · Dec 20, 2011

Old Virginia Joe said:
OK, Skidmark asked me to tell my story. I did, and asked for your opinions. So far, no takers, in almost 24 hours. What, no opinions forthcoming on OCDO?! Must be the holidays . . . . . .

I'm not sure what to say about it Joe.
Was it brandishing? Not in my opinion.

Could you have been charged? Yes, I know of cases where someone walks past an unoccupied car and sees a gun, complains to the Cops and the owner was charged. Case dismissed but still, they were charged.

Could you have handled it differently, yes but hindsight is always 20/20.

When I approach someone on the farm, I have my gun in my hand and behind me, usually in my waistband even if I'm wearing a holster, and I have my hand on it.

If it's friendly or they leave, I just let go and it stays in my waist band. They probably guess what I'm holding but can't see it.

I've heard that some people keep a BUG in their jacket pocket and have their hand on it in the pocket while talking to people of questionable intentions. I don't have a CHP so I don't do it

Marco · Dec 20, 2011

Old Virginia Joe said:
OK, Skidmark asked me to tell my story. I did, and asked for your opinions. So far, no takers, in almost 24 hours. What, no opinions forthcoming on OCDO?! Must be the holidays . . . . . .

While your actions might be viewed as wrong and possibily illegal it worked that time, no harm no foul.
I've heard hundreds of stories of folks brandishing, most sounded somewhat like yours fortunatley for them and you it ended well.

I'm in total agreement about a rewrite or removing the brandishing law as it is currently written and being used (abused).

I've never felt that I personally needed to flash or display a firearm at someone that didn't have a weapon in hand to get my point across, that doesn't mean I didn't have a firearm at the ready/ in hand.
The few times I had to display/point a firearm at someone I called the police immediately after the threat was gone.
I was told/taught he who makes the first report gets to be the victim, everyone that follows is the assailant.
I know/learned that doesn't always hold true but that is what I was taught.

As a kid, I worked for my stepdad at his corner store, on the weekend I was part of the closing team. When we locked up for the night I stood watch gripping a double barrel in a duffle bag , folks that saw me with my hand tucked inside probably knew what was up but they didn't see a thing. Yrs later I moved on to using a S&W 586 in brown paper bag.

Now a days I always have a brown bag with me.

45acpForMe · Dec 20, 2011

Mayhem said:
While I understand what you are saying and agree that people should be in a position to defend their own lives... What do we do with people who flash their gun to scare people knowing they are not going to do anything with it?

Most people on the street are not armed. So someone can walk around all day scaring the crap out of people. How do you even justify shooting them? After all... it would not even be a crime and legal to do.

I understand ones freedom of speech ends when it threatens my well being so I won't disagree with you. The problem is defining a threat. If a person walks around with a gun on their hip keeping it properly holstered then points his finger at the gun and starts making shooting noises with his mouth I would consider him an idiot but not a threat. If it is out of the holster in his hand.... two to center of mass and one to the head. People have pretty thin skin these days and want to run to a lawyer or call the cops. I figure that Dawin awards will be given to people that abuse the laws (or lack of them against brandishing). Others on the receiving end of idiots may just decide to acquire the means of self defense for their benefit.

If it is simpler, faster and easier to simply repeal the brandishing law I am all for it and will determine personally if someone is a threat or not. If it can be narrowly defined to the point that no legally carrying gun owner can possibly be misconstrued as brandishing I will support it but still prefer a repeal.

Dreghorn · Dec 20, 2011

It looks to me like this,

It shall be unlawful for any person to point, hold or brandish any firearm or any air or gas operated weapon or any object similar in appearance, whether capable of being fired or not, in such manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another or hold a firearm or any air or gas operated weapon in a public place in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another of being shot or injured.

Pretty much makes it impossible to do this,

Code of Virginia, Chapter 832, Section 15.2-915.4, Subsection B, states that "No such ordinance authorized by subsection A shall prohibit the use of pneumatic guns at facilities approved for shooting ranges or, on other property where firearms may be discharged, on or within private property with permission of the owner or legal possessor thereof when conducted with reasonable care to prevent a projectile from crossing the bounds of the property."

Without he possibility of a brandishing charge. Am I correct in my way of thinking?

There goes my using Air Soft Pistols in the back yard without a privacy fence.

skidmark · Dec 21, 2011

Dreghorn said:
There goes my using Air Soft Pistols in the back yard without a privacy fence.

Get some cardboard boxes to use as backstop/pellet traps. String cardboard or old blankets for a backstop. Put signs just inside your property line, facing inwards, that read AIRSOFT PROJECTILES ARE PROHIBITED FROM ENTERING PUBLIC PROPERTY.*

stay safe.

* Hey, if the gooberment believes signs work to keep guns out, why shouldn't your signs work to keep pellets in?

wylde007 · Dec 21, 2011

You're not getting cynical in your old age, are you Paul?

peter nap · Dec 21, 2011

wylde007 said:
You're not getting cynical in your old age, are you Paul?

GETTING

Dreghorn · Dec 21, 2011

skidmark said:
Get some cardboard boxes to use as backstop/pellet traps. String cardboard or old blankets for a backstop. Put signs just inside your property line, facing inwards, that read AIRSOFT PROJECTILES ARE PROHIBITED FROM ENTERING PUBLIC PROPERTY.*

stay safe.

* Hey, if the gooberment believes signs work to keep guns out, why shouldn't your signs work to keep pellets in?

Not worried about the projectiles crossing onto public property, more worried about someone walking by and seeing me with a "GUN" and ending up with a brandishing charge for "holding" a "GUN" :lol:

peter nap · Dec 21, 2011

Dreghorn said:
Not worried about the projectiles crossing onto public property, more worried about someone walking by and seeing me with a "GUN" and ending up with a brandishing charge for "holding" a "GUN" :lol:

Life's too short to spend it all wondering ....what if.

ChinChin · Dec 21, 2011

Old Virginia Joe said:
As a former plant manager, I had to fire a particular man once. That night, after dark, his car rolled up my rural driveway, and several people got out. I determined it had something to do with the termination of the employee, and being alone and nervous as to what the intent was, got my .357 out and went to the side-rear porch where they were gathered. It was the former employee, with his wife and kids, to plead, as it turned out, for reinstatement. When I saw they were not to be violent, I laid my pistol on the porch table to my side, to avoid the potential threat it posed in my hand, but that is when he saw it for the first time. He reacted, and said "Aw, man, what did you need that for?" I responded that I did not know exactly what he had in mind when he arrived unannounced, after dark. It turned out OK (but he remained fired), but, did I violate the letter of the law in this case? I assume you will say legally I was wrong. If so, the world is completely upside down!

I would say, for some idiots I have read about in stories on OCDO, me simply having the gun OC in a holster on the streets would qualify as inducing fear in the mind of another, right? Must this "another" meet the "reasonable person" standard? If so, what good is OC as a legal deterent? It is doomed! How far are we going to let this go, before the statute gets fixed, as User proposes? Are we thinking the tide is moving MORE in our favor as time goes on, and we have a better chance at public opinion and a favorable change as time proceeds? I doubt that. Did the Confederacy do itself any favors by waiting and pacifying for decades to fight the WBTS, until the North was so industrialized that it could not be beat? Do we ever learn from history? This should be our No. 1 issue in the GA!

Given your account I find no fault in your actions. Late at night, you live down a rural drive and an uninvited person appears on your property. Once you observed there was no immediate threat, you placed the handgun down. Now what *I* find no fault in and what the local DA finds no fault in may differ. My only recommendation would be to invest in a holster to keep the sidearm on your hip until the need to deploy presents itself. That should keep you from having to have a chat with Johnny law.

Old Virginia Joe · Dec 21, 2011

That sounds good, using a holster, and I do have a very nice one, but life often happens outside the neat little boxes we expect, and being home, alone, after dark, in the house, I was not wearing the gun. I saw visitors, got nervous, and grabbed the pistol, and moved out. No time to don a holster and belt. That's why it went the way it did. Just clarifying . . . . .

TFred · Dec 21, 2011

Old Virginia Joe said:
That sounds good, using a holster, and I do have a very nice one, but life often happens outside the neat little boxes we expect, and being home, alone, after dark, in the house, I was not wearing the gun. I saw visitors, got nervous, and grabbed the pistol, and moved out. No time to don a holster and belt. That's why it went the way it did. Just clarifying . . . . .

This account matches what I was supposing might happen if you heard intruders in your home in the middle of the night... nobody takes time to put on a holster in that event, you just grab the gun off the night-stand and investigate. Your situation sounds much closer to that, than it does to just a "normally carrying in a holster like you do every day" situation.

TFred

SP101 · Dec 21, 2011

This is one of the few areas where Pa. has better gun laws than Virginia. There is no such charge called "brandishing" in Pennsylvania.

Mayhem · Dec 21, 2011

45acpForMe said:
I understand ones freedom of speech ends when it threatens my well being so I won't disagree with you. The problem is defining a threat. If a person walks around with a gun on their hip keeping it properly holstered then points his finger at the gun and starts making shooting noises with his mouth I would consider him an idiot but not a threat. If it is out of the holster in his hand.... two to center of mass and one to the head. People have pretty thin skin these days and want to run to a lawyer or call the cops. I figure that Dawin awards will be given to people that abuse the laws (or lack of them against brandishing). Others on the receiving end of idiots may just decide to acquire the means of self defense for their benefit.

If it is simpler, faster and easier to simply repeal the brandishing law I am all for it and will determine personally if someone is a threat or not. If it can be narrowly defined to the point that no legally carrying gun owner can possibly be misconstrued as brandishing I will support it but still prefer a repeal.

A gun in a holster it no big deal. But it seems possible to make threats even if it is in the holster if you really put your mind to it.

I think the code makes it clear..

"as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another"

REASONABLY...... is the deciding factor. If we walk around and OC... it is not reasonable to accuse us of brandishing. But if one were to start grabbing the grip while making fighting words with another... Hmmm.... Would it be justified to be grab at your gun? Could it be that someone would be doing it to scare or intimidate the other person to get them to back down?

And finally does the other person feel scared and they do not have a gun to shoot you with since it happens to be out of reach?

So I feel the law should remain and I have no problem with it as it stands. I was saying earlier that maybe the act of pointing it could be far more serious instead of lumping it into the simple act of threatening to use it.

TFred · Dec 21, 2011

Mayhem said:
A gun in a holster it no big deal. But it seems possible to make threats even if it is in the holster if you really put your mind to it.

I think the code makes it clear..

"as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another"

REASONABLY...... is the deciding factor. If we walk around and OC... it is not reasonable to accuse us of brandishing. But if one were to start grabbing the grip while making fighting words with another... Hmmm.... Would it be justified to be grab at your gun? Could it be that someone would be doing it to scare or intimidate the other person to get them to back down?

And finally does the other person feel scared and they do not have a gun to shoot you with since it happens to be out of reach?

So I feel the law should remain and I have no problem with it as it stands. I was saying earlier that maybe the act of pointing it could be far more serious instead of lumping it into the simple act of threatening to use it.

Yes, well known and oft-quoted case Morris v. Commonwealth.

Scroll down on that page to read summary and link to opinion.

TFred

Brandishing on my own property?

Regular Member

Newbie

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate

Regular Member

Newbie

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member